CAR_Public/160311.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, March 11, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 51


                            Headlines


24 HOUR FITNESS: Court Rules on Bid to Stay "O'Hanlon" Suit
34TH STREET: Faces "Galicia" Class Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
AA AUTOMOTIVE: "Perdomo" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages and OT
ADRIANA'S INSURANCE: Cal. App. Reverses Arbitration Ruling
ALL HEARTS HOME: Fails to Pay Wages & OT, "Terry" Suit Claims

ALL PHASE: June 27 Fairness Hearing Set in "Lozoya" Case
AMERICAN EQUITY: 9th Cir. Rejects Appeal of Class Settlement
AMERICAN FAMILY: Court Certifies Class in "Jammal" Suit
ANGLO AMERICAN: Settles Silicosis Claims for R500 Million
ANZ: ASIC Mulls Interest Rate Rigging Class Action

APPLE INC: Supreme Ct. Upholds Ruling in E-Book Price-Fixing Suit
ASCENDA USA: "Moody" Suit Alleges FCRA Violations
AUSTRALIA: Firms Seek Overseas Funding for Royal Navy Class Suit
AUSTRALIA: Palm Island Cop Denies Race Assumption Claims
AUSTRALIA: Coal Miners' Union Mulls Black Lung Class Action

AVALON CARE: "Byrdsong" Sues for Damages Over Pay, Discrimination
BACKBLAZE INC: Violated Bus. & Prof. Code "Hellervik" Suit Claims
BASS FISHING: "Neyland" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
BAXALTA INC: "Bertisch" Suit Seeks Enjoinment of Shire Merger
BENCO DENTAL: Violated Clayton Act, "Grussmark" Suit Claims

BIOMET INC: Judge Does Not Remand Suit Due to Fraudulent Joinder
BLUE SHIELD: Cal. App. Denies Petition for Writ of Mandate
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Final Approval Hearing Moved to July 14
BODEGA LATINA: Violated Unruh Act, "Bell" Suit Claims
BURT'S BEES: Violated NY Gen. Business Law, "Healy" Suit Claims

BYO CO: "Islam" Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
CANADA: Mother Mulls Class Action Over Cancelled Bus Passes
CANADA: NPCA May Face Class Suit Over Welland River Flood Plan
CARPACCIO INC: "Badillo" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT & Wages Under FLSA
CARPENTERS PENSION: Cour Rules on Motions for Damages, Costs

CENTURY SURETY: MSPA Claims 1 Suit Removed to State Court
CHASE BANK: Settlement in "Gehrich" Case, Incentive Awards Okayed
CHASE RECEIVABLES: "Sandoval" Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
CHATOUS INC: Faces "Morgan" Class Suit in Florida District Court
CHECK-6 INC: Faces "Goodly" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Oklahoma Landowner Files Class Action
CHEVRON USA: 5th Cir. Upholds Remand Order in "Adams" Case
CHICAGO, IL: Court Narrows Claims in "Conyers" Suit
CILS LTD: "Amador" Suit Seeks Wages and Overtime Pay
COASTAL CHEMICAL: "Rooks" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

COLORADO: Class Certification Denied for "Reed" Suit
COLORADO: CDOC Faces Suit for Alleged Civil Rights Violation
COMMINSURE: Watson Law Group Mulls Class Action
COMPETITOR GROUP: Volunteer's Suit Against Race Operator Tossed
CONSOLIDATED FOUNDRIES: "Santoyo" Suit Seeks Wages and OT Pay

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: 2nd Amended Suit in "Toulon" Dismissed
COSTCO WHOLESALE: First Amended Suit Filed in "Sud" Case
COUNTRY CLUB HILLS, IL: "Bell" Suit Now Before Appeals Court
CPM SERVICES: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Regular, OT Wages
CREDIT ADJUSTMENTS: 6th Cir. Upholds Judgment in "Baisden" Suit

CRESCENT BANK: "Falcone" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
CRESCENT HILLS: Conference Held in "Terra Verde" Lawsuit
DARBY ROAD: Faces "Oxlaj" Suit Under FLSA, New Jersey Wage Law
DARDEN CORP: Helping Hand Suit Moved From California to Illinois
DEFLECTO LLC: Faces "Coonan" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

DELI MANAGEMENT: "Cornish" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages
DEVRY EDUCATION: Engaged in Deceptive Mktg., "Rayter" Suit Claims
DIGCO CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Contis" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
DIRECTV LLC: Court Tosses FDCPA & FCCPA Claims in "Miller" Suit
DNC DOORS & CABINETS: "Leon" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA

DOLLAR GENERAL: Sued for Selling Obsolete Motor Oils in Arkansas
DRAFTKINGS INC: "Price" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL
DRAFTKINGS INC: "Ritchie" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL
DRAFTKINGS INC: "Stoddart" Suit Included in Fantasy Sports MDL
DRAFTKINGS INC: "Tewes" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL

DRAFTKINGS INC: "Carey" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL
DRAFTKINGS INC: "Firestone" Suit Included in Fantasy Sports MDL
DRAFTKINGS INC: "Giametta" Suit Included in Fantasy Sports MDL
DRAFTKINGS INC: "Martin" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL
DRAFTKINGS INC: "Weaver" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL

DRAFTKINGS INC: "White" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL
DRAFTKINGS INC: "Brown" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL
DRAFTKINGS INC: "McDaid" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL
DS SERVICES: "Sanders" Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
DWOLLA INC: Agrees to Fix Data Security Practices

DYNAMIC LOGISTICS: "Gomez" Suit Seeks Wages and OT Pay
ELITE GUARD: Faces "Targia" Suit for FLSA Violation
ENCANA OIL: Well Site Supervisor Concedes to Arbitration
ENDEAVOUR ENERGY: Bushfire Victims Lack Mental Health Support
ENTERGY OPERATIONS: Reaches Settlement with 2 Supervisors

FAMOUS CORNER: "Arellano" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
FLINT, MI: Seven Families File Tainted Water Class Action
FLINT, MI: "Boler" Suit Seeks Damages Over Polluted Water
FLORIDA: DHSMV Faces Class Suit Alleging Civil Rights Violation
G.S. WILCOX: Gorss Motels Files Suit in Conn. District Court

GENUINE TITLE: Bid for Protective Order in "Fangman" Denied
GLOBAL TEL*LINK: "James" Suit Sent to Arbitration
GOLD KEY: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, "Bleckman" Suit Says
GOOGLE INC: Yesh Music Sues for Alleged Copyright Infringement
GOOGLE INC: Faces "Rivera" Suit Under Biometric Info Privacy Act

H & M HENNES: Parties Stipulate Regarding Tran Class Action Deal
HOT PIZZAS: Faces "Clark" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wage
HOTEL CLEANING: Faces "Velez" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
ILLINOIS BELL: Judge Narrows Claims in "Malkowski" Suit
INTEGRITY SERVICES: "Brundage" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay

J. CREW: Faces "D'Aversa" Suit for Alleged Breach of Contract
KAISER FOUNDATION: Conditional Certification Okayed in "Feaver"
KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces Suit for Allegedly Overcharging Members
KWONG YET: Judge Approves Parties' Settlement Agreement
LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Faces Merger-Related Suit in California

LENDINGCLUB CORP: Faces "Huang" Securities Class Action
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Faces "Kearns" Securities Class Action
LLOYDS TSB: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in "Willcox" Suit
LLOYDS TSB: Judge Rules on Summary Judgment Bids in "Willcox"
MARCOPPER MINING: Appeal in Fishermen's Class Suit Denied

MDL 2588: Whole Foods Destroyed Evidence, Plaintiffs Allege
MECHEL BLUESTONE: Class Certification Bid in "Ray" Suit Denied
MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: "Bainbridge" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
MICHAEL S. HARRISON: "Djakovac" Suit Claims FDCPA Violation
MINNESOTA TIMBERWOLVES: GLS Cos. Sues Over New Ticket Policy

NATE'S CORP: "Mongiove" Action Has Conditional Certification
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Players Get More Than $10MM Jury Verdicts
NEW FOOD GUY: Caterer Provides Enough for a Part Time Wage Earner
NEW JERSEY: Class Suit Over Divorce, Child Custody Dismissed
NISHIKAWA RUBBER: "Ascher" Suit Alleges Antitrust Law Violation

OCEAN DOORS: Faces "Murillo" Suit for FLSA Violation
OKLAHOMA: DHS Settles Child Welfare Consultants' Class Action
PARK LI: Judge Approves Settlement in "Sadana" Wage Suit
PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Action Over Customer Benefits
PATTERSON-UTI ENERGY: Faces Suit Over FLSA Violations

PHILADELPHIA PARKING: "Parsons" Case Remanded to State Court
PHILIP MORRIS: Florida Jury Awards $350,000 to Smoker's Widow
PHOENIX COMPANIES: "Roth" Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
PLANTATION SWEETS: Scheduling Order Entered in Farm Workers' Suit
PROGRESSIVE AMERICA: Bid to Dismiss AA Suncoast Suit Denied

PROVIDENCE, RI: Sued for Violating Family and Medical Leave Act
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: NJ Court Upholds Sanctions
PTC INC: Faces "Crandall" Securities Class Action
PTC THERAPEUTICS: May 2 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
PTC THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Wang" Securities Class Action

QUINN'S RENTAL: Faces "McGrew" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
R&P LUCAS: Faces Suit for Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
RAMI LEVY: Faces Class Action Over Employee Rights Violations
RELIASOURCE INC: "Jackson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
RICELAND FOODS: 8th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Counterclaim

ROCKWELL MEDICAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
SAFEWAY INC: Stipulation on Bill of Costs Approved
SCOUT INDUSTRIES: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Robocalls
SEAWORLD: Plaintiffs Revive Fraud Claims
SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Court Rejects Member's Bid to Reopen Case

SKINDER-STRAUSS: Appellate Court Affirms Magistrate Judge Order
SOUTH CAROLINA: Inmate's Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: Faces "Lee" Suit Over Natural Gas Leak
STANFORD: Appeals of 2 Former Execs in Ponzi Scheme Suit Tossed
STARK FISH: "Stathakis" Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty

STATE FARM: Pa. High Court Interprets 31 Pa. Code Sec. 69.43(c)
SUBURBAN FORD: "Fernandez" Suit Moved From Illinois to Michigan
SUGAR TRANSPORT: "Guinn" Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
SYNTHES USA: Judge Won't Decertify Classes in "Lindell"
TEEKAY CORP: "Stein" Suit Alleges Violation of Securities Act

THOMAS JEFFERSON: Suit Over Law School Job Data Goes to Trial
THROCKMORTON ROOFING: Sued for Not Paying Overtime Compensation
TRIAD MEDIA: Judge Rules on Plaintiff's Bid to Strike Defenses
TRICORP MANAGEMENT: Hearing Held on Class Cert. Bid in "Volz"
UNITED COLLECTION: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

UNITED HEALTHCARE: Cal. App. Affirms Class Certification Denial
UNITED STATES: Judge Testifies in Immigration Class Action
UNIVERSAL MEDICAL: Faces Suit for Violating FLSA, Md. Wage Laws
USM INC: Settlement in "Vasquez" Suit Has Final Approval
VANTIV INC: "Daniel" Suit Alleges Credit Reporting Act Violation

VERMONT: Fails to Abide by Medicare Settlement, Suit Claims
VIRGINIA: Faces Class Action Over "Habitual Drunkard" Laws
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Park" Suit Consolidated in Clean Diesel MDL
WASHINGTON: HCA Faces Class Suit Over Civil Rights Violation
WEST FELICIANA, LA: Exception of Preemption Sustained

WILSHIRE CONSUMER: Court Denies Class Certification in "Banarji"
WORLD VOLKSWAGEN: "Villapiano" Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
ZEP INC: Fails to Pay Sales Commission, "Benharris" Suit Claims

* Republicans, Democrats Introduce Bills on LSC Funding for UAMs
* EB-5 and JOBS Act Sectors Face Close SEC Regulatory Scrutiny


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Seeks Interpretation of AWI Trust Protocol
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Sues in Delaware Over Take-Home Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Juni" Directed to Perfect Appeal for June Term
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kelsey-Hayes Dropped as Defendant in "Bell"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of Ill. Suit vs. Insurers Affirmed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weyerhaeuser Wins Summary Judgment in 5 PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Brown"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Allowed to Arbitrate Wassau Unpaid Billings
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Reverses Summary Judgment in "O'Leary"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Disallows Excelsior's Unnamed Witnesses

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll Can't Present Unnamed Witnesses
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Can't Present Unnamed Witnesses
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Disallows Viking's Unnamed Witnesses
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Honeywell's Bid to Dismiss "Watts"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Boyd"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Had $335MM Settlement Reserve at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Had 59,000 PI Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Had $401MM Reserve for Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Had $145MM Receivables at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: HB Fuller Co. Settles 10 Lawsuits for $858MM

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eagle Materials May Be Subject to Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Developer Pleads Guilty to Exposing Workers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Removal Firm Owner Sentenced
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Verifies Asbestos Presence at Jonhson Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Battles Insurers Over Durez Judgment Money

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ebb and Flow School Closed Due to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cancer-Stricken Joiner Questions Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Atlanta Defense Lawyer Wins California Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stakes "Huge" for B.C. Workers in Court Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Indiana Exposure Repose Law Unconstitutional

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sikorsky Targeted by Workers in Class Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cancer Sufferer Welcomes Victory in Campaign
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honda Named in Man's Exposure Suit


                            *********


24 HOUR FITNESS: Court Rules on Bid to Stay "O'Hanlon" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted in part and denied in part the
motion filed by 24 Hour Fitness USA to stay the case captioned
MICHELE O'HANLON, Plaintiff, v. 24 HOUR FITNESS USA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-01821-BLF (N.D. Cal.).

Michele O'Hanlon filed a putative class action alleging that 24
Hour Fitness made numerous unsolicited calls to her cellular
telephone number through an automatic telephone dialing system
("ATDS"), in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").  The complaint did not allege any actual injury, but
instead sought only statutory damages.

24 Hour Fitness requested that the case be stayed pending the
outcomes of (1) the Supreme Court's decisions in Tyson Foods, Inc.
v. Bouaphakeo, 135 S.Ct. 2806 (2015) and Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins,
135 S.Ct. 1892 (2015); and (2) the D.C. Circuit's resolution of
appeals filed from a July 10, 2015 Federal Communications
Commission ("FCC") Declaratory Ruling and Order.

Judge Freeman found that the outcomes of the Supreme Court's
decision's in Tyson Foods and Spokeo may have a determinative
effect on O'Hanlon's proceedings.  Spokeo will address whether, as
a matter of law, O'Hanlon has standing to bring her claim and
whether, therefore, the district court may continue to hear the
case.  On the other hand, because O'Hanlon's complaint does not
allege that any class member suffered any actual injuries, Tyson
Foods will address whether, under the allegations so pled, the
matter will be able to proceed as a class action.

Judge Freeman, however, found that staying the case pending the
resolution of the FCC appeals could possibly cause significant
damage and prejudice to O'Hanlon.  The judge explained that
awaiting a ruling by the D.C. Circuit would likely involve a
substantial delay, and would suspend for an indefinite period of
time O'Hanlon's opportunity -- and the opportunity of the putative
class -- to vindicate their rights before the court.

Thus, Judge Freeman held that a stay was appropriate pending the
Supreme Court's decisions on Tyson Foods and Spoke, but denied the
motion to stay pending the resolution of the FCC appeals filed
before the D.C. Circuit.

A full-text copy of Judge Freeman's March 2, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/dl77Eifrom Leagle.com.

Michele O'Hanlon, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron David Radbil --
aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com -- Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC, pro hac
vice, Michael L. Greenwald -- mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com --
Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC, pro hac vice & Ryan Scott Lee, Law
Offices of Ryan Lee, PLLC.

24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dayle Marie
Van Hoose -- dvanhoose@sessions.legal -- Sessions, Fishman,
Nathan, et al., pro hac vice, Debbie Paulerio Kirkpatrick --
dkirkpatrick@sessions.legal -- Sessions Fishman Nathan & Israel,
L.L.P. & James K. Schultz -- jschultz@sessions.legal -- Sessions
Fishman Nathan and Israel, pro hac vice.


34TH STREET: Faces "Galicia" Class Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Sergio Galicia, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. 34th Street Coffee Shop Inc. d/b/a
Lucky's Cafe, jointly and severally, and Nikiforos
Anagnostopoulos, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:16-cv-01170
(S.D.N.Y., February 16, 2016), alleges violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

34Th Street Coffee Shop Inc., is a corporation based in New York.
Nikiforos Anagnostopoulos is the Company's chief executive
officer.  The Company is doing business as Lucky's Cafe located in
Beechhurst, New York.


AA AUTOMOTIVE: "Perdomo" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages and OT
-------------------------------------------------------
Welfredo Perdomo, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated v. AA Automotive Personnel Services, Inc., et
al., Defendants, Case No. BC612489 (Cal. Super., March 3, 2016) is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages,
provide accurate itemized statement and provide wages when due
pursuant to the California Labor Code.

Defendant AA Automotive Personnel Services, Inc. ("AA Automotive")
is a California Corporation with its principal place of business
located in Los Angeles County. AA Automotive operates within the
Automotive Repair, Services and Parking industry.

The Plaintiff was classified by AA Automotive as a non-exempt
employee, paid on an hourly basis, entitled to overtime wages and
the legally required meal and rest periods, according to the
lawsuit.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
     Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
     Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
     BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
     2255 Calle Clara
     La Jolla, CA 92037
     Tel: (858) 551-1223
     Fax: (858) 551-1232
     Email: www.bamlawca.com

          - and -

     William H. Steiner, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM H. STEINER
     P.O. Box 15057
     Irvine, CA 926223
     Tel: (949) 394-5004


ADRIANA'S INSURANCE: Cal. App. Reverses Arbitration Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LISET VIAMONTES et al., Plaintiffs and
Respondents, v. ADRIANA'S INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., et al.,
Defendants and Appellants, No. B253407 (Cal. Ct. App.), the Court
of Appeals of California reversed the order of the trial court
denying the petitions of defendants Adriana's Insurance Services,
Inc. and Veronica's Insurance Services, Inc. to arbitrate
employment-related claims brought by their employees, plaintiffs
Aldo Alpizar and Liset Viamontes.

Alpizar and Viamontes filed a putative class action complaint in
superior court, alleging that Adriana's and Veronica's committed
various wage and hour violations prohibited under the Labor Code.

Adriana's and Veronica's filed substantively identical petitions
to compel arbitration of each plaintiff's individual claims.  The
petitions were based on stand-alone Agreements for Binding
Arbitration that both Alpizar and Viamontes admittedly signed as a
condition for their employment, and a separate Arbitration
Agreement section of the defendants' Employee Handbook that was
purportedly incorporated into the agreements by reference.  The
plaintiffs opposed the petitions on the grounds that they never
received a copy of the handbook and that the agreements were
unconscionable because they required only plaintiffs, but not
defendants, to arbitrate employment-related disputes.

The trial court denied the defendants' petition to compel
arbitration.  It found that the defendants failed to establish
that the plaintiffs received the handbook in connection with
signing the agreements and, on that basis, concluded that the
agreements, standing alone, were unconscionable.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals of California agreed with the
defendants that the signed agreements were sufficient to establish
that the plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate their employment-related
claims.  However, the appellate court found that the trial court
was correct in ruling that the agreements, standing alone, were
too one-sided to be enforced as a condition of the plaintiff's
employment.

Still, inasmuch as the defendants contended that the language in
the handboook -- stating, any employment-related dispute "shall at
the request of either the employee or [Adriana's/Veronica's] be
submitted to and settled by binding arbitration" -- cures this
lack of mutuality, the appellate court held that the trial court
abused its discretion when it denied the defendants' request for
continuance to submit potentially dispositive evidence concerning
the plaintiffs' receipt of the handbook.

The appellate court thus reversed the trial court's order and
directed the latter to allow the defendants to submit additional
evidence concerning the plaintiff's purported receipt of the
handbook.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals of California's March 3,
2016 opinion is available at http://is.gd/IUX4adfrom Leagle.com.

Michelman & Robinson, Mona Z. Hanna -- mhanna@mrllp.com -- W.
Spencer Hammer, III and Robin James -- rjames@mrllp.com -- for
Defendants and Appellants.

Matern Law Group, Matthew J. Matern and Rania S. Habib for
Plaintiffs and Respondents.


ALL HEARTS HOME: Fails to Pay Wages & OT, "Terry" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Terry, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. All Hearts Home Health Care LTD., Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00515-JG (N.D. Ohio, March 3, 2016), alleges that
the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated home health aides
worked more than 40 hours per week, but the Defendant failed to
pay them overtime compensation for the hours they worked over 40
each workweek, as well as minimum wage pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

All Hearts Home Health Care is a health care agency, serving
Northeastern Ohio. Defendant maintained its principal place of
business in Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
     Chastity L. Chirsty, Esq.
     Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
     THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
     920 Rockefeller Building
     614 W. Superior Avenue
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Tel: 216-696-5000
     Fax: 216-696-7005
     Email: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
            chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
            lori@lazzarolawfirm.com


ALL PHASE: June 27 Fairness Hearing Set in "Lozoya" Case
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John L. Kane of the District of Colorado approves
the parties' settlement agreement in the case JOSE LOZOYA, ANTONIO
MALDONADO, and MARIO PENA Plaintiffs, v. ALL PHASE LANDSCAPE
CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Colorado corporation, DONALD TROY TINBERG,
and MARK FISHER, Defendants, Civil Action No. 12-cv-01048-JLK-KLM
(D. Colo.)

Plaintiffs and defendants through their counsels have submitted
class action settlement agreement and have applied, pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for an order: (1) Approving the Terms and
Conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement as fair,
reasonable and adequate; (2) approving forms, content and a
program for Notice to the Settlement Class; and (3) scheduling a
Final Fairness Hearing to consider final approval of the
Settlement.

Judge Kane ordered that the parties maintained and may maintain
the litigation as a class action under The Fair Labor Standards
Act (FSLA) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for settlement purposes on
behalf of the following class:

     a. FLSA Collective: All Lead Plaintiffs, Opt-in Plaintiffs
and Class Members who have been employed by Defendant in an hourly
capacity, who performed maintenance, enhancements, irrigation
installation, repair, service or maintenance, and/or snow removal
on behalf of Defendants within the State of Colorado, who have
worked more than 40 hours in at least one week during the Class
Period, and whose claims are not time-barred.

     b. State Law Collective: All Lead Plaintiffs, opt-out
Plaintiffs, and Class Members who have been employed by Defendants
as hourly employees who performed maintenance, enhancements,
irrigation installation, repair, service or maintenance, and/or
snow removal on behalf of Defendants within the State of Colorado,
who have worked more than 40 hours in at least one week during the
Class Period, and whose claims are not time-barred.

Judge Kane appointed David H. Miller and Rachel Graves of the firm
Sawaya & Miller as class counsel. Within 10 days preceding the
final fairness hearing, Plaintiffs shall file their motion for
attorneys' fees and costs. The Court approves, as to form and
content, the Notice Plan set forth in the Settlement Agreement and
finds that such notice is the best practicable under the
circumstances, in conformity with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B).

Pursuant to the FLSA and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, a final fairness
hearing shall be held before the court at 10:00 a.m. on June 27,
2016, at the United States District Court, District of Colorado.

All Phase, through the claims administrator, is directed to cause
to be sent the notices in accordance with the settlement
agreement, on or before March 11, 2016 and to send notice to
anyone who requests it.

Defendants' counsel shall notify the court upon expiration of 90
days after the appropriate federal and state officials are served
with the notice required under 28 U.S.C. Section 1715(b). All
Phase shall pay all costs and expenses of the claims administrator
in distributing the notices and in publishing the publication
notice.

Any person falling within the definition of the class may, upon
the person's request, be excluded from the settlement and must
submit a request for exclusion, postmarked on or before May 10,
2016, to David H. Miller, Esq. of Sawaya & Miller 1600 Ogden
Street Denver, CO 80218. Any person falling within the definition
of the Class who does not request exclusion can still object to
the proposed settlement by filing and serving a written objection.
If an objector intends to appear personally at the final fairness
hearing, the objector must include with the objection a notice of
the objector's intention to appear at the final fairness hearing.
Objections, along with any notices of intent to appear, must be
postmarked on or before May 10, 2016, and should be mailed to
settlement class counsel and counsel for defendants at the
addresses listed in the various notices and website. Class counsel
shall file objections and notices of intent to appear with the
court prior to the final fairness hearing. Only persons in the
class who have filed and served valid and timely notices of
objection, in accordance with paragraph 18 above, shall be
entitled to be heard at the final fairness hearing.

Pending final determination of whether the settlement embodied in
the settlement agreement is to be approved, no member of the
class, either directly, representatively, derivatively, or in any
other capacity, shall commence or prosecute any action or
proceeding in any court or tribunal asserting any of the claims
arising before July 12, 2013, as described in the settlement
agreement against defendants.

A copy of Judge Kane's order dated February 17, 2016, is available
at http://goo.gl/ctNeBGfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

     Rachel Graves, Esq.
     David H. Miller, Esq.
     SAWAYA, ROSE, MCCLURE & WILHITE, P.C.
     1600 N Ogden St
     Denver, CO 80218
     Telephone: 303-466-3529

Defendants, represented by Joseph Andrew Ausmus --
andy@ausmuslaw.com -- at Ausmus Law Firm, P.C.; Paul David Godec
-- paul@kandf.com -- Kissinger & Fellman, P.C.


AMERICAN EQUITY: 9th Cir. Rejects Appeal of Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit tossed an appeal
from the district court's approval of a settlement, filed August
16, 2013, among a nationwide class of senior citizens and two
companies, American Equity Investment Life Insurance Company and
American Equity Investment Service Company.

Ho Van Cao objected to the settlement reached in the case, and the
award of attorneys' fees and costs.  The Ninth Circuit rejected
Cao's appeal.

The appellate case is, BERNARD McCORMACK, on behalf of himself and
the class of all other similarly situated persons; et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, and AMERICAN EQUITY INVESTMENT LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees, v.
HO VAN CAO, Objector-Appellant, No. 14-55337 (9th Cir.)

A copy of the Ninth Circuit's, memorandum dated February 17, 2016,
is available at http://goo.gl/cr9tVjfrom Leagle.com.

The Ninth Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Andrew Jay
Kleinfeld, Sandra Segal Ikuta and M. Margaret McKeown.


AMERICAN FAMILY: Court Certifies Class in "Jammal" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Donald C. Nugent granted the plaintiff's motion for class
certification in the case captioned WALID JAMMAL, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN FAMILY INS. GROUP, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 1:13 CV 437 (N.D. Ohio).

A case was filed by insurance agents hired by American Family to
sell the company's insurance and retirement products.  The
plaintiffs alleged that American Family attempted to avoid
compliance with the requirements of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act ("ERISA") by mislabeling its sales people as
"independent contractors" while treating them for all practical
purposes as employees.  As a result, the plaintiffs alleged that
they did not received benefits they would have been due under
ERISA.

Three classes were proposed in the case, two relating to
termination benefits, and one relating to health/
dental/life/disability benefits.

While the defendants do not contest that the numerosity,
ascertainability, and adequacy requirements for class
certification are met, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs
have failed to demonstrate commonality for any of the proposed
classes, and that the named plaintiffs do not satisfy the
typicality requirement.  Judge Nugent, however, found that the
plaintiffs have met the requirements for commonality and that the
plaintiffs have claims that are typical of the class members.

Aside from meeting the requirements of Rule 23(a), Judge Nugent
found that the plaintiffs have also met the requirements of Rule
23(b).

A full-text copy of Judge Nugent's March 2, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/WVlO4Hfrom
Leagle.com.

Walid Jammal, Dana LaRiche, Kathleen Tuersley, Cinda J.
Durachinsky, Patricia McClain-Evans, John Vincent, Plaintiffs,
represented by Amy E. Keller -- aek@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler
Wallace,Charles J. Crueger -- ccrueger@hrdclaw.com -- Hansen
Reynolds Dickinson Crueger, Drew T. Legando, Landskroner Grieco
Merriman, Edward A. Wallace -- eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler
Wallace, pro hac vice, Erin K. Dickinson -- edickinson@hrdclaw.com
-- Hansen Reynolds Dickinson Crueger, Gregory F. Coleman --
greg@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Law Office of Greg Coleman, Kara A.
Elgersma -- kae@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace,Mark E.
Silvey, Law Office of Greg Coleman & Jack Landskroner, Landskroner
Grieco Merriman.

Nathan Garrett, Plaintiff, represented by Drew T. Legando,
Landskroner Grieco Merriman & Jack Landskroner, Landskroner Grieco
Merriman.

American Family Insurance Company, American Family Mutual
Insurance Company, American Family Life Insurance Company,
American Standard Insurance Company of Wisconsin, American Family
Termination Benefits Plan, Retirement Plan for Employees of
American Family Insurance Group, American Family 401K Plan, Group
Life Plan, Group Health Plan, Group Dental Plan, Long Term
Disability Plan, American Family Insurance Group Master Retirement
Trust, 401K Plan Administrative Committee, The Committee of
Employee and District Manager Retirement Plan, Defendants,
represented by Gregory V. Mersol -- gmersol@bakerlaw.com -- Baker
& Hostetler, Gilbert P. Brosky -- gbrosky@bakerlaw.com -- Baker &
Hostetler & Rodger L. Eckelberry -- reckelberry@bakerlaw.com --
Baker & Hostetler.


ANGLO AMERICAN: Settles Silicosis Claims for R500 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
Dewald van Rensburg, writing for City Press, reports that Anglo
American and AngloGold Ashanti (collectively Anglo) have put up
nearly R500 million to settle all the individual silicosis claims
against them, setting the stage for a far larger class action that
is brewing in the South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg.

The confidential settlement puts an end to litigation that started
12 years ago.  The payout is "up to" R464 million, plus funding to
run the compensation trust that is being established.

The mine workers were represented by Richard Meeran from UK law
firm Leigh Day, as well as local partner Zanele Mbuyisa from
Mbuyisa Neale Attorneys.

It is not clear how many former mine workers will actually benefit
from the settlement. Only the lawyers' 4 365 named clients are in
line for compensation and not all of them will receive any cash.

The lawyers' own estimate is that only about 2 619 people in the
group actually suffer from silicosis, based on tests of a random
sample.

"There will be a proportion that does not get compensated," said
Mr. Meeran on March 5.  "In the group as a whole, it could be
higher than our estimate -- or lower."

It is also uncertain how much money individual claimants will
receive. The pot will be divided among those who qualify, which
still needs to be established.  The payouts will also depend on
the severity of the illness.

The trust will be set up soon and will have to finish its business
in six years.  Mr. Meeran said the process should be wrapped up in
four years.

The settlement followed a far smaller one reached in 2013 by the
same lawyers, also with Anglo.  That case involved an undisclosed
payout for 16 living and seven dead former employees, and laid the
groundwork for the bigger deal.

The cases have walked a crooked path to the UK and back after
Anglo successfully challenged the jurisdiction.  The legal costs
have been settled separately from the compensation money, so the
full R464 million is for mine workers.

The lawyers' fees that Anglo is -- paying will not be disclosed,
said Mr. Meeran.  After 12 years on the case, "we have not
received a cent".  "This has all taken too long, but we believe
this is a triumph for justice."

He said he hoped it would serve as a model for a sector-wide
settlement, much like the one being pursued in the class action
case instituted by South African lawyer Richard Spoor and a number
of other lawyers.

Silicosis is an incurable, progressive lung disease that can be
caused by breathing the silica dust released by drilling and
blasting in mines.  It takes years to develop and, according to
recent estimates, 10% of current mine workers older than 45 have
it.

A number of studies on former mine workers have found that between
22% and 36% of them eventually develop it.

The main event

The settlement is confidential and includes a "no admission of
liability" clause, which means it has no legal impact on
Mr. Spoor's class action, which the South Gauteng High Court is
expected to either approve or deny in the next few weeks.
Mr. Spoor on March 4 said the settlement nevertheless demonstrated
an acknowledgment of sorts.

"It makes [mining companies'] opposition to the class action seem
insincere," he said.

More importantly, it implied that the class action should amount
to a claim of R10 billion, said Mr. Spoor, who is suing 32
different gold mining companies.  Anglo is the largest target.

The class action lawyers estimate that the class of silicotic
ex-mine workers could amount to 100 000 living and dead people,
which would amount to R100 000 per life.

If the class action fails, the result would probably be a wave of
new individual claims similar to the ones Anglo has just settled.

Mr. Spoor's team signed up more than 16 000 individual claimants
before launching the class action.

Justice in numbers

The trust that is being created resembles the Asbestos Relief
Trust, which was set up after ground-breaking settlements with
asbestos companies in 2003 and 2006.  That trust still exists and
pays out amounts of between R90 000 and R300 000 for different
degrees of illness.

As part of the deal, Anglo said it would also pitch in to try to
get former employees the benefits they are due anyway under the
state's dysfunctional statutory compensation system.

The system is meant to pay lump sums to any former mine worker who
develops a lung disease.  It pays out at least R34 458 for
silicosis, and a maximum of R105 012.

The settlement suggests an average of about R177 000 per person if
the lawyers' estimates are correct.

The nuts and bolts of the settlement include a few safety
measures, which could potentially limit mining companies'
exposure.

The full sum will only be paid to the trust when the lawyers prove
that at least 95% of the claimants did work for Anglo.

There is "reasonable evidence" that this hurdle will be met, said
Mr. Meeran.

To qualify, a claimant would have to prove he worked for Anglo for
at least two years. He would then have to undergo a medical
examination to prove he has silicosis.

It is not entirely clear how the dependants of dead mine workers
would meet this requirement, but Anglo spokesperson Pranill
Ramchander said the trustees would rely on documents to prove
cases.

Mthobeli Vaphi

Mr. Vaphi was overwhelmed with joy on March 5 after the
multimillion-rand victory that has taken more than 12 years to
secure. "I can't help but cry," he said.

Mr. Vaphi (56), one of the former mine workers to be compensated
by AngloGold Ashanti, recalled the day he received a letter from
Teba, a mining recruitment agency in the Eastern Cape's
Lusikisiki, informing him that Vaal Reefs Mine would be paying him
R57,000 in compensation for developing second-degree silicosis
after working on the mine.

At the time, he had no idea what this meant; he was simply happy
to be paid out by the company. "Now that I think about it, they
were covering up for the irreversible damage they had done to me,"
he said.

The father of three from Bolotwa Village in West Pondoland worked
at Vaal Reefs Mine from 1983 to 1997, when he took a severance
package because of ill health. He was constantly coughing,
perpetually tired and losing weight. He had no idea what was wrong
with him when he left the mine.

"I just wanted to go back home because I was afraid I would die in
this mine without having a child to continue my lineage," he said.

When Mr. Vaphi left home to work in Johannesburg in 1978, he had
recently married and had no children.  Three years after his
return, he and his wife had a son.

Now that he will finally receive compensation, building a house is
his top priority.  "I can die in peace knowing my wife and
children will be taken care of," he said.

Benson Qubeka

There were times when Mr. Qubeka thought he would never see the
day AngloGold Ashanti took responsibility for the poor health that
forced him into early retirement.

The 63-year-old father of eight, who was at the forefront of the
landmark case, thought he would die long before a conclusion was
reached. "Here I am witnessing this victory . . . To say that I am
happy is an understatement.

"We never expected to win this battle because it had taken us
years and many of my peers died before they could see the
conclusion," he said.

Mr. Qubeka, from Hlabatshane Village in Mthatha, recalled the day
he was called into a foreman's office in the late 1990s and told
he had silicosis.  "I didn't understand the magnitude of the
problem then.

Even when they gave me the R32,000 in compensation, I did not
think they were paying me for damaging my lungs," he said,
wheezing like a man on his deathbed.

"The mine finished us.  They used us and threw us away as soon as
they were done.  We are like scraps today that can't breathe
properly or do heavy duties," he said.  "I am happy that they have
finally decided to take responsibility for their sins."

Mr. Qubeka said he had great plans for the compensation he would
receive from the Qubeka Trust, which has been named after him as
the first claimant.  "I will build my family a proper house and
educate my children.  I don't want them to suffer when I am gone.
This compensation will go a long way towards ensuring that."


ANZ: ASIC Mulls Interest Rate Rigging Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Clancy Yeates and James Eyers, writing for The Sydney Morning
Herald, report that a leading litigation firm has investigated a
potential class action against ANZ Bank over allegations it rigged
a critical interest rate, as other banks' behavior is also probed
by the corporate watchdog.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission said it would
take on one of the country's biggest banks in the courts over
claims it manipulated the bank bill swap rate (BBSW), the result
of a long-running investigation that is likely to embroil other
lenders.

ANZ has rejected the allegations and is promising to defend them
"vigorously".

It is the understood the explosive case against ANZ was launched
after settlement talks between ANZ and ASIC hit a wall, because
the bank would not agree to the regulator's demanded terms of
conditions, including an admission of guilt.

ASIC sees this as crucial to making sure banks are held
accountable.  But it is understood ANZ thought this could leave it
exposed to potential class actions, and a leading firm confirmed
this was a possibility on March 6.

It came as legal experts said the stakes were extremely high for
ANZ as its financial services license was on the line -- though
ASIC may face an uphill battle in proving market manipulation
against the lender.

ASIC claims ANZ's behavior is likely to have caused "financial
detriment" to customers with the opposite exposure to the BBSW, or
products that were referenced to BBSW, than ANZ.

This is a potentially very large pool of victims, and litigation
firm Maurice Blackburn confirmed on March 6 that it had
investigated a possible action over the matter.

"I can confirm that Maurice Blackburn is looking at this matter,
and a class action could be a possibility," a spokeswoman said.
The case -- if it goes to court -- will put the spotlight on bank
conduct in the setting of the BBSW, which is used as a benchmark
rate for a wide range of business loans.

Financial services license breaches

ASIC's draft statement of claim alleges ANZ engaged in market
manipulation, unconscionable conduct and the bank breached
conditions of its financial services license.

Professor of corporate law at Western Sydney University Michael
Adams said in his 30 years' experience of working in the law,
cases brought on market manipulation were rarely successful unless
there was a guilty plea.

"The evidence required is going to be quite phenomenal, so I think
they're going to have an uphill road on the market manipulation
provision," he said.

He said the case law on unconscionable conduct also suggested this
was a "hard road to win" for ASIC, but its claims ANZ breached
certain license conditions were "very smart".

The license provisions were quite technical, he said, but ASIC's
track record in enforcing license conditions was solid, and
holding a licence was critical to any bank.

"If this succeeds, ANZ Bank's reputation will be in tatters.  It's
not just a technical breach, hence why ANZ will fight it tooth and
nail, because their whole professional reputation will be at
stake," Professor Adams said.

James Wheeldon, a corporate lawyer who used to work at ASIC, also
highlighted the difficulty of proving market manipulation.  To do
so, ASIC would need to prove that an "artificial price" had been
created by the behavior of ANZ traders.

"Proving market manipulation, the one thing that you have to prove
is, did it have the effect of creating an artificial price in the
security? And that's not at all straightforward," he said.
"Obviously ANZ feels like they have got a defense on this.  Their
financial services license is at risk, theoretically, if they lose
this. The reputational costs are massive."

He said ASIC's unconscionable conduct claim was less likely to get
bogged down in complex technical discussions, but he was not aware
of the regulator winning cases on this specific issue.

Proving the bank had engaged in unconscionable conduct would be be
"groundbreaking", he said, but based on the limited information
released so far he thought ASIC's argument sounded like it "had
legs".

The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority said it could not
comment because it cannot discuss individual institutions that it
regulates.


APPLE INC: Supreme Ct. Upholds Ruling in E-Book Price-Fixing Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the Supreme Court rejected an
appeal from Apple Inc. on March 7 and left in place a ruling that
the company conspired with publishers to raise electronic book
prices when it sought to challenge Amazon.com's dominance of the
market.

The justices' order lets stand an appeals court ruling that found
Cupertino, California-based Apple violated antitrust laws in 2010.

Apple wanted to raise prices to wrest some book sales away from
Amazon, which controlled 90 percent of the market and sold most
popular books online for $9.99. Amazon's share of the market
dropped to 60 percent.

The 2-1 ruling by the New York-based appeals court sustained a
trial judge's finding that Apple orchestrated an illegal
conspiracy to raise prices. A dissenting judge called Apple's
actions legal, "gloves-off competition."

The Justice Department and 33 states and territories originally
sued Apple and five publishers. The publishers all settled and
signed consent decrees prohibiting them from restricting e-book
retailers' ability to set prices.

In settlements of lawsuits brought by individual states, Apple has
agreed to pay $400 million to be distributed to consumers and $50
million for attorney fees and payments to states.

The case is Apple v. U.S., 15-565.


ASCENDA USA: "Moody" Suit Alleges FCRA Violations
-------------------------------------------------
Ashley Moody, Autumn Terrell, and all others similarly-situated v.
Ascenda USA Inc. dba 24-7 Intouch, and Verified Credentials, Inc.,
Case No. CACE-16-001343 (Fla. Cir., January 25, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act of 1970.

Defendant Ascenda USA operates customer service call centers
across the continental U.S., including locations in Florida.

Defendant Verified Credentials operates a national database of
public records and related employment histories as a nationwide
consumer reporting agency, and prepares and furnishes consumer
reports for employment and other purposes.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
      Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
      1110 North Florida Ave., Ste. 300
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Tel: (813) 224-0431
      Fax: (813) 229-8712
      E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
              bhill@wfclaw.com


AUSTRALIA: Firms Seek Overseas Funding for Royal Navy Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lara Bullock, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that firms are
turning to litigation funders based abroad for class actions
against powerful Australian adversaries for fear local players may
be pressured into settlement.

In a recent case, Levitt Robinson Solicitors sought out New York
funder Galactic Litigation Partners LLC for a class action
involving hundreds of sailors against the Royal Australian Navy.

Speaking with Lawyers Weekly, Levitt Robinson Solicitors principal
Stewart Levitt (pictured) said that if a party is seeking
litigation funding for a class action against an influential
Australian entity, there is often concern the adversary will put
pressure on a local funder to agree to an unfair settlement.

It's for this reason that litigation funders based overseas are
often sought for class actions against powerful or high-profile
opponents.

"There's a perception here that governments put pressure on
lawyers and funders who act for consumers, or the banks do,"
Mr. Levitt said.

"This is particularly so when you have cases that involve great
and powerful adversaries such as the Commonwealth of Australia
and, in those circumstances, using a domestic funder who may well
be more susceptible to pressure at some level is probably less
desirable."

Mr. Levitt explained that overseas funders are less susceptible to
Australian organizations and therefore more likely to act
independently.

He said another perception is that local litigation funders tend
to seek a quick and substantial return on investment.

"Once there's a litigation funder involved [there's a perception]
they're really not interested in justice and that it's in the
interests of the funder to get in and out as quickly as possible
for the profit," he said.

"The interests of the litigant can be sidelined in those
circumstances, or compromised."

In the Royal Australian Navy case, Mr. Levitt said that a US
litigation funder was preferred to allay fears among the sailors
that a local funder might be influenced by the potential of
backlash from the Australian Government.

The claim alleges the Navy induced hundreds of sailors to sign up
for the four-year MT2010 program, which promised "on the job"
education and training towards a Certificate IV (Engineering)
qualification.

According to the claim, this training was not provided as promised
and the sailors were effectively "warehoused".


AUSTRALIA: Palm Island Cop Denies Race Assumption Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that the detective in
charge of investigating a high-profile death in custody has denied
going into the probe assuming the white arresting officer was not
responsible for the Aboriginal man's death.

Detective Inspector Warren Webber was sent to Palm Island after
the death of Mulrunji Doomadgee on the local watchhouse floor in
November 2004.

A Federal Court racial discrimination trial in Townsville on March
7 heard he shared a meal and beer with Senior Sergeant Chris
Hurley, the arresting officer, on the first night of the
investigation.

Sen Sgt Hurley also picked up the investigating team, including
his friend, Detective Sergeant Darren Robinson, from the airport.

Det Insp Webber admitted the meal was inappropriate and that some
community members thought the investigation was unfair.

Counsel for Palm Islanders Chris Ronalds SC accused him of going
into the investigation with a closed mind.

"As a white man and a police officer you didn't believe . . . that
a white police officer would have any responsibility for the death
of an Aboriginal man in custody," she said.

"That's not true," Det Insp Webber replied.

A preliminary coroner's report into Mr. Doomadgee's death sparked
rioting, which led to the police station and Sen Sgt Hurley's
house being burnt to the ground.

Jailed rioter Lex Wotton launched the class action on behalf of
Palm Islanders, alleging police actions before, during and after
the unrest were racially discriminatory.

Among the complaints is that the declaration of an emergency
situation and subsequent use of heavily armed police was
excessive.

Det Insp Webber told the court he made the declaration from
Townsville after hearing police lives could be in danger.

Once on the island, he saw community members holding "sticks and
clubs" and shouting abuse towards a line of officers in front of
the hospital.

The investigation led by Det Insp Webber has been criticized by
prior inquests and reviews.

The Queensland Police Service eventually found he and other
investigating officers shouldn't face disciplinary action.

Sen Sgt Hurley was acquitted of Mr. Doomadgee's manslaughter in
2007.

The trial continues.


AUSTRALIA: Coal Miners' Union Mulls Black Lung Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Colman, writing for The Australian, reports that the
scars on Keith Stoddart's lungs didn't look like ordinary cancer.

The 66-year-old coalmine technician smoked for most of his life
but had given up for 18 months. Now his doctor wasn't sure if the
white markings on the x-rays revealed smoking-related emphysema or
were from five decades working in underground coal mines.

Mr. Stoddart, who was suffering from stabbing pains in his chest,
went to see a thoracic specialist in Brisbane, 900km from his home
in Middlemount, north Queensland.

It took two biopsies, a lung function test and an agonizing wait
before a phone call came one Friday night with a diagnosis.

"Good news -- no cancer.  Bad news -- Black Lung," Mr. Stoddart
told The Australian.  He had been diagnosed with deadly coal
workers pneumoconiosis, a disease supposedly eradicated in
Australian 30 years ago.  But it should never have happened that
way.

As an underground coalworker Mr. Stoddart's five-yearly x-rays are
supposed to be analyzed by specialists who can accurately detect
and report on the disease and filed with the Queensland Department
of Mines and Natural Resources.

But since Queensland's mines minister Anthony Lynham told
parliament of the first cases of the disease in three decades last
December, a failure to quickly diagnose Black Lung has been
revealed and glaring inadequacies in coal mine regulation and
monitoring have been exposed.

It all points to a serious public health failure, and the nagging
worry that the workers at the heart of Australia's coal export
industry have been tragically let down.

The coal miners' union has floated a potential class action,
claiming as many as 1000 cases could emerge following a Monash
University review ordered by Dr. Lynham.

Queensland's Coal Mine Workers Health Scheme, a program in place
since 1993 under state regulation, was designed to keep miners
safe.

The critical elements of the scheme are the five-yearly chest
x-rays for Queensland underground coal miners, and inspectors
appointed by the department checking mine coal dust levels comply
with legal limits.

But The Australian has revealed coal dust limits spiking to at
least double legal limits at one coal mine in Brisbane's Bowen
Basin.

And now the radiology profession is on the defensive over claims
Australian doctors are underqualified to properly screen for the
disease compared with counterparts in the US.  These claims will
be tested by a Senate Select Committee on Health inquiry into the
disease, which was set to begin in Brisbane on March 7.

Caused by inhaling fine airborne coal dust, coal workers'
pneumoconiosis is incurable but it can be controlled.  Crucially,
sufferers must cease any exposure to coal dust and begin pulmonary
rehabilitation as soon as possible.

Says Queensland Health: "No treatment will reverse the effects of
exposure to coal dust on the lungs . . . reduction or cessation of
exposure to coal dust and other inorganic dusts is the mainstay of
management of the disease."

Put simply, health screening is the first line of defense when
controlling the disease.  Mr. Stoddart was working at Anglo
American's Grasstree mine near his home in Middlemount when he was
last x-rayed in 2014.

But in an apparent breach of the Coal Workers scheme, the
department admits in a letter to Stoddart's solicitors obtained by
The Australian that it doesn't have a copy of the film.  The 2014
x-ray report provided to Stoddart states: "The lungs and pleural
spaces are clear. There is no evidence of focal or active
pulmonary disease."

Months later, the stabbing pains in the right side of
Mr. Stoddart's chest began.

Anglo American said in a statement that it "has been working
closely" with Mr. Stoddart since 2012 "when an abnormality first
presented".  The company confirmed while "the abnormality has been
monitored closely" it "has only been diagnosed as pneumoconiosis
and emphysema recently".

"Our priority is the well-being of the employee and we are working
closely with him to fully understand the diagnosis and accommodate
future requirements," the company said.  "We operate in accordance
with Queensland's rigorous and transparent system of compliance on
coal dust, monitoring to Australian Standard 2985 with any
exposure being further managed through a hierarchy of controls to
mitigate dust exposure."

The union has sent a batch of x-rays from worried miners to the US
where strict international labor organization guidelines for
analyzing radiographs are mandatory for doctors who read test
results from miners.  This is not the case in Australia, and the
union has branded the local profession substandard. In January, in
the wake of the new cases and the union's attack, the Royal
Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists issued an
outraged press release saying it "refutes claims that Australian
clinical radiologists lack the competence to detect pneumoconiosis
in its early stages".  College president Greg Slater issued a
strong defense of his profession: "Clinical radiologists in
Australia have been participating in clinically appropriate and
effective disease screening programs for many years -- including
in the area of pneumoconiosis," he said.

"Australian radiologists are well accustomed to reporting to a
checklist in the same way they do for many other procedures such
as breast scans, brain scans and bone scans."

Furthermore, "the suggestion that coal miners' x-rays should be
sent offshore to the United States . . . is nonsensical".

But since the college's press release it has emerged that Vale,
the Brazilian owners of Carborough Downs mine in the Bowen Basin,
where three cases were confirmed last year, is sending all of its
employees' x-rays to the US for analysis.

Vale has repeatedly failed to respond to requests for media
comment, but an email sent by one of the company's health and
safety officers, obtained by The Australian, reveals Vale is
undergoing "an x-ray review process".

"All chest x-rays for current employees are being sent to a
specialist . . . in the US to be double checked for validation
purposes," the email states.

More recently, the college's submission to the Senate committee
-- which is more circumspect than its January press release --
concedes that only those Australian radiologists who have chosen
to do extra training in line with the ILO's guidelines have the
"experience and skill" to guarantee "accurate" and "comprehensive"
reading of pneumoconiosis x-rays.

Australian "clinical radiologists have instead used standard
reporting templates for diagnostic imaging when reporting on CWP",
the submission says.

This, it says, "was appropriate given that CWP had not been seen
in Australia for the last 20 years". In its submission to the
Senate inquiry, the Queensland Resources Council says "workers,
mining company supervisors and management, doctors radiologists,
unions, government -- have operated under the assumption . . .
that this was a disease of the past".

It is also "clear", the council says, that the Coal Mine Workers'
Health Scheme "is not broken as six cases of CWP have been
detected through the scheme".

But the council's defense of the scheme is undermined by Monash
University Professor Malcolm Sim who is conducting the Queensland
government review.

"None of the cases had been detected within the existing coal mine
workers' health scheme," Professor Sim tells the inquiry in his
submission to the Senate.

"Therefore it is imperative that the design and operation of the .
. . medical assessments performed under the Coal Mine Workers'
Health Scheme be reviewed."

Professor Robert Cohen, an international expert flown to Australia
to consult on Professor Sim's review, tells The Australian it is
"astounding" to suggest Australia was ever free of the disease.

"It was strange to me that Australia thought it had eradicated the
disease," he says.  "Because you're still mining quite a lot of
coal, you have humans, you have coal mines, it would have been a
stretch to think there was no disease."

It is far more likely, Professor Cohen says, "there was a laxity
in the surveillance".

After 30 years with no reported cases, the Queensland government
has confirmed six in two months, and is on notice that two more
are imminent.  Says Professor Cohen: "We're not in a position to
know the severity or prevalence given the data hasn't been looked
over."

Encouragingly, "Australia has all the infrastructure to fix things
up quickly", he says.  "You have world-class technology but that
special bit of training and orientation and oversight might have
been a bit lax . . . or they became complacent."  Weeks after
announcing the new cases, Dr. Lynham told the public that eight of
Queensland's 10 underground coal mines over the past 12 months had
breached legal coal dust limits.

"All of these mines including Carborough Downs coal mine are now
currently demonstrating compliance with dust management
standards," a department spokesman says.

"Mines inspectors will continue to closely monitor mines to ensure
they continue to demonstrate sustained compliance over coming
months."

But Dr. Lynham has not yet agreed to the union's demand for
inspectors charged with checking dust levels in mines be
independent.  Data provided to The Australian, which the union
says was leaked from Carborough Downs, shows limits could have
exceeded four times legal limits as far back as 2011.

Back then, coalminer Ian Hiscock worked at Carborough Downs in a
longwall crew.  He was giving evidence to the Senate on March 7
where he is likely to paint a disturbing picture of safety
standards, with longwall operators standing in permanent dust on
the "tailgate" of the shearer (cutter).

"There was always an operator in the dust constantly,"
Mr. Hiscock tells The Australian.  "There was that much leakage in
the seals from the mines, that we just couldn't get any more air,"
he adds.

"Carborough Downs had a leakage problem in its ventilation seals.
We were always asking management for more air . . . fighting for
more air."

He's been told the mine manager made changes to longwall
operations after the intervention from the department in the wake
of the Black Lung cases.

But he had left by then, and after a brief stint at Anglo
America's Grasstree quit a promising career in mining at the age
of 46. He now works as a prison officer.

"I decided that enough was enough and my health and family came
first so I quit the industry," he says.

"I dropped $110,000 a year but so much happier now."

Troubled by a nasty cough, Mr. Hiscock asked his former employer,
Vale, in January to send his last x-rays to the US as part of its
review.

But, despite almost nine years spent underground with the company
from the time the mine opened in August 2006, Vale told
Mr. Hiscock past employees are not being screened for the disease.
The union has agreed to send x-rays taken privately to the US on
Mr. Hiscock's behalf.

Keith Stoddart's x-rays, too, have gone off to the US for analysis
and a full report.

Although he finally received a diagnosis in Australia early this
year, Mr. Stoddart is still waiting for an accurate prognosis.

Only then will he know how long he has to live.

Coal Workers Pneumoconiosis (CWP)

SYMPTOMS: Shortness of breath, a chronic cough, coughing up black
mucus, high blood pressure, heart problems, increased
susceptibility to auto-immune conditions such as rheumatoid
arthritis and scleroderma (excessive hardening of the skin).

Ultimately, progressive massive fibrosis leads to premature death.

CAUSE: Cumulative long-term exposure to very fine airborne coal
dust. The disease has a long latency stage.

TREATMENT: Ceasing exposure to coal dust immediately and
implementing a pulmonary rehabilitation regime


AVALON CARE: "Byrdsong" Sues for Damages Over Pay, Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dewayne Byrdsong v. Avalon Villa Health Care, LLC, Ridgill Johnson
Properties, Inc., Avalon Villa Care Center and Does 1-
20, inclusive, Defendants, Case BC608239 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
County, January 26, 2016), seeks recovery of wages, withheld
earnings, overtime compensation, waiting time compensation and
other damages, payment of all statutory obligations and penalties,
compensatory and general damages, punitive damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs of suit, restitution and other equitable
and further relief for violation of the California Labor Code,
California Business and Professions Code (Unfair Competition),
California Family Right Act, Family Medical Leave Act and the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

The complaint says the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff overtime
compensation, provide wage statements, denied him leaves, made him
work through his break periods and discriminated him over his race
and the medical condition of his son.

Plaintiff's employers, Avalon Villa Health Care, LLC and Avalon
Villa Care Center, are California health care providers while
Ridgill Johnson Properties is into property/facilities management.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lawrence W. Freiman, Esq.
      Michael J. Freiman, Esq.
      Freiman Law, 100 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 940
      Santa Monica, CA 90401
      Tel: (310) 917-1024
      Fax: (888) 835-8511
      Email: michael@freimanlaw.com
             lawrence@freimanlaw.com


BACKBLAZE INC: Violated Bus. & Prof. Code "Hellervik" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Hellervik, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Backblaze, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. CIV537039 (Cal. Super. Ct., County of San
Mateo, January 20, 2016), seeks an order requiring Backblaze to
cease its false advertising practices, to restore any money
acquired by means of false advertising, and awarding reasonable
costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code.

Backblaze offers computer-data backup and recovery service that
promises to keep its customers data safe while making the online
backup and restore of their data easy. The Company is a
corporation existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with
its principal place of business located at San Mateo, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Logan, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          J. Dominick Larry, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          329 Bryant Street
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: 415 212 9300
          Facsimile: 415 373 9435
          E-mail: slogan@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  nlarry@edelson.com


BASS FISHING: "Neyland" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Heath Neyland, John Smith, and all others similarly-situated v.
Bass Fishing & Rentals, LLC, and Steven Johnston, Case No. 5:16-
cv-00131 (W.D. Tex., February 8, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a company that provides products and
services in the oil and gas industry throughout the U.S. in those
areas in which fracking is a viable business.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
      Little Rock, Arkansas 72211
      Tel: (501) 221-0088
      Fax: (888) 787-2040
      E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


BAXALTA INC: "Bertisch" Suit Seeks Enjoinment of Shire Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Bertisch, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Baxalta Incorporated, Wayne T.
Hockmeyer, Blake E. Devitt, Karen Ferrante, John D. Forsyth, Gail
D. Fosler, James R. Gavin III, Ludwig N. Hantson, Fran‡ois
Nader, Albert P.L. Stroucken, Shire PLC, and Beartracks, Inc.,
the Defendants, Case No. 11918 (Del. Chancery Ct., January 20,
2016), seeks enjoinment of an Agreement and Plan of Merger
(Proposed Transaction) or, alternatively, rescission of the
Proposed Transaction between Baxalta and Shire, in the event
defendants are able to consummate it.

On January 11, 2016, the Board caused Baxalta to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, stockholders of Baxalta will receive $18.00 in cash and
0.1482 of an American Depositary Share of Parent issued against
Parent's ordinary shares per Baxalta share.

The Proposed Transaction deprives Baxalta's public stockholders of
the ability to participate in the Company's long-term prospects.

Baxalta is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices at Bannockburn, Illinois 60015. The Company is a
biopharmaceutical company that focuses on developing,
manufacturing, and commercializing therapies for orphan diseases
and underserved conditions in hematology, oncology, and
immunology.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          Jeremy J. Riley, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          Telephone: (302) 295 5310


BENCO DENTAL: Violated Clayton Act, "Grussmark" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Stephen M. Grussmark, DDS, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Benco Dental Supply
Co., Henry Schein, Inc., and Patterson Companies, Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00479 (E.D.N.Y., January 29, 2016),
seeks treble damages, costs of suit, and other relief as may be
just and proper, pursuant to the Sherman Act and Clayton Act.

The Defendants provide Dental Supplies in the United States.
Together, Defendants dominate the Dental Supplies market and wield
market power. The Defendants' collective market share was and
continues to be over 80% of all Dental Supplies sales.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          Bradley J. Demuth, Esq.
          NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
          570 Lexington Avenue, 19 Fl.
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 722 7053
          Facsimile: (212) 681 0300
          E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
                  bdemuth@nussbaumpc.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Michael E. Criden, Esq.
          Kevin B. Love, Esq.
          CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
          7301 S.W. 57th Court, Suite 515
          South Miami, FL 33143
          Telephone: (305) 357 9000
          Facsimile: (305) 357 9050
          E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com
                  klove@cridenlove.com


BIOMET INC: Judge Does Not Remand Suit Due to Fraudulent Joinder
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert L. Miller of the Northern District of
Indiana, South Bend Division, denied plaintiff's motion to remand
in the case ANNA LAUGHLIN, PLAINTIFF, v. BIOMET, INC. ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS, Cause No. 3:14-CV-1960-RLM-CAN, (N.D. Ind.)

Anna Laughlin brought suit in Florida state court against two
groups of defendants, Biomet Orthopedics LLC, Biomet Inc., Biomet
US Reconstruction LLC, and Biomet Manufacturing Inc. and Brett
Shoop and Mid Atlantic Medical LLC, the Distributors. Laughlin's
complaint alleges strict product liability, negligence, failure to
warn, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty,
misrepresentation, and violations of the Maryland Consumer
Protection Act, all in relation to the alleged failure of her
Biomet M2a-Magnum hip implant. The defendants removed the case to
the District of Maryland based on diversity of citizenship under
28 U.S.C. Section 1446.

Laughlin and the distributors are citizens of Maryland, the four
Biomet defendants are citizens of Indiana. Biomet designed and
manufactured Laughlin's hip implant, while the distributors acted
as independent contractors for Biomet by marketing, selling, and
distributing the implant.

Biomet removed the case to federal court on the argument that the
citizenship of the distributors should be disregarded for
diversity purposes, because Ms. Laughlin can't prevail on any
claim against them and they were fraudulently joined solely to
defeat diversity. Laughlin argues that the removal was improper,
because the distributors were properly joined and so complete
diversity is lacking.

Biomet argues that joinder of the Distributors was fraudulent
because while middlemen are ordinarily liable in Maryland product
liability cases, all of Ms. Laughlin's claims against the
Distributors are defeated by an exception to that general rule,
the Maryland's so-called sealed container doctrine.

Laughlin filed a motion to remand and an amended motion to remand.

Judge Miller both motions pursuant to an opinion and order dated
February 17, 2016, available at http://goo.gl/zlsb5Yfrom
Leagle.com.

Anna Laughlin represented by Christopher H Mitchell --
cmitchell@steinmitchell.com -- at Stein Mitchell Muse Cipollone &
Beato LLP; & Ilyas Sayeg -- at Maglio Christopher & Toale PA

Brett Shoop, Mid Atlantic Medical LLC represented by Erin Linder
Hanig -- elinder@lck-law.com -- at LaDue Curran & Kuehn LLC;
Shayon T Smith -- at Goodell DeVries Leech & Dann LLP
Biomet Inc, Biomet Orthopedics LLC, Biomet US Reconstruction LLC,
Biomet Manufacturing Inc, Defendants, represented by Erin Linder
Hanig -- elinder@lck-law.com -- John D LaDue -- jladue@lck-law.com
-- at LaDue Curran & Kuehn LLC; Shayon T Smith -- James A
Frederick -- jaf@gdldlaw.com -- at Goodell DeVries Leech & Dann
LLP


BLUE SHIELD: Cal. App. Denies Petition for Writ of Mandate
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JESSICA BATH et al., Plaintiffs and
Respondents, v. BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and
Appellant, 2d Civil No. B254969 (Cal. Ct. App.), the Court of
Appeals of California treated Blue Shield of California's appeal
from a trial court's nonappealable order as a petition for a writ
of mandate and denied the petition.

Jessica Bath sued on behalf of a plaintiff class alleging that
Blue Shield had unlawfully rescinded healthcare insurance based
upon purported misrepresentations made on insurance applications.
The plaintiffs obtained declaratory judgment decreeing that Blue
Shield had the right to rescind coverage only if the subscriber
made an intentional material misrepresentations on the
application.

The trial court thereafter granted, in part, the plaintiffs'
request to enforce the judgment, by ordering Blue Shield to
compile a list of the class members who have been affected by the
application of the incorrect rescission standard.  Blue Shield
appealed, contending that the trial court exceeded its authority
by ordering coercive relief from a purely declaratory judgment.

The Court of Appeals of California held that the trial court's
order is preliminary to further proceedings and therefore
nonappealable.  Treating the appeal instead as a petition for a
writ of mandate, the appellate court concluded that the trial
court has equitable authority to award supplemental coercive
relief to give meaning to its prior declaration of rights, that it
acted appropriately by balancing the competing equities in
deciding whether to award such relief, and that it did not abuse
its discretion by requiring Blue Shield to compile a list of the
affected class members.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals of California's March 3,
2016 opinion is available at http://is.gd/vqgZfTfrom Leagle.com.

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, Gregory N. Pimstone --
gpimstone@manatt.com -- Brad W. Seiling -- bseiling@manatt.com --
Joanna S. McCallum -- jmccallum@manatt.com -- John T. Fogarty --
jfogarty@manatt.com -- for Defendant and Appellant.

Law Offices of Robert S. Gerstein, Robert S. Gerstein; Gianelli &
Morris,Robert S. Gianelli, Jully Chang Pae; Mattison Law Firm,
Raymond E. Mattison; Ernst Law Group, Don A. Ernst, for Plaintiffs
and Respondents.


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Final Approval Hearing Moved to July 14
-------------------------------------------------------------
The final hearing to consider approval of the settlement reached
in the case, JOSHUA SKEEN and LAURIE FREEMAN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BMW
OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; BMW
(U.S.) HOLDING CORP., a Delaware corporation; and BAYERISCHE
MOTORENWERK AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, a foreign corporation, Defendants,
Civ. No. 2:13-cv-1531-WHW-CLW (D.N.J.), has been rescheduled to
July 14, 2016, at 10:00 a.m.

In January 2016, Senior District Judge William H. Walls of the
District of New Jersey granted plaintiffs' unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement and scheduled the final
fairness hearing to assess the fairness, reasonableness, and
adequacy of the proposed settlement on May 9, 2016.

Plaintiffs are owners or lessees of MINI Coopers who allege that,
at the time of purchase, their vehicles contained a latent defect
in a part of the engine known as the timing chain tensioner which
causes the part to fail prematurely. The cars are second
generation MINI Coopers with an N12 or N14 engine, the MINI Cooper
R56 (Cooper Hardtop), 2007-2010 model years, the MINI Cooper R55
(MINI Clubman), 2008-2010 model years and the MINI Cooper R57
(MINI Cooper Convertible), 2009-2010 model years.
Plaintiffs include Joshua Skeen, from Georgia, Laurie Freeman,
from Illinois, Scott Lamb, Gina Romaggi, Emmanuel Nomikos, Vicki
Blasucci and Julian Mercado, from New Jersey, Gregory Abbott,
Kevin Kebabjian, Ginger Roach, James Stoecker, Patricia Curran,
and Candi Sossa, from California, Scott Bookhout, from Minnesota,
Michelle Colberg, from Arizona, Marta Motel, from Pennsylvania,
Heather Swango, from Florida, Karla Moreno-Vanni, from New York,
Lauren Sanders, from Texas, MaryAnne Howland, from Tennessee and
Teresa Welch from Arkansas.

Plaintiffs Skeen and Freeman first filed a complaint against BMW
of North America, LLC, BMW (U.S.) Holding Corp., and Bayerische
Motorenwerk Aktiengesellschaft on March 12, 2013. Plaintiffs filed
a first amended complaint on June 14, 2013, adding Lamb, Romaggi,
and Nomikos as Named Plaintiffs. Defendants moved to dismiss the
first amended complaint. On December 6, 2013, the court
consolidated the action with another action brought in the
district, Curran v. BMW of North America, LLC, 2:13-cv-4625,
dealing with similar subject matter.

On January 24, 2014, addressing only the first amended complaint
and not the consolidated claims from Curran, the court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. On
May 2, 2014, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
specifically incorporating the plaintiffs and claims asserted in
Curran and asserting the eighteen federal and state law claims,
including claims for breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranty, and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 2301 et seq., on behalf of themselves and the
entire nationwide class.

On April 17, 2014, Richard Kahn filed a putative class action
against defendants in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York dealing with similar subject matter,
but the sane has not yet been consolidated.

On November 23, 2015, plaintiffs announced that they and
defendants had agreed to a settlement with respect to owners and
lessees of vehicles with an N14 engine only.  The Defendants agree
to provide N14 Class members with four primary types of relief:

     1. N14 Class Vehicles will receive a warranty extension for
the timing-chain tensioner and timing chain for seven years or
100,000 miles from the date when the vehicle was first placed into
service, whichever comes first, subject to certain exceptions.

     2. N14 Class members will be entitled to reimbursement for
out-of-pocket expenses incurred before the effective settlement
date for repair and/or replacement of the timing chain and/or
timing-chain tensioner, subject to certain limitations.
Class members will be entitled to 100% of costs incurred at
authorized MINI dealers and up to $120 for timing-chain tensioners
and $850 for timing chains repaired or replaced at independent
service centers.

     3. N14 Class members will be entitled to reimbursement for up
to $4,500 in out-of-pocket expenses incurred before the effective
settlement date for repair and/or replacement of an engine because
of timingchain tensioner and/or timing chain failure, subject to
discounts based on mileage and the amount of time since their
vehicle was first placed into service, as well as certain other
limitations.

     4. N14 Class members will be entitled to compensation of up
to $2,250 if they had to sell their vehicle at a loss before the
effective settlement date due to an unrepaired damaged or failed
engine caused by timing-chain tensioner and/or timing chain
failure, again subject to discounts based on mileage and the time
since their vehicle was first placed into service, as well as
certain other limitations.

The parties have not specified the total dollar value of the
settlement because the total amount paid out by Defendants will
depend on the number and nature of claims submitted by N14 Class
members, but Plaintiffs' counsel estimated at oral argument on
January 6, 2016 that the settlement's total value may be in excess
of $30 million.

Under the settlement agreement, Plaintiffs' counsel may apply to
the Court for a total award of fees and expenses not more than
$2,320,000.  Defendants agree not to object to an application for
an award of up to $1,820,000.  Defendants also agree not to oppose
an application for service awards of $4,000 each to the 18 Class
Representatives.

In the January Order, the Court appointed as class counsel the
firms Khorrami Boucher Sumner Sanguinetti, LLP (now Boucher LLP),
Cafferty Clobes Meriweather & Sprengel LLP, Markun Zusman Freniere
Compton LLP, and Pinilis Halpern, LLP.  The Court also appointed
Kiesel Law LLP, Ahdoot & Wolfson PC, and Morgan & Morgan Complex
Litigation Group, all of whom Plaintiffs represent are
"exceedingly qualified in class action and complex litigation" and
whose resumes and curriculum vitae Plaintiffs have attached to
their proposed settlement agreement.

A copy of Judge Walls's opinion dated January 6, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/U81kY4from Leagle.com.

Joshua Skeen and Laurie Freeman, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey
Alan Koncius -- koncius@kbla.com -- Kiesel Larson LLP; William J.
Pinilis -- wpinilis@consumerfraudlawyer.com -- at Pinilis Halpern

Scott Lamb, Gina Romaggi and Emmanuel Nomikos, PlaintiffS,
represented by William J. Pinilis --
wpinilis@consumerfraudlawyer.com -- at Pinilis Halpern

Patricia Curran, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Bryan L. Clobes
-- bclobes@caffertyclobes.com -- AT cafferty clobes meriwether &
sprengel LLP; William J. Pinilis at Pinilis Halpern

Defendants BMW of North America, LLC, BMW (US) Holding Corp., and
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft, are represented by
Christopher J. Dalton -- christopher.dalton@bipc.com -- at
Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney, PC; Rosemary Joan Bruno --
rosemary.bruno@bipc.com -- at Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney, PC;
and Daniel Zev Rivlin -- daniel.rivlin@bipc.com -- at Buchanan
Ingersoll & Rooney PC


BODEGA LATINA: Violated Unruh Act, "Bell" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
Richard Bell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Bodega Latina Corporation d/b/a El
Super, the Defendant, Case No. BC607791 (Cal. Super. Ct., County
of Los Angeles, January 20, 2016), seeks statutory damages and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Unruh Act,
California Civil Code.

Bodega Latina Corporation, doing business as El Super, operates
food retail stores in California, Arizona, and Nevada. Its stores
provide fruits and vegetables, meats and fish, deli products,
bakery products, groceries, and kitchen products. The company was
founded in 1997 and is based in Paramount, California. The Company
is based in Paramount, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          9595 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 534 2590
          Facsimile: (310) 247 0160


BURT'S BEES: Violated NY Gen. Business Law, "Healy" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea Healy, individually on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Burt's Bees, Inc. and The
Clorox Company, the Defendants, Case No. 150507/2016 (NY Sup. Ct.,
County of New York, January 20, 2016), seeks remedies from
Defendants' deceptive and misleading practices constituting a
deceptive act and practice in the conduct of its business in
violation of New York General Business Law.

According to the suit, Defendants' product is not "100% Natural"
because it contains the synthetic ingredient, maltodextrin. The
Defendants use the "100% NATURAL" claim to fool consumers into
believing that the product does not contain synthetic ingredients.
In so doing, Defendants have materially misled and deceived
consumers, and they have allegedly violated consumer protection
laws.

Burt's Bees is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
business located at Oakland, California. Clorox Company is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located
at Oakland, California. The Defendants manufactures, sells,
markets, distributes, advertises, and promotes the product
throughout New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lipari, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
          77 Water St. 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10005 (646) 722-4266


BYO CO: "Islam" Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
Bodrul Islam, Uzzol Siddiky, Ashraf Ahmed, and all others
similarly-situated v. BYO Co., (USA) Ltd. dba EN Japanese
Brasserie, Case No. 1:16-cv-00927 (S.D.N.Y., February 5, 2016), is
brought against the Defendant for minimum wage violations under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendant owns and operates a restaurant in New York.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Jeanne Christensen, Esq.
      Tanvir H. Rahman, Esq.
      WIGDOR LLP
      85 Fifth Avenue
      New York, NY 10003
      Tel: (212) 257-6800
      Fax: (212) 257-6845
      E-mail: jchristensen@wigdorlaw.com
              trahman@wigdorlaw.com


CANADA: Mother Mulls Class Action Over Cancelled Bus Passes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mary Griffinon, writing for Chek, reports that Delphine Charmley
says the government broke its promise to her sons, and other
British Columbians with disabilities.

Brandon has physical and developmental disabilities and Nick has
autism, visual impairment and cerebral palsy.

And they travel to and from games, and rely on their bus passes to
get around.

"Those bus passes are a promise to provide a service for these
people on disability, and the government is now breaching it."

As of September first, people with disabilities will receive a $77
per month increase to their monthly benefits.

But the annual 45 dollar bus pass is cancelled.

Instead, they'll be charged 52 dollars a month, plus an annual $45
administration fee.

NDP Leader John Horgan spoke at a rally outside the legislature
and promised to help.

"It empowers us to go into the legislature and make sure we
overturn the most despicable, nasty decision the government has
ever made."

Now she's planning a class action lawsuit unless the government
changes the policy.

"The priorities that the government set were families first.

It seems to me to be LNG first.

Families come secondary.

Not OK.

Priorities need to be switched around and leave these bus passes
alone and give them their increase."

Brandon hopes that his mother's efforts will make a difference.

"It's very important to me.

To not only get to places, that I need to get to.

But just to be able to go to see my friends."

Ms. Charmley says she's received interest from dozens of families
are interested in joining her potential lawsuit.


CANADA: NPCA May Face Class Suit Over Welland River Flood Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Campbell, writing for Postmedia Network, reports that more
than 600 neighbours of the Welland River flowed into four town
hall meetings to learn about a flood plain mapping project.

They left many questions on display boards but received few
immediate answers.

They asked about the effects of lines -- showing potential flood
water flow in a major storm -- on development, insurance, farming,
property values and building replacement.

The answers come later, said Andrea Bourrie, a consultant working
with Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, during a town hall
meeting of 175 people in Wellandport, the last in a series of
meetings that were also held in Chippawa, Welland and Caistor
Centre.

Ms. Bourrie said consultants gathered information and raised
awareness about the floodplain mapping process.

NPCA had sent letters promoting the meetings to 5,000 residents
living within 500 metres of the Welland River from the Binbrook
Dam to the Niagara River at Chippawa.

Still ahead are two more rounds: a technical round in April and
presentations of findings in the fall.

Provincial legislation governing conservation authorities requires
maps of potential flood areas during a major storm,
Ms. Bourrie said.

Construction in those areas would be prohibited or restricted to
protect residents and property.

The existing Welland River floodplain plan lines were drawn in
1985.

In 2010, NPCA tried to update those lines with current information
but dropped the project because it failed to consult residents
along the river.

The consultant's report this fall will contain flood lines using
current technology and resident information. It will include
development and other restrictions to limit flooding damage.

Answers to residents' questions submitted at the meetings will be
in the final report and background material, said Ms. Bourrie.

At the Wellandport Community Centre residents from West Lincoln,
Welland, Wainfleet and Pelham threw out many questions and
comments.

David Honey of the Niagara Land Owners Association warned
homeowners against signing anything, calling a 500-metre area on
maps a legal encumbrance on their property.

NPCA could potentially face a class action lawsuit from the 5,000
residents affected, he said.

A federation of agriculture representative wanted to know if the
flood lines would interfere with normal farming practices.

An insurance agent said he has been receiving inquiries from
clients along the river about their policies and was not sure how
to answer.

A homeowner asked about compensation, if his home suddenly fell
within the new floodplain lines.

There were questions about Ontario Power Generation's influence on
the back flow of the Welland River from its hydro canal on the
Niagara River.

NPCA's earlier town hall meetings each drew about 150 people.

NPCA executive director Carmen D'Angelo said "we are very pleased
that with the four primary town hall meetings there was good
attendance and many of the participants provided feedback by
verbal questions and comments, one-to-one discussions, comment
cards and e-mails."

The second set of meetings, he said, will focus on technical
aspects so that the public and stakeholders "will have an
understanding how we will create the floodplain maps."

The third set will disclose the findings that will be presented to
the NPCA board of directors for approval.

"This will be conducted concurrently with an update on policy
associated with the maps," D'Angelo said.


CARPACCIO INC: "Badillo" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT & Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Juan J. Badillo and other similarly-situated individuals, the
Plaintiff, v. Carpaccio, Inc. and Marcelo Scagliori, individually
the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-20359-JAL (S.D. Fla., Miami
Division, January 30, 2016), seeks to recover money damages for
unpaid overtime wages under the laws of the United States and the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Carpaccio, Inc. is an Italian restaurant located in Miami-Dade
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CARPENTERS PENSION: Cour Rules on Motions for Damages, Costs
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ROGER SCHLEBEN, Plaintiff, v. CARPENTERS
PENSION TRUST FUND - DETROIT AND VICINITY, and TRUSTEES OF
CARPENTERS PENSION TRUST FUND - DETROIT AND VICINITY, Defendants.
THOMAS E. UNDERWOOD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CARPENTERS PENSION TRUST FUND--
DETROIT AND VICINITY, and TRUSTEES OF CARPENTERS PENSION TRUST
FUND--DETROIT AND VICINITY, Defendants, Case Nos. 14-cv-11564, 13-
cv-14464 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Laurie J. Michelson granted in part:

     -- plaintiff Roger Schleben's motion for damages; and
     -- plaintiff Thomas E. Underwood's motions for prejudgment
        interest and for costs and attorney's fees.

Schleben and Underwood filed separate suits arising from
amendments to the Carpenters Pension Trust Fund-Detroit and
Vicinity (the "Plan") that were made by the fund's trustees which
reduced the disability benefits that Schleben, Underwood and
others had already started to receive.  The Plan is a
multiemployer benefits plan subject to the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA).

In September 2014, Judge Michelson granted summary judgment in
Underwood's favor, holding that to the extent that the amendment
reduced the benefits that Underwood and other class members had
already started to receive on the date the amendment became
effective, it violated the Plan and was unenforceable.  Judge
Michelson also dismissed a motion to dismiss Schleben's complaint
for similar reasons.

In October 2014, the trustees amended the Plan's amendment
provision to permit amendments that reduce the benefits of
participants already receiving them.  In September 2015, Judge
Michelson held that the amendment violated the Plan's terms,
granting Underwood's and Schleben's motions for summary judgment.

These motions were then filed: (1) Schleben's motion for damages;
(2) Underwood's motion for prejudgment interest; and (3)
Underwood's motion for costs and attorneys' fees.

Judge Michelson granted in part:

          -- Schleben's Motion for Damages, and awarding
             Schleben: (1) prejudgment interest at a rate of
             5.48% to be applied using the stream of benefits
             method; (2) attorneys' fees of $71,110.00;
             (3) and costs of $416.52;

          -- Underwood's Motion for Prejudgment Interest, and
             awarding Underwood prejudgment interest at a rate of
             5.48% to be applied using the stream of benefits
             method; and

          -- Underwood's Motion for Costs and Attorneys' Fees,
             and awarding Underwood (1) attorneys' fees of
             $699,758.00; and (2) costs of $16,441.63.

A full-text copy of Michelson's March 2, 2016 opinion and order is
available at http://is.gd/CibBBNfrom Leagle.com.

Thomas E. Underwood, Plaintiff, represented by Eva T. Cantarella -
- ecantarella@hertzschram.com -- Hertz, Schram.

Carpenters Pension Trust Fund - Detroit and Vicinity Pension Plan,
Carpenters Pension Trust Fund - Trustees of Detroit and Vicinity
Pension Plan, Defendants, represented by Edward J. Pasternak --
Novara, Tesija.

Donald E. Lee, Interested Party, represented by Eva T. Cantarella,
Hertz, Schram.


CENTURY SURETY: MSPA Claims 1 Suit Removed to State Court
---------------------------------------------------------
MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. Century Surety Company, CASE #: 1:16-cv-
20752-DPG (S.D. Fla.) for recovery of Medicare was removed to
state court and assigned to Judge Darrin P. Gayles on March 1,
2016.

Case in another court: 11th Judicial Circuit Court, 16-001334-CA-
01

Century Surety Company offers commercial property, casualty, and
marine insurance.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Arlenys Perdomo, Esq.
     MSP RECOVERY
     5000 SW 75th Ave, #400
     Miami, FL 33155
     Phone: (305) 614-2222

        - and -

     Brian Phillip Cournoyer, Esq.
     MSP RECOVERY
     5000 SW 75th Ave, #400
     Miami, FL 33155
     Phone: (305) 479-0828
     E-mail: bcournoyer@msprecovery.com

        - and -

     Christine Marie Lugo, Esq.
     MSP RECOVERY
     5000 SW 75th Ave, #400
     Miami, FL 33155
     Phone: (305) 614-2222
     E-mail: clugo002@fiu.edu

        - and -

     Eric Michael Fresco, Esq.
     MSP RECOVERY
     5000 SW 75th Ave, #400
     Miami, FL 33155
     Phone: (786) 314-4106
     E-mail: fresco.eric@gmail.com

        - and -

     Frank Carlos Quesada, Esq.
     MSP Recovery Law Firm
     5000 SW 75th Avenue, Suite 400
     Suite 400
     Miami, FL 33155
     Phone: (305) 614-2222
     Fax: (866) 582-0907
     E-mail: fquesada@msprecovery.com

        - and -

     Gino Moreno, Esq.
     LA LEY LAW FIRM
     5000 SW 75th Avenue
     Suite 400
     Miami, FL 33155
     Phone: (305) 614-2222
     E-mail: gmoreno@msprecovery.com

        - and -

     Gustavo Javier Losa, Esq.
     MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
     5000 SW 75th Avenue
     Suite 400
     Miami, FL 33155
     Phone: (305) 614-2239
     E-mail: glosa@lawofficeslaley.com

        - and -

     John Hasan Ruiz, Esq.
     MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
     5000 SW 75th Ave
     Suite 400
     Miami, FL 33155
     Phone: (305) 614-2222
     Fax: (866) 582-0907
     E-mail: jruiz@msprecovery.com

        - and -

     Justin Matthew Tolley, Esq.
     MSP RECOVERY
     5000 S.W. 75th Ave.
     Miami, FL 33155
     Phone: (804) 840-3090
     Fax: (804) 840-3090

        - and -

     Rebecca Rubin-del Rio, Esq.
     MSP RECOVERY
     5040 NW 7th Street
     Suite PH1
     Miami, FL 33126
     E-mail: rdelrioruizlaw@aol.com

        - and -

     John H. Ruiz PA
     MSP RECOVERY
     Timothy J Van, Esq.
     MSP Recovery
     5000 SW 75th Avenue, Suite 400
     Miami, FL 33155
     Phone: (305) 905-6365
     Fax: (305) 614-2233
     E-mail: tvanname@att.net


The Defendant is represented by:

     John Patrick Marino, Es.
     SMITH GAMBRELL RUSSELL
     50 N Laura Street
     Suite 2600
     Jacksonville, FL 32202
     Phone: (904) 598-6104
     Fax: (904) 598-6204
     E-mail: jmarino@sgrlaw.com

        - and -

     Kristen Lindsay Wenger, Esq.
     FOWLER WHITE BOGGS, P.A.
     50 North Laura Street
     Suite 2800
     Jacksonville, FL 32202
     Phone: (904) 598-3100
     Fax: (904) 598-3131

        - and -

     Edward Keenan Cottrell, Esq.
     Smith Gambrell Russell, Esq.
     SMITH GAMBRELL RUSSELL
     50 N Laura Street
     Suite 2600
     Jacksonville, FL 32202
     Phone: (904) 598-6132
     Fax: 598-6232
     E-mail: ecottrell@sgrlaw.com


CHASE BANK: Settlement in "Gehrich" Case, Incentive Awards Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JONATHAN I. GEHRICH, ROBERT LUND, COREY
GOLDSTEIN, PAUL STEMPLE and CARRIE COUSER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CHASE BANK
USA, N.A., and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendants, No. 12 C
5510 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Gary Feinerman granted the plaintiffs'
motions for class certification and incentive awards, and granted
in part and denied in part the motions for attorney fees and
settlement approval.

In July 2012, a putative class action was filed by Jonathan
Gehrich against Chase Bank for alleged violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").  On August 2014, the parties
moved for preliminary approval of their settlement and conditional
certification of a settlement class.  The court granted the motion
and approved a notice program for the class.  Thereafter, the
plaintiffs moved to certify the settlement class, for attorney
fees and expenses and an incentive award for the five class
representatives, and for final approval of the settlement.

Judge Feinerman found that the proposed class satisfies
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3) and is ascertainable.  Thus, the
judge concluded that certification is appropriate.

Judge Feinerman also approved the proposed incentive awards of
$1,500 to each of the five class representatives to reward them
for their participation as named plaintiffs in the suit.

The judge granted an attorney fee award of $7,257,914.10.  The
$2,249,688.90 difference between the requested fee and the awarded
fee is returned to the common fund.

Judge Feinerman found that proposed settlement agreement is "fair,
reasonable, and adequate"' and therefore satisfies Rule 23(e)(3).
However, the judge modified the settlement such that the
distribution of the $34 million common fund is as follows:

          (1) Collection Call Subclass Member claims in the
              amount of $21,531,656.39;

          (2) a dedicated cy pres distribution of $50,000 to
              the Consumer Federation of America;

          (3) settlement administration expenses of approximately
              $5,152,929.51;

          (4) court-approved incentive awards to the five class
              representatives in the amount of $1,500 each
              ($7,500 total); and

          (5) court-approved attorney fees and costs of
              $7,257,914.10.

A full-text copy of Judge Feinerman's March 2, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/Nfw9wkfrom
Leagle.com.

Jonathan I. Gehrich, Plaintiff, represented by Beth Ellen Terrell
-- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Law Group
PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark Daniel Ankcorn, Ankcorn Law Firm, PC,
Syed Ali Saeed, Saeed & Little, Llp, pro hac vice, Todd M
Friedman, Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. & Alexander Holmes
Burke -- aburke@burkelawllc.com -- Burke Law Offices, LLC.

Robert Lund, Plaintiff, represented by Gayle Meryl Blatt --
gmb@cglaw.com -- Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt & Penfield
Llp, pro hac vice, Mark Daniel Ankcorn, Ankcorn Law Firm, PC, Todd
M Friedman, Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. &Alexander
Holmes Burke, Burke Law Offices, LLC.

Corey Goldstein, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Daniel Ankcorn,
Ankcorn Law Firm, PC, Todd M Friedman, Law Offices of Todd M.
Friedman, P.C. & Alexander Holmes Burke, Burke Law Offices, LLC.

Paul Stemple, Carrie Couser, Plaintiffs, represented by Abbas
Kazerounian, Kazerounian Law Group, APC, pro hac vice, Joshua
Branden Swigart -- josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- Hyde & Swigart,
pro hac vice, Mark Daniel Ankcorn, Ankcorn Law Firm, PC, Todd M
Friedman, Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. & Alexander Holmes
Burke, Burke Law Offices, LLC.

Chase Bank USA, N.A., Defendant, represented by Julia B Strickland
-- jstrickland@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, LLP,
Julieta Stepanyan -- jstepanyan@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock &
Lavan Llp, pro hac vice, Kenneth Michael Kliebard --
kkliebard@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Tedd
Macrae Warden -- twarden@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP & Arjun Patibandla Rao -- arao@stroock.com -- Stroock &
Stroock & Lavan Llp, pro hac vice.

J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Julieta
Stepanyan, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan Llp, pro hac vice & Kenneth
Michael Kliebard, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Evan Davis, Movant, represented by Stacy Michelle Bardo, Bardo
Law, P.C..


CHASE RECEIVABLES: "Sandoval" Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
GEORGINA SANDOVAL v. CHASE RECEIVABLES, INC. and JOHN DOES 1 TO
10, CASE #: 2:16-cv-01175-WJM-MF (D.N.J., March 2, 2016), alleges
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The case was assigned to Judge William J. Martini and referred to
Magistrate Judge Mark Falk.

Chase Receivables, Inc. is a collection agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHATOUS INC: Faces "Morgan" Class Suit in Florida District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Morgan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Chatous, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Case
No. 3:16-cv-00143-HES-JRK (M.D. Fla., February 17, 2016) arises
from alleged restrictions on use of telephone equipment.

Chatous, Inc., operates an online chat Web site that optimizes
interactions using big data algorithms.  The Company was founded
in 2012 and is based in Chesterbrook, Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
          NORMAND LAW, PLLC
          4551 New Broad St.
          Orlando, FL 32814-6048
          Telephone: (407) 625-9043
          E-mail: ed@ednormand.com


CHECK-6 INC: Faces "Goodly" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Goodly, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other persons
similarly situated v. Check-6 Inc., et al., Defendant, Case No.
2:16-cv-01936 (E.D. La., March 7, 2016) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Check-6 -- http//www.checksix.com/ -- provides training to
personnel of companies in the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     George B. Recile, Esq.
     Preston L. Hayes, Esq.
     Mathew A. Sherman, Esq.
     Patrick R. Follette, Esq.
     CHEHARDY, SHERMAN, WILLIAMS, MURRAY,
       RECILE, STAKELUM & HAYES, LLP
     One Galleria Blvd., Suite 1100
     Metairie, LA 70001
     Tel: 504-833-5600
     Fax: 504-833-8080


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Oklahoma Landowner Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Kallanish Energy reports that attorneys for a northwest Oklahoma
landowner filed a class-action lawsuit against Aubrey McClendon's
former company, Chesapeake Energy, alleging a conspiracy involving
another energy executive, Tom L. Ward.

Mr. McClendon, one of the best known oil and gas men in North
America, was indicted on March 1 alleging bid-rigging in Oklahoma.

One day later, Mr. McClendon was killed in a fiery one-vehicle
crash on a two-lane road in North Oklahoma City.

The U.S. Department of Justice alleged in the indictment against
Mr. McClendon that he and unnamed co-conspirators orchestrated the
rigging of bids for landowner leases in northwest Oklahoma.

"No comment," Gordon Pennoyer, Chesapeake spokesman, told
Kallanish Energy.

Mr. Ward, a longtime friend of McClendon's who co-founded
Chesapeake with Mr. McClendon in the late 1980s, was the CEO of
SandRidge Energy at the time the conspiracy was alleged to have
occurred.

Warren Burns, one of the attorneys who filed the class-action
lawsuit, said it appears Ward and SandRidge are the unindicted co-
conspirators listed in the indictment against Mr. McClendon.

SandRidge has disclosed in filings with the Securities and
Exchange Commission that it was the subject of a grand jury
investigation into violations of federal antitrust law and that it
is cooperating with federal investigators.

Mr. Ward was tossed from Oklahoma City-based SandRidge in 2013,
after a proxy fight and later formed his own company, Tapstone
Energy.

Messrs. Ward and McClendon co-founded Chesapeake in 1989, with an
initial $50,000 investment, and helped grow the company into one
of the nation's largest independent producers of natural gas.

The class-action case, Thieme v. Chesapeake Energy Corp., et al.,
filed in federal court in the Western District of Oklahoma, states
the class could ultimately include thousands of affected royalty
owners in the Anadarko Basin Region.

The Anadarko stretches beyond northwest Oklahoma into north Texas,
southeast Colorado and Kansas.  The suit specifies 42 counties in
Oklahoma, 50 in Kansas, 14 in Texas and two in Colorado where the
alleged scheme involved producing wells and leases.


CHEVRON USA: 5th Cir. Upholds Remand Order in "Adams" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit affirmed a
district court order granting a motion to remand a lawsuit against
various defendants, including Chevron USA.

The appellate case is, EARL A. ADAMS, JR.; ALFRED ALEXANDER;
JENELL ANTOINE; PAUL J. ARMAND; ALICIA AUGUSTE, Plaintiffs-
Appellees, v. JOSEPH F. GREFER, Defendant-Appellant. CHEVRON USA,
INCORPORATED; CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS LONDON; BISHOPSGATE
INSURANCE LIMITED; CORNHILL INSURANCE, P.L.C.; HANSA MARINE
INSURANCE COMPANY U. K. LIMITED; MINISTER INSURANCE COMPANY,
LIMITED; NORTHERN ASSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED; OCEAN MARINE
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED; SIRIUS INSURANCE COMPANY UK LIMITED;
SKANDIA UK INSURANCE, P.L.C.; SPHERE DRAKE INSURANCE COMPANY UK
LIMITED; TERRA NOVA INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED; VESTA UK INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED; YASUDA FIRE; MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY OF EUROPE
LIMITED; ZURICH RE UK LIMITED; OILFIELD TESTERS, INCORPORATED;
RIVERSTONE INSURANCE UK LIMITED, formerly known as Sphere Drake
Insurance, P.L.C.; ALLIANZ INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED; YORKSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED; EXXON MOBIL
CORPORATION; SEXTON OIL; MINERAL CORPORATION; INTRACOASTAL TUBULAR
SERVICES, INCORPORATED; ALPHA TECHNICAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED;
OFS, INCORPORATED; BP EXPLORATION; OIL, INCORPORATED; BP AMERICA
PRODUCTION COMPANY, formerly known as Amoco Production Company; BP
EXPLORATION; PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY;
CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY; ANADARKO U.S. OFFSHORE CORPORATION,
formerly known as Kerr-McGee Oil and Gas Corporation; MOBIL
EXPLORATION AND PRODUCING US, INCORPORATED; RATHBORNE COMPANIES,
L.L.C.; RATHBORNE LAND COMPANY, L.L.C.; RATHBORNE PROPERTIES,
L.L.C.; TUBULAR CORPORATION; JOHN GANDY, INCORPORATED; ARCO OIL;
GAS COMPANY; L B FOSTER COMPANY; 51 OIL COMPANY; SHELL OFFSHORE,
INCORPORATED; SHELL OIL COMPANY; SWEPI, L.P.; TEXACO,
INCORPORATED; MARATHON OIL COMPANY; TRANSCO EXPLORATION COMPANY,
as successor of Exchange Oil; Gas Corporation, Defendants-
Appellees, No. 15-31091 (5th Cir.)

In 2002, the plaintiffs filed a mass action suit against the
defendants in Louisiana state court. The suit alleged personal
injury and property damage from contamination exposure. The
plaintiffs filed amended and supplemental petitions in January
2004, January 2015, and August 2015.

After the August 2015 amendment, defendant-appellant Joseph F.
Grefer removed the case to the Eastern District of Louisiana under
the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA)and argued that the
last amended petition added new plaintiffs and claims under
Louisiana law, thereby commencing a new action and opening a new
window of removal under CAFA.

The plaintiffs moved for remand, and the district court granted
the motion.  Grefer filed a motion to appeal the remand order.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the Remand order in a judgment dated
February 16, 2016, a copy of which is available at
http://goo.gl/1jBjcGfrom Leagle.com.

The Fifth Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Edith Brown
Clement, Leslie H. Southwick and Jennifer Walker Elrod.


CHICAGO, IL: Court Narrows Claims in "Conyers" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted the City of
Chicago's motion to dismiss with respect to the Fifth Amendment
claim in the case captioned, BLAKE CONYERS, LAMAR EWING, AND KEVIN
FLINT, individually and for a class Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF
CHICAGO, Defendant, Case No. 12 C 06144 (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiffs Blake Conyers, Lamar Ewing, and Kevin Flint,
individually and on behalf of a class, bring claims under 42
U.S.C. Sec. 1983 against the City of Chicago. The plaintiffs
allege that the City's policies pertaining to the destruction of
personal property items seized from arrestees at the City's police
station violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

All three plaintiffs remained incarcerated in the Jail throughout
the 30-day period following their respective arrests. Plaintiffs
Conyers and Ewing attempted to retrieve their property while
incarcerated before learning that it had been destroyed.

In the motion, the City argues that the Complaint (1) does not
assert a valid Sec. 1983 claim based on the Fifth Amendment
because the plaintiffs have not exhausted state law remedies, and
(2) it does not assert a valid Sec.1983 claim based on the
Fourteenth Amendment because the plaintiffs have not satisfied the
standing requirements of Article III.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated February 10, 2016
available at http://is.gd/0ZHgQvfrom Leagle.com, Judge Tharp, Jr.
denied dismissal of the Fourteenth Amendment finding that the
plaintiffs have adequately alleged that the notice provided by the
City here was not "published, generally available state statutes
and case law"  and granted Plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment Complaint
because they cannot bring an as-applied Takings Clause challenge
in federal court until they have pursued all state law remedies
that are available to them.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Thomas Gerard Morrissey, Esq.
     Patrick William Morrissey, Esq.
     THOMAS G. MORRISSEY, LTD.
     10249 S Western Ave.
     Chicago, IL 60643
     Tel: (773)233-7900

          - and -

     Joel A. Flaxman, Esq.
     Kenneth N. Flaxman, Esq.
     KENNETH N. FLAXMAN, P.C.
     200 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 201
     Chicago, IL 06604
     Tel: (312) 427-3200

City of Chicago is represented by Allan T. Slagel, Esq. --
aslagel@taftlaw.com -- Brian Weinthal, Esq. --
bweinthal@taftlaw.com -- & Jonathan B. Amarilio, Esq. -
jamarilio@taftlaw.com -- TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP


CILS LTD: "Amador" Suit Seeks Wages and Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Gina Amador, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly-situated v. CILS, LTD d/b/a Club
International Limousine ("Club") and Dennis Pettrucci, Defendants,
Case No. 7:16-cv-01733-VB (S.D.N.Y., March 7, 2016) is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime
pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant operates a business shuttling passengers between
airports and across state lines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
     Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
     Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
     Borrelli & Associates, P.L.L.C.
     655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821
     New York, NY 10017
     Tel: (212) 679-5000


COASTAL CHEMICAL: "Rooks" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Kurtis Rooks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiffs, v. Coastal Chemical Co., LLC, Defendant, Case
4:16-cv-00296 (S.D. Tex., Houston Division, February 3, 2016),
seeks unpaid back wages due, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees,
unpaid benefits and compensation, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest and other and further relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a land technician maintaining
wells of its oil and gas clients and providing related chemical,
technical, and logistic services. He worked in excess of 40 hours
a week without overtime compensation.

Defendant is an oilfield service company with significant
operations throughout the United States in Texas, Louisiana,
Wyoming, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Colorado.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

      Richard J. Burch
      BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 877-8788
      Fax: (713) 877-8065
      Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
             mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
             jbresler@fibichlaw.com


COLORADO: Class Certification Denied for "Reed" Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned GREGORY REED, ALONZO BUGGS, J.H. KRAFT,
VINCENT TRUJILLO, Plaintiffs, v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,
RICK RAEMISCH, JAMES FALK, FRANCES FALK, ROBERTA WALTERS, MATTHEW
HANSEN, RYAN LONG, THOMAS LITTLE, HUERMAN, Lt., T. MASONCUP,
YATES, Captain, FLORY, Sgt., MARY CARLSON, and THERESA REYNOLDS,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-cv-00405-GPG (D. Colo.), Judge
Lewis T. Babcock denied class certification and the joinder of
plaintiffs, and dismissed without prejudice, all plaintiffs except
the first named plaintiff, Gregory Reed.

Gregory Reed and three other plaintiffs, all of whom are in the
custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections ("CDOC") at the
correctional facility in Limon, Colorado, filed a Prisoner
Complaint claiming, inter alia, violations to their rights under
the First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Fourth Amendment and
Eighth Amendment.  Reed filed a Motion to Certify the Class.

Judge Babcock found that class certification is inappropriate
because of the logistical and administrative constraints pro se
inmate litigants experience, which severely restricts their
ability to investigate class claims and contact class members.

Judge Babcock also found that the claims for relief asserted by
each of the four plaintiffs do not arise out of the same
transaction or occurrence, and are not asserted against all of the
defendants.  The judge also noted that joint litigation may be
difficult because of the transitory nature of prison populations.
The judge thus dismissed the three plaintiffs, other than Reed,
without prejudice.  Each dismissed plaintiff is free to initiate a
new civil action.

Reed was directed to cure deficiencies in the submitted documents,
if he wishes to pursue his claims.

A full-text copy of Judge Babcock's February 25, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/lI7y2tfrom Leagle.com.


COLORADO: CDOC Faces Suit for Alleged Civil Rights Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
James Faircloth, Eddie Himes, Charles Campbell, Mark Bresqko, Mark
Atkerson, v. Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC),
Rick Raemisch, Rick (I) Raemisch, Roger Werholtz, Roger (I)
Werholtz, Tony Carochi, Tony (I) Carochi, Aristedes Zavaris
Aristedes (I) Zavaris, Joe Ortiz, Joe (I) Ortiz, John Suthers,
John (I) Suthers, State of Colorado, John Hickenlooper, John (I)
Hickenlooper, CDOC DIrector Clinical Services, CDOC Director of
Clinical Services (I), CDOC Clinical Services Managment Team, CDOC
Clinical Services Management Team (I), J. Russell, J. (I) Russell,
Brian Hoffman, Brian (I) Hoffman, M. Wienpahl, M. (I) Wienpahl,
Boyd, Boyd (I), Walker (I), Warden of Centennial Correctional
Facility, Warden of Centennial Correctional Facility (I),
Associate Director of Legal Services for CDOC, Associate Director
of Legal Services for CDOC (I), Colorado Board of Parole
Colorado Board of Parole (I), V. Simpson, V. (I) Simpson, CMC-FMCC
Warden, Official capacity, Angel (I) Medina, S. Kirkman S. (I)
Kirkman, Corrections Corporation of America, Damon Henninger
Damon (I) Henninger, Michael Miller, Michael (I) Miller, Judy
Brezindine, Judy (I) Brezindine, Jody Sinker, and Judy (I) Sinker,
CASE #: 1:16-cv-00513 (D. Col., March 1, 2016), arises out of
alleged Civil Rights violation.

The Colorado Department of Corrections is the principal department
of the Colorado state government that operates the state prisons.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James Faircloth, Esq.
     CROWLEY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY (CCCF)
     6564 State Highway 96
     Olney Springs, CO 81062-8700

        - and -

     Eddie Himes, Esq.
     FOUR MILE CORRECTIONAL CENTER (FMCC)
     P.O. Box 300
     Canon City, CO 81215

        - and -

     Charles Campbell, Esq.
     FOUR MILE CORRECTIONAL CENTER (FMCC)
     P.O. Box 300
     Canon City, CO 81215

        - and -

     Mark Bresqko, Esq.
     CROWLEY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY (CCCF)
     6564 State Highway 96
     Olney Springs, CO 81062-8700

        - and -

     Mark Atkerson, Esq.
     CROWLEY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY (CCCF)
     6564 State Highway 96
     Olney Springs, CO 81062-8700


COMMINSURE: Watson Law Group Mulls Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Sarah Danckert, writing for Tye Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that the scandal engulfing the Commonwealth Bank's insurance arm
CommInsure could lead to a class action being brought on behalf of
customers who believe they have had their claims unfairly
rejected.

Law firm Watson Law Group is investigating a class action against
CommInsure brought by its customers following revelations by
Fairfax Media and Four Corners the insurer had acted unethically
towards its customers in processing life insurance claims.
The class action will open to anyone who has had a life insurance,
total permanent disability insurance, income protection insurance
or trauma insurance claim rejected.
The Brisbane-based law firm has been involved in preparing a class
action against failed financial advice outfit Sherwin Financial.

A spokeswoman for the Commonwealth Bank said: "We encourage our
customers to contact the bank if they have any concerns".
The media investigation revealed over the weekend that a review by
CommInsure of 40 found that potentially more than half of trauma
claims could have been declined due to CommInsure using outdated
definition of what classifies as a heart attack.
On March 7 the joint media investigation revealed the bank had
also been unfairly treating its customers who had claims rejected
relating to mental health issues.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has launched
an investigation into CommInsure following the revelations by the
joint media investigation.

It's the second major scandal to hit the bank in the past three
years.  In 2013, Fairfax Media revealed serious misconduct by a
large number of financial planners working either directly for the
bank's financial advice units or as authorized representatives of
the bank's financial planning arms.

The Commonwealth Bank was subject to two enforceable undertakings
as a result of the systemic issues in its financial planning arms
and an open review and compensation program for customers of its
financial planners and those planners authorised by the bank.

"The statistics revealed by the investigation and the CommInsure
review are shocking.  CommInsure clearly had the advice before
them that their treatment of customers was unfair and they
proceeded to reject claims on that unfair basis anyway," Watson
Law Group principal Paul Watson said.

"Consumers need to be able to trust that when they pay their
premiums in good faith the insurer will hold up their end of the
bargain," Mr. Watson said.

Mr. Watson said life insurance was very important to consumers and
they had paid "good money" for the cover.

"If insurers behave like this it can lead to less people obtaining
insurance cover because they don't trust insurers,"
Mr. Watson said.

"Australia already has a big underinsurance problem and it is
important that insurers don't contribute to that problem," he
said.


COMPETITOR GROUP: Volunteer's Suit Against Race Operator Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ronnie L. White of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count I; denied, as
moot, Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Conditional Class
Certification and Court-Authorized Notice; and dismissed, without
prejudice Plaintiffs state law claims for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, in the case YVETTE JOY LIEBESMAN, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
COMPETITOR GROUP, Defendant, No. 4:14-CV-1653 RLW (E.D. Mo.)

Competitor operates the Rock 'n' Roll Marathon/Half-Marathon
Series of races. The Rock 'n' Roll Marathon/Half-Marathon Series
has been staged in approximately 24 locations, including the St.
Louis Rock 'n' Roll Marathon/Half Marathon.

Liebesman alleges that she volunteered as a bicycle escort for the
Rock 'n' Roll Marathon in St. Louis, Missouri. Plaintiff claims
that she was led to believe that her labor would be in support of
local charities, the community, and other charitable purposes.
However, plaintiff maintains that it was incorrect and she worked
without proper compensation. Plaintiff alleges claims for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), violations of
state minimum wage laws, unjust enrichment, and fraud.

Plaintiff purports to represent a class of "All persons who
expended their time, labor, and efforts, purported in a volunteer
capacity, on behalf of defendant Competitor Group, Inc., in
operating events in the Rock 'n' Roll Marathon from October 21,
2012 until present.

Plaintiff filed a renewed motion for conditional class
certification and court-authorized notice pursuant to Section
216(b) of the FLSA, while defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment as to count I of the complaint.

A copy of Judge White's memorandum and order dated January 15,
2016, is available at http://goo.gl/FJFEAdfrom Leagle.com.

Yvette Joy Liebesman, Plaintiff, represented by Derek Y. Brandt
-- brandtlawoffice@att.net -- at BRANDT LAW LLC; Juno Turner --
jturner@outtengolden.com -- Justin M. Swartz --
jms@outtengolden.com -- Michael N. Litrownik --
mlitrownik@outtengolden.com -- at OUTTEN AND GOLDEN LLP

Competitor Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bryan D. LeMoine
-- lemoine@mcmahonberger.com -- Rex P. Fennessey --
fennessey@mcmahonberger.com -- Thomas O. McCarthy --
mccarthy@mcmahonberger.com -- at MCMAHON AND BERGER; Charles M.
Poplstein -- cpoplstein@thompsoncoburn.com -- at THOMPSON COBURN,
LLP; Dennis Michael Childs -- dchilds@cooley.com -- Shannon L.
Sorrells -- ssorrells@cooley.com -- at COOLEY, LLP


CONSOLIDATED FOUNDRIES: "Santoyo" Suit Seeks Wages and OT Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gustavo Segura Santoyo, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Consolidated Foundries, Inc., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. BC612298 (Cal. Super., March 3, 2016) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay wages and
overtime pay, rest period, provide accurate wage statements and
pay due wages at termination in violation of California Labor
Code.

Defendant Consolidated Foundries, Inc. is a corporation organized
and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of
California, with its principal place of business in the City of
Cleveland, State of Ohio.  The Company offers mold and investment
casting in ferrous, non-ferrous, steel, and aluminum alloys.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
     BIBIYAN & BOKHOUR, P.C.
     1801 Century Park East, Suite 2600
     Los Angeles, CA 90067-2328
     Tel: (310) 438-5555
     Fax: (310) 300-1705

          - and -

     Michael Nourmand, Esq.
     THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
     8822 West Olympic Boulevard
     Beverly Hills, CA 90211
     Tel: (310) 553-3600
     Fax: (310) 553-3603


CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: 2nd Amended Suit in "Toulon" Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Manish S. Shah of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois granted Continental Casualty
Company's motion to dismiss in the case captioned, SOPHIE P.
TOULON, Plaintiff, v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 15 CV 138 (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiff Sophie Toulon's first amended complaint alleged that
defendant Continental Casualty Company committed fraud when it
sold her an insurance policy. In 1998, defendant Continental
introduced long-term care insurance policies under the series name
"Preferred Solution." Toulon -- a Preferred Solution subscriber --
alleges Continental used intentionally unreasonable "lapse rate"
assumptions to make the policies seem more affordable than they
were. By setting initial premiums at artificially low rates,
Continental could sell lower-income insureds policies they could
not afford, and collect premiums from them while they were
unlikely to file claims. That complaint was dismissed for failure
to state a claim.

Toulon's second amended complaint, which she purports to bring on
behalf of a nationwide class of similarly situated individuals,
alleges claims for "Fraudulent Misrepresentation," "Fraudulent
Omissions," "Unjust Enrichment," and "Consumer Fraud
Acts/Deceptive Trade Practices Acts." Jurisdiction arises under
the Class Action Fairness Act.

In the motion, Continental moved once again to dismiss the
complaint.

In the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated February 12, 2016
available at http://is.gd/taCQPyfrom Leagle.com, Judge Shah held
that Toulon's complaint does not adequately allege that
Continental falsely promised to limit its premium increases.

Sophie P. Toulon is represented by Thomas Cusack Cronin, Esq. --
tcc@cronincoltd.com -- CRONIN & CO., LTD.

          - and -

Frank H. Tomlinson, Esq.
Robert R. Duncan, Esq.
DUNCAN LAW GROUP, LLC
161 N Clark St #2550a
Chicago, IL 60601
Tel: (312)445-0567

Continental Casulaty Company is represented by Brent R. Austin,
Esq. -- baustin@eimerstahl.com -- Michael Lee McCluggage, Esq. --
mmccluggage@eimerstahl.com -- & Richard Jonathon Street, Esq. --
jstreet@eimerstahl.com -- EIMER STAHL LLP


COSTCO WHOLESALE: First Amended Suit Filed in "Sud" Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the case, MONICA SUD, Plaintiff, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-03783-JSW (N.D.
Cal.), on February 19, 2016, filed a first amended complaint.
They reiterate that Costco is aware that the farmed prawns it
purchases from Southeast Asian producers, and then resells to
California consumers, are derived from a supply chain that depends
upon documented slavery, human trafficking and other illegal labor
abuses that occur in and around Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam and
Malaysia, among other countries.

The Southeast Asian producers include Defendants C.P. Food
Products, Inc. and its parent company Charoen Pokphand Foods PCL.

The Amended Complaint alleges these claims for relief:

     1. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

        Unlawful Business Acts and Practices, California Business
        & Professions Code Sec. 17200, et seq. (Against Costco,
        Charoen Pokphand Foods Public Company Limited and C.P.
        Food Products, Inc.)

     2. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

        Misleading and Deceptive Advertising, California Business
        and Professions Code Section 17500, et seq. (As To
        Defendant Costco)

     3. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

        Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code Section 1750, et
        seq. (As To Defendant Costco)

In an order dated January 15, 2016, available at
http://goo.gl/CBaePnfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Jeffrey S.
White of the Northern District of California granted defendants'
motions to dismiss in the case, with leave to amend.  The judge
said the case lacks Article III standing.  Judge White said the
plaintiffs may file an amended complaint no later than February 19
-- which they did -- and defendants may file their answer or
otherwise respond within 21 days thereafter.

Meanwhile, an ADR Phone Conference that was scheduled on Jan. 20,
2016, has been moved to April 25, 2016, at 10:30 a.m. Pacific
time.

Monica Sud, Plaintiff, represented by Anne Marie Murphy --
amurphy@cpmlegal.com -- Shauna R Madison -- smadison@cpmlegal.com
-- Niall Padraic McCarthy -- nmccarthy@cpmlegal.com -- at
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP; Daniel Joseph Mulligan --
dan@jmglawoffices.com -- at Jenkins, Mulligan & Gabriel, LLP;
Derek G. Howard -- derek@dhowlaw.com -- at Howard Law Firm

Costco Wholesale Corporation, Defendant, represented by Robert
Allan Mittelstaedt -- ramittelstaedt@jonesday.com -- Caroline
Nason Mitchell -- cnmitchell@jonesday.com -- at Jones Day

Costco Wholesale Corporation, Defendant, represented by Craig
Ellsworth Stewart -- cestewart@jonesday.com -- David L. Wallach --
dwallach@jonesday.com -- at Jones Day
Charoen Pokphand Foods, PCL and C.P. Food Products, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Andrew David Yaphe --
andrew.yaphe@davispolk.com -- Brooke Alison Pyo --
brooke.pyo@davispolk.com -- Christopher B. Hockett --
chris.hockett@davispolk.com -- Neal Alan Potischman --
neal.potischman@davispolk.com -- at Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP


COUNTRY CLUB HILLS, IL: "Bell" Suit Now Before Appeals Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned LEORA H. BELL v. CITY OF COUNTRY CLUB HILLS,
Case #: 16-1448 (March 1, 2016) is now before the US Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.  The case is for a demand of
Civil Rights.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
     ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
     77 W. Washington Street
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: 312-440-0020

The Defendant is represented by:

     Thomas Weiler, Esq.
     LANGHENRY, GILLEN, LUNDQUIST & JOHNSON, LLC
     33 N. Dearborn Street
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: 312-704-6700


CPM SERVICES: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Regular, OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Osvaldo Gonzalez and other similarly-situated individuals, the
Plaintiff, v. CPM Services, Inc., Control Building Services, Inc.
Miguel Yaniz, and Annette Y. Aravena, individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-20337-KMM (S.D. Fla., Miami Division,
January 29, 2016), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid
regular and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants CPM Services and Control Building Services provide
maintenance and janitorial services to commercial accounts such as
supermarkets and shopping malls in the area of Miami-Dade County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CREDIT ADJUSTMENTS: 6th Cir. Upholds Judgment in "Baisden" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Richard Allen Griffin of the Court of Appeals, Sixth
Circuit, affirmed the district court's order granting summary
judgment for Credit Adjustments, Inc., in the case captioned,
ZACHARY BAISDEN and BRENDA L. SISSOKO, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
CREDIT ADJUSTMENTS, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 15-3411
(6th Cir.).

The putative class action arises out of Credit Adjustments, Inc.'s
attempts to collect a little over $1,000 of medical debt incurred
by Zachary Baisden and Brenda Sissoko. Plaintiffs contend Credit
Adjustments violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act when it
placed debt collection calls to their cell phone numbers using an
"automatic telephone dialing system" and an "artificial or
prerecorded voice."

Credit Adjustments neither disputes that it placed calls to their
cell phone numbers nor that it used the technologies as alleged.
Rather, Credit Adjustments contends that by virtue of plaintiffs'
provision of their cell phone numbers to the hospital where they
received medical care, plaintiffs gave their "prior express
consent" to receive such calls and, thus, it did not violate the
TCPA as interpreted by the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC).

The district court found that the hospital's registration forms,
in which it received Plaintiffs' wireless numbers, constitute
information related to future payment, and therefore, part of
Plaintiffs' health information.

On appeal, Plaintiffs contend this was in error because: (1) the
authorization in Mais v. Gulf Coast Collection Bureau, Inc., 768
F.3d 1110 (11th Cir. 2014), expressly defined "health
information," and Plaintiff Sissoko's 2009 authorization does not;
(2) the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
(HIPAA) and its definition of "health information" do not apply to
consumers; (3) the general public would not understand the
ordinary meaning of "health information" to include a cell phone
number; and (4) the adhesive nature of the authorization must be
construed in plaintiffs' favor.

In his Opinion and Order dated February 12, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/h6FUmifrom Leagle.com, Judge Griffin concluded that
the district court correctly granted summary judgment to Credit
Adjustments for those calls it placed to plaintiffs arising out of
the 2011 authorization and to Sissoko arising out of her 2009
authorization. Plaintiffs' arguments to the contrary are without
merit.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Daniel R. Freytag, Esq.
     FREYTAG CARPENTER LLC
     P.O. Box 14293
     2000 West Henderson Road
     Columbus, OH 43214
     Tel: (614)310-4135

Credit Adjustments, Inc. is represented by Brian M. Spiess, Esq.
-- bspiess@mrjlaw.com -- George D. Jonson, Esq. --
gjonson@mrjlaw.com -- MONTGOMERY, RENNIE & JONSON


CRESCENT BANK: "Falcone" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Tamara Falcone, and all others similarly-situated v. Crescent Bank
and Trust Inc. and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 5:16-cv-00237 (C.D.
Calif., February 8, 2016), seeks damages and other available legal
or equitable remedies against the Defendant for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendant is a nationwide banking institution specializing in
providing financing to customers with sub-prime credit.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      Meghan E. George, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Tel: (877) 206-4741
      Fax: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
              abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com
              mgeorge@toddflaw.com


CRESCENT HILLS: Conference Held in "Terra Verde" Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
A preliminary conference was held March 1, 2016, for the case
TERRA VERDE ASSOCIATES, INC. v. CRESCENT HILLS INC., SUBHADRA
NORI, DATTATREYUDU NORI, SHAHAB MAIRZADEH A/K/A DAVID MAIRZADEH
AND "JOHN DOE NO. 1" THROUGH "JOHN DOE NO. 5", INDEX NO.
607626/2015 (N.Y. Sup., County of Nassau, November 23, 2015).

The Plaintiff alleges it is owed labor, materials and equipment
under a subcontract agreement for the improvement of a real
property in the County of Nassau, New York.

Crescent Hills Inc. is a domestic business corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Parshhueram T. Misir, Esq.
     FORCHELLI, CURTO, DEEGAN, SCHWARTZ, MINEO & TERRANA, LLP
     Terraverde Associates, Inc.
     333 Old Country Road, Suite 1010
     Uniondale, NY 11553
     Phone: (516) 248-1700


DARBY ROAD: Faces "Oxlaj" Suit Under FLSA, New Jersey Wage Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
MELVIN OXLAJ v. DARBY ROAD PUBLIC HOUSE & RESTAURANT, LLC, d/b/a
Darby Road Pub, and JONATHAN COHEN, Case 2:16-cv-01180-CCC-JBC
(D.N.J., March 1, 2016), seeks recovery against Defendants for
alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New
Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.

Darby Road is in the restaurant business and serves patrons
throughout the State of New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jodi J. Jaffe
     JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
     301 North Harrison Street
     Suite 9F, #306
     Princeton, NJ 08540
     Phone: (201) 687-9977
     Fax: (201) 595-0308
     E-mail: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


DARDEN CORP: Helping Hand Suit Moved From California to Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Helping Hand Caregivers, Ltd.
v. Darden Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:16-mc-00011, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois (Chicago).  The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:16-cv-02375 to the proceeding.

Darden Corporation operates as a subsidiary of Darden Restaurants
Inc., which owns and operates more than 1,500 restaurants.  The
Company is headquartered in Orlando, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Denise L. Diaz, Esq.
          DIAZ LAW
          P.O. Box 211444
          Chula Vista, CA 91921
          Telephone: (650) 208-0193
          Facsimile: (650) 644-0490
          E-mail: denise@diaz-law.com

               - and -

          Julia Lynn Titolo, Esq.
          BOCK & HATCH LLC
          134 N Lasalle Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          E-mail: julia@bockhatchllc.com

Defendant Darden Corporation is represented by:

          Evan Forrest Anderson, Esq.
          Joshua Robert Mandell, Esq.
          AKERMAN LLP
          725 South Figueroa Street, 38th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 688-9500
          Facsimile: (213) 627-6342
          E-mail: evan.anderson@akerman.com
                  joshua.mandell@akerman.com


DEFLECTO LLC: Faces "Coonan" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Coonan, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Deflecto, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-
00549 (N.D. Ohio, March 7, 2016) is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Deflecto is a manufacturer of chairmat, bicycle reflector, dryer
venting, sign and literature holders, office workspace accessories
and other air distribution products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
     Shannon M. Draher,Esq.
     NILGES DRAHER, LLC
     4580 Stephen Circle, N.W.
     Suite 201
     Canton, OH 44718
     Tel: 330-470-4428
     Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
            sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


DELI MANAGEMENT: "Cornish" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Andrea Cornish, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. Deli Management, Inc., d/b/a "Jason's Dell",
Case No. 1:16-cv-00672 (D. Md., March 7, 2016) is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wage in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant Deli Management, Inc. is a Texas corporation which,
operates a chain of approximately 253 Jason's Deli restaurants,
including restaurants located within the Northern Division of the
District of Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jack D. McInnes, Esq.
     PAUL MCINNES LLP
     601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
     Kansas City, MO 64106
     Tel: (816) 984-8100
     Fax: (816) 984-8101
     Email: paul@paulmcinnes.com

          - and -

      Marck A. Potashnick, Esq.
      WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
      11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
      St. Louis, MO 63141
      Tel: (314) 997-9150
      Fax: (314) 997-9170
      Email: markp@wp-attorneys.com


DEVRY EDUCATION: Engaged in Deceptive Mktg., "Rayter" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Rayter and Ryan Herendeen, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Devry
Education Group Inc., formerly known as DeVry, Inc., Devry
University, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00507-LB (N.D.
Cal., San Francisco Division, January 29, 2016), seeks damages,
declaratory and/or injunctive relief as a result of Defendant's
unfair and/or unlawful deceptive marketing practices, including
false advertising.

Devry Education Group Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and
Healthcare; International and Professional Educational; and
Business, Technology and Management. The Medical and Healthcare
segment operates American University of the Caribbean School of
Medicine and Ross University School of Medicine, which provide
medical education; and Ross University School of Veterinary
Medicine that offers veterinary education.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Cherniak, Esq.
          Julian Ari Hammond, Esq.
          Polina Pecherskaya, Esq.
          HAMMONDLAW PC
          1829 Reisterstown Road Suite 410
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (310) 601 6766
          Facsimile: (310) 295 2385
          E-mail: acherniak@hammondlawpc.com
                  hammond.julian@gmail.com
                  ppecherskaya@hammondlawpc.com


DIGCO CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Contis" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Contis, Ernesto Galarza, Austin Jolley and Mike Gomez,
Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons v. Digco Utility Construction, L.P., Defendant, Case No.
4:16-cv-00589 (S.D. Tex., March 7, 2016) seeks payment of overtime
pay pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is an enterprise engaged in interstate commerce,
operating on interstate highways, purchasing material through
commerce, transporting materials through commerce including the
use of credit cards, phones and/or cell phones, electronic mail
and the Internet.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
     2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
     Houston, TX 77018
     Tel: 713-868-3388
     Fax: 713-683-9940


DIRECTV LLC: Court Tosses FDCPA & FCCPA Claims in "Miller" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CLAYTON MILLER, Plaintiff, v. DIRECTV, LLC,
Defendant, No. 3:15-CV-390-J-PDB (M.D. Fla.), Judge Patricia D.
Barksdale granted DIRECTV, LLC's motion to the extent the claims
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the
Florida Consumer Credit Collections Practices Act (FCCPA) are
dismissed without prejudice but otherwise denied it.

Clayton Miller alleged that DIRECTV violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), the FDCPA, and the FCCPA.  Miller
stated that he has no prior business relationship with DIRECTV, no
delinquent debt, and no account in collection, but DIRECTV
continued to call his number although he has explained that it was
calling the wrong number.

DIRECTV moved to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted or for dismissal, transfer, or a
stay under the first-filed rule based on Brown v. DIRECTV, LLC,
etc., No. 2:13-cv-1170-DMG-E (C.D. Cal.), a putative class action
that has been pending for over three years in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.  DIRECTV
contended that Miller falls within the Brown Action class
definition as he alleges that he received autodialed debt
collection calls to his cellular from DIRECTV and that he had no
prior business relationship with DIRECTV.

Judge Barksdale held that the first-filed rule does not apply in
Miller's case because he lives and sues as an individual in
Florida, does not seek to represent others, is not a party in
Brown, and has said he will opt out if a class is certified in
Brown.

As to DIRECTV's request for dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6),
Judge Barksdale held that Miller alleged sufficient facts to
establish a plausible claim under the TCPA but not under the FDCPA
or the FCCPA.

For the TCPA claim, Judge Barksdale held that Miller established a
plausibility that DIRECTV used an automatic telephone dialing
system, and that it is not apparent from the face of the amended
complaint that the four-year statute of limitation bars the claim.

In contrast, Judge Barksdale found that the amended complaint
includes only a formulaic recitation of the elements of the FDCPA
and FCCPA claims with insufficient factual allegations on
DIRECTV's debt collection activity.

A full-text copy of Judge Barksdale's March 2, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/Kf3Eczfrom Leagle.com.

Clayton Miller, Plaintiff, represented by Sean A. Espenship,
Espenship, Schlax & Albee & Stephen F. Albee, Espenship, Schlax &
Albee.

Directv, Defendant, represented by Allison M. Stocker --
allison.stocker@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP & HeatherAnn Marie
Solanka -- heather.solanka@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP.


DNC DOORS & CABINETS: "Leon" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Rolando Leon, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Zita Chen, individually and DNC Doors
& Cabinets, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00480
(E.D.N.Y., January 29, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages and
related damages for unpaid minimum wages and unpaid OT hours,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant DNC is a New York Corporation and is located in
Flushing, New York. The Company is engaged in the wholesale supply
of doors, frames, & accessories, home centers, building materials,
and cabinet Makers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darren P.B. Rumack, Esq.
          Xian-Ming, Esq.
          THE KLEIN LAW GROUP, PC
          11 Broadway, Suite 960
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 344 9022
          Facsimile: (212) 344 0310


DOLLAR GENERAL: Sued for Selling Obsolete Motor Oils in Arkansas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Wait, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Dollar General Corporation, a Tennessee corporation;
and Dolgencorp, L.L.C., a Kentucky Limited Liability Company, Case
No. 5:16-cv-05036-TLB (W.D. Ark., February 16, 2016), is brought
to redress the alleged unlawful and deceptive practices employed
by the Defendants in connection with their marketing and sale of
company-branded motor oil sold in their stores.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants sell an entire line of
company-branded motor oils (labeled "DG") that are obsolete and
potentially harmful to their customers' automobiles.  The
Plaintiff contends that the Defendants use deceptive and
misleading tactics, including positioning their line of obsolete
motor oils immediately adjacent to the more expensive standard-
and premium-quality motor oils manufactured by their competitors
and failing to adequately warn their customers that the DG motor
oil is unsuitable for use by the vast majority, if any, of their
customers.

Dollar General Corporation is incorporated under the laws of the
state of Tennessee, with its corporate headquarters located in
Goodlettsville, Tennessee.  The Defendants operate a chain of
variety stores under the name "Dollar General Store."  Dolgencorp,
LLC is a Kentucky limited liability company.  The Defendants
produced, marketed, distributed and sold their obsolete DG-branded
motor oil in their stores throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Timothy Smith, Esq.
          ELLIOTT & SMITH LAW FIRM
          4302 N. Waterside Court
          Fayetteville, AR 72703
          Telephone: (479) 587-8423
          Facsimile: (479) 575-0039

               - and -

          Kenneth B. McClain, Esq.
          Kevin D. Stanley, Esq.
          Colin W. McClain, Esq.
          HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON & MCCLAIN, P.C.
          221 West Lexington Ave., Suite 400
          Independence, MO 64051
          Telephone: (816) 836-5050
          Facsimile: (816) 836-8966
          E-mail: kbm@hfmlegal.com
                  kds@hfmlegal.com
                  cwm@hfmlegal.com

               - and -

          Allan Kanner, Esq.
          Conlee Whiteley, Esq.
          Cynthia St. Amant, Esq.
          KANNER & WHITELEY, L.L.C.
          701 Camp Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 524-5777
          Facsimile: (504) 524-5763
          E-mail: a.kanner@kanner-law.com
                  c.whiteley@kanner-law.com
                  c.stamant@kanner-law.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: "Price" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Price v. Draftkings Inc., Case No.
4:15-cv-00778, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Arkansas to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts (Boston).  The Massachusetts
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-10276-GAO to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Daily Fantasy Sports Litigation, MDL No. 1:16-md-
02677-GAO.

The litigation involves allegations of improper or illegal conduct
by the nation's two largest operators of online daily fantasy
sports contests -- DraftKings, Inc. and FanDuel, Inc.  The
allegations include claims for insider trading, illegal gambling
and bonus fraud.

DraftKings, Inc. provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports
contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and
Canada.  The Boston, Massachusetts-based Company offers daily
leagues for fantasy football, baseball, basketball, hockey, golf,
college football, and college basketball.

FanDuel Inc. operates an online fantasy sports platform that
enables users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes.  The
Company's online sports platform enables users to play fantasy
football, baseball, hockey, and basketball.  The Company was
founded in 2009 and is based in New York City, with an additional
office in Edinburgh, Scotland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex G. Streett, Esq.
          James A. Streett, Esq.
          Robert M. Veach, Esq.
          STREETT LAW FIRM, P.A.
          107 West Main
          Russellville, AR 72801
          Telephone: (479) 968-2030
          Facsimile: (479) 968-6253
          E-mail: alex@streettlaw.com
                  james@streettlaw.com
                  robert@streettlaw.com

               - and -

          Joe P. Leniski, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER. STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          227 Second Avenue, N, 4th Floor
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          E-mail: joeyl@BSJFirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jess L. Askew, III, Esq.
          Andrew King, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          124 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3740
          Telephone: (501) 975-3000
          Facsimile: (501) 975-3001
          E-mail: jess.askew@kutakrock.com
                  Andrew.King@KutakRock.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: "Ritchie" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Ritchie v. Fanduel Inc., Case No.
4:15-cv-00776, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Arkansas to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts (Boston).  The Massachusetts
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-10275-GAO to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Daily Fantasy Sports Litigation, MDL No. 1:16-md-
02677-GAO.

The litigation involves allegations of improper or illegal conduct
by the nation's two largest operators of online daily fantasy
sports contests -- DraftKings, Inc. and FanDuel, Inc.  The
allegations include claims for insider trading, illegal gambling
and bonus fraud.

DraftKings, Inc. provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports
contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and
Canada.  The Boston, Massachusetts-based Company offers daily
leagues for fantasy football, baseball, basketball, hockey, golf,
college football, and college basketball.

FanDuel Inc. operates an online fantasy sports platform that
enables users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes.  The
Company's online sports platform enables users to play fantasy
football, baseball, hockey, and basketball.  The Company was
founded in 2009 and is based in New York City, with an additional
office in Edinburgh, Scotland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex G. Streett, Esq.
          James A. Streett, Esq.
          Robert M. Veach, Esq.
          STREETT LAW FIRM, P.A.
          107 West Main
          Russellville, AR 72801
          Telephone: (479) 968-2030
          Facsimile: (479) 968-6253
          E-mail: alex@streettlaw.com
                  james@streettlaw.com
                  robert@streettlaw.com

               - and -

          Joe P. Leniski, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER. STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          227 Second Avenue, N, 4th Floor
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          E-mail: joeyl@BSJFirm.com

Defendant FanDuel Inc. is represented by:

          William A. Waddell, Jr., Esq.
          FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK, LLP
          Regions Center, Suite 2000
          400 West Capitol Avenue
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3522
          Telephone: (501) 370-1510
          E-mail: waddell@fridayfirm.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: "Stoddart" Suit Included in Fantasy Sports MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Stoddart v. DraftKings, Inc.,
Case No. 3:15-cv-01307, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-10298 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Daily Fantasy Sports Litigation, MDL No. 1:16-md-
02677-GAO.

The litigation involves allegations of improper or illegal conduct
by the nation's two largest operators of online daily fantasy
sports contests -- DraftKings, Inc. and FanDuel, Inc.  The
allegations include claims for insider trading, illegal gambling
and bonus fraud.

DraftKings, Inc. provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports
contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and
Canada.  The Boston, Massachusetts-based Company offers daily
leagues for fantasy football, baseball, basketball, hockey, golf,
college football, and college basketball.

FanDuel Inc. operates an online fantasy sports platform that
enables users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes.  The
Company's online sports platform enables users to play fantasy
football, baseball, hockey, and basketball.  The Company was
founded in 2009 and is based in New York City, with an additional
office in Edinburgh, Scotland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          8501 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 270
          Scottsdale, AZ 85253
          Telephone: (480) 428-0142
          E-mail: gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Kyle G. Bates, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: kbates@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Christopher W. Byron, Esq.
          BYRON CARLSON PETRI & KALB, LLC
          411 St. Louis Street
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 655-0600
          Facsimile: (618) 655-4004
          E-mail: cwb@bcpklaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          W. Jason Rankin, Esq.
          HEPLERBROOM LLC
          130 North Main Street
          P.O. Box 510
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 307-1138
          Facsimile: (618) 656-1364
          E-mail: wjr@heplerbroom.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: "Tewes" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Tewes v. Draftkings Inc., Case
No. 4:16-cv-00006, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts (Boston).  The Massachusetts
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-10277-GAO to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Daily Fantasy Sports Litigation, MDL No. 1:16-md-
02677-GAO.

The litigation involves allegations of improper or illegal conduct
by the nation's two largest operators of online daily fantasy
sports contests -- DraftKings, Inc. and FanDuel, Inc.  The
allegations include claims for insider trading, illegal gambling
and bonus fraud.

DraftKings, Inc. provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports
contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and
Canada.  The Boston, Massachusetts-based Company offers daily
leagues for fantasy football, baseball, basketball, hockey, golf,
college football, and college basketball.

FanDuel Inc. operates an online fantasy sports platform that
enables users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes.  The
Company's online sports platform enables users to play fantasy
football, baseball, hockey, and basketball.  The Company was
founded in 2009 and is based in New York City, with an additional
office in Edinburgh, Scotland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward A. Webb, Esq.
          Matthew C. Klase, Esq.
          WEBB KLASE & LEMOND LLC
          1900 The Exchange SE, Suite 480
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (770) 444-0773
          E-mail: eadamwebb@hotmail.com
                  matt@webbllc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Chad Lennon, Esq.
          Frank M. Lowrey, IV, Esq.
          BONDURANT MIXSON & ELMORE LLP
          1201 W Peachtree St., Suite 3900
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 881-4168
          E-mail: lennon@bmelaw.com
                  lowrey@bmelaw.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: "Carey" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Carey v. DraftKings, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 4:15-cv-01616, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston).  The
Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-
10280-GAO to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Daily Fantasy Sports Litigation, MDL No. 1:16-md-
02677-GAO.

The litigation involves allegations of improper or illegal conduct
by the nation's two largest operators of online daily fantasy
sports contests -- DraftKings, Inc. and FanDuel, Inc.  The
allegations include claims for insider trading, illegal gambling
and bonus fraud.

DraftKings, Inc. provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports
contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and
Canada.  The Boston, Massachusetts-based Company offers daily
leagues for fantasy football, baseball, basketball, hockey, golf,
college football, and college basketball.

FanDuel Inc. operates an online fantasy sports platform that
enables users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes.  The
Company's online sports platform enables users to play fantasy
football, baseball, hockey, and basketball.  The Company was
founded in 2009 and is based in New York City, with an additional
office in Edinburgh, Scotland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tiffany M. Yiatras, Esq.
          CAREY AND DANIS
          8235 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 725-7700
          Facsimile: (314) 721-0905
          E-mail: tyiatras@careydanis.com

Defendant DraftKings Inc. is represented by:

          Robert P. Berry, Esq.
          Andrew D. Lamb, Esq.
          BERRY AND SILBERBERG LLC
          16150 Main Circle Drive, Suite 120
          St. Louis, MO 63017
          Telephone: (314) 480-5881
          Facsimile: (314) 480-5884
          E-mail: rberry@berrysilberberg.com
                  alamb@berrysilberberg.com

Defendant FanDuel Inc. is represented by:

          Patrick J. Kenny, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP
          7700 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1800
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 621-5070
          Facsimile: (314) 612-2262
          E-mail: pkenny@armstrongteasdale.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: "Firestone" Suit Included in Fantasy Sports MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Firestone v. FanDuel, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-02376, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston).  The
Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-
10281-GAO to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Daily Fantasy Sports Litigation, MDL No. 1:16-md-
02677-GAO.

The litigation involves allegations of improper or illegal conduct
by the nation's two largest operators of online daily fantasy
sports contests -- DraftKings, Inc. and FanDuel, Inc.  The
allegations include claims for insider trading, illegal gambling
and bonus fraud.

DraftKings, Inc. provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports
contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and
Canada.  The Boston, Massachusetts-based Company offers daily
leagues for fantasy football, baseball, basketball, hockey, golf,
college football, and college basketball.

FanDuel Inc. operates an online fantasy sports platform that
enables users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes.  The
Company's online sports platform enables users to play fantasy
football, baseball, hockey, and basketball.  The Company was
founded in 2009 and is based in New York City, with an additional
office in Edinburgh, Scotland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gillian Marie Fahlsing, Esq.
          Kevin Scott Hannon, Esq.
          HANNON LAW FIRM, LLC
          1641 Downing Street
          Denver, CO 80218
          Telephone: (303) 861-8800
          Facsimile: (303) 861-8855
          E-mail: gfahlsing@hannonlaw.com
                  khannon@hannonlaw.com

Defendant FanDuel Inc. is represented by:

          Scott F. Llewellyn, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP
          Republic Plaza
          370 17th Street, Suite 4200
          Denver, CO 80202-5638
          Telephone: (303) 592-1500
          Facsimile: (303) 592-1510
          E-mail: sllewellyn@mofo.com

Defendant DraftKings Inc. is represented by:

          Jessica Brown, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
          1801 California Street, Suite 4200
          Denver, CO 80202-2642
          Telephone: (303) 298-5700
          Facsimile: (303) 313-2831
          E-mail: jbrown@gibsondunn.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: "Giametta" Suit Included in Fantasy Sports MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Giametta v. Fanduel, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00004, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston).  The
Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-
10287-GAO to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Daily Fantasy Sports Litigation, MDL No. 1:16-md-
02677-GAO.

The litigation involves allegations of improper or illegal conduct
by the nation's two largest operators of online daily fantasy
sports contests -- DraftKings, Inc. and FanDuel, Inc.  The
allegations include claims for insider trading, illegal gambling
and bonus fraud.

DraftKings, Inc. provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports
contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and
Canada.  The Boston, Massachusetts-based Company offers daily
leagues for fantasy football, baseball, basketball, hockey, golf,
college football, and college basketball.

FanDuel Inc. operates an online fantasy sports platform that
enables users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes.  The
Company's online sports platform enables users to play fantasy
football, baseball, hockey, and basketball.  The Company was
founded in 2009 and is based in New York City, with an additional
office in Edinburgh, Scotland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent J. Trimarco, Jr., Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT J. TRIMARCO JR., P.C.
          1038 West Jericho Turnpike
          Smithtown, NY 11787
          Telephone: (631) 543-3456
          Facsimile: (631) 543-3462
          E-mail: vtrimarco@trimarcolaw.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: "Martin" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Frank Martin v. DraftKings,
Inc., et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-02167, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-10232-GAO to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Daily Fantasy Sports Litigation, MDL No. 1:16-md-
02677-GAO.

The litigation involves allegations of improper or illegal conduct
by the nation's two largest operators of online daily fantasy
sports contests -- DraftKings, Inc. and FanDuel, Inc.  The
allegations include claims for insider trading, illegal gambling
and bonus fraud.

DraftKings, Inc. provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports
contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and
Canada.  The Boston, Massachusetts-based Company offers daily
leagues for fantasy football, baseball, basketball, hockey, golf,
college football, and college basketball.

FanDuel Inc. operates an online fantasy sports platform that
enables users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes.  The
Company's online sports platform enables users to play fantasy
football, baseball, hockey, and basketball.  The Company was
founded in 2009 and is based in New York City, with an additional
office in Edinburgh, Scotland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Rebecca Anne Peterson, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: rapeterson@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Conrad B. Stephens, Esq.
          STEPHENS AND STEPHENS LLP
          505 South McClelland Street
          Santa Maria, CA 93454
          Telephone: (805) 922-1951
          Facsimile: (805) 922-8013
          E-mail: conrad@stephensfirm.com

Defendant DraftKings Inc. is represented by:

          James P. Fogelman, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7234
          E-mail: jfogelman@gibsondunn.com

Defendant FanDuel, Inc., is represented by:

          David McDowell, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90013-1024
          Telephone: (213) 892-5200
          E-mail: dmcdowell@mofo.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: "Weaver" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Weaver v. FanDuel, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-08110, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts (Boston).  The Massachusetts
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-10259-GAO to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Daily Fantasy Sports Litigation, MDL No. 1:16-md-
02677-GAO.

The lawsuit involves allegations of improper or illegal conduct by
the nation's two largest operators of online daily fantasy sports
contests -- DraftKings, Inc. and FanDuel, Inc.

DraftKings, Inc. provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports
contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and
Canada.  The Boston, Massachusetts-based Company offers daily
leagues for fantasy football, baseball, basketball, hockey, golf,
college football, and college basketball.

FanDuel Inc. operates an online fantasy sports platform that
enables users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes.  The
Company's online sports platform enables users to play fantasy
football, baseball, hockey, and basketball.  The Company was
founded in 2009 and is based in New York City, with an additional
office in Edinburgh, Scotland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan Carl Milstein, Esq.
          SHERMAN SILVERSTEIN KOHL ROSE & PODOLSKY
          4300 Haddonfield Road, Suite 311
          Pennsauken, MA 08109
          Telephone: (856) 662-0700
          Facsimile: (856) 488-4744
          E-mail: amilstein@shermansilverstein.com

Defendant FanDuel Inc. is represented by:

          Jamie Levitt, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP
          1290 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY
          Telephone: (212) 468-8000
          E-mail: jlevitt@mofo.com

               - and -

          Michael Bruce Miller, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          250 West 55th Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 468-8009
          Facsimile: (212) 468-7900
          E-mail: mbmiller@mofo.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: "White" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled White v. DraftKings, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-08123, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston).  The
Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-
10260-GAO to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Daily Fantasy Sports Litigation, MDL No. 1:16-md-
02677-GAO.

The lawsuit involves allegations of improper or illegal conduct by
the nation's two largest operators of online daily fantasy sports
contests -- DraftKings, Inc. and FanDuel, Inc.

DraftKings, Inc. provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports
contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and
Canada.  The Boston, Massachusetts-based Company offers daily
leagues for fantasy football, baseball, basketball, hockey, golf,
college football, and college basketball.

FanDuel Inc. operates an online fantasy sports platform that
enables users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes.  The
Company's online sports platform enables users to play fantasy
football, baseball, hockey, and basketball.  The Company was
founded in 2009 and is based in New York City, with an additional
office in Edinburgh, Scotland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katherine Van Dyck, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          507 C Street NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          E-mail: kvandyck@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          7733 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1675
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 226-1015
          E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Taylor Asen, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT AND LADUCA, LLP
          16 Court Street, Suite 1012
          Brooklyn, NY 11241
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: tasen@cuneolaw.com

Defendant DraftKings Inc. is represented by:

          Randy M. Mastro, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166-0193
          Telephone: (212) 351-4000
          Facsimile: (212) 351-4035
          E-mail: rmastro@gibsondunn.com

Defendant FanDuel Inc. is represented by:

          Jamie Levitt, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP
          1290 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY
          Telephone: (212) 468-8000
          E-mail: jlevitt@mofo.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: "Brown" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Brown v. DraftKings, Inc., Case
No. 1:15-cv-08165, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts (Boston).  The Massachusetts
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-10261-GAO to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Daily Fantasy Sports Litigation, MDL No. 1:16-md-
02677-GAO.

The lawsuit involves allegations of improper or illegal conduct by
the nation's two largest operators of online daily fantasy sports
contests -- DraftKings, Inc. and FanDuel, Inc.

DraftKings, Inc. provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports
contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and
Canada.  The Boston, Massachusetts-based Company offers daily
leagues for fantasy football, baseball, basketball, hockey, golf,
college football, and college basketball.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Aaron Kuehn, Esq.
          BRAGAR, EAGEL & SQUIRE P.C.
          885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 308-5858
          Facsimile: (212) 486-0462
          E-mail: kuehn@bespc.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: "McDaid" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled John P. McDaid v. DraftKings,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-08181, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston).
The Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-
10262-GAO to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Daily Fantasy Sports Litigation, MDL No. 1:16-md-
02677-GAO.

The lawsuit involves allegations of improper or illegal conduct by
the nation's two largest operators of online daily fantasy sports
contests -- DraftKings, Inc. and FanDuel, Inc.

DraftKings, Inc. provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports
contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and
Canada.  The Boston, Massachusetts-based Company offers daily
leagues for fantasy football, baseball, basketball, hockey, golf,
college football, and college basketball.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary Steven Graifman, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
          Telephone: (845) 356-2570
          Facsimile: (845) 356-4335
          E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com

Defendant FanDuel Inc. is represented by:

          Jamie Levitt, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP
          1290 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY
          Telephone: (212) 468-8000
          E-mail: jlevitt@mofo.com

               - and -

          Michael Bruce Miller, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          250 West 55th Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 468-8009
          Facsimile: (212) 468-7900
          E-mail: mbmiller@mofo.com


DS SERVICES: "Sanders" Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Sanders, et al. v. DS Services
of America, Inc. dba Sparkletts, Case No. 30-2015-00827320-CU-OE-
CJC, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Orange to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California (Southern Division - Santa
Ana).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-00264 to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges employment discrimination.

DS Services of America, Inc., is a diversified beverage company
providing bottled drinking water, brewed beverages and water
filtration systems to homes and offices across the U.S.
Headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, the Company serves over 1.4
million homes, offices, restaurants, food service organizations,
convenience stores and retail locations.  The Company's bottled
water products are sold under the brand names Alhambra(R),
Athena(R), Belmont Springs, Crystal Springs(R), Deep Rock(R),
Hinckley Springs(R), Kentwood Springs(R), Mount Olympus(R),
Nursery(R) water, Sierra Springs(R) and Sparkletts(R).

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alexander J. Freedman, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          E-mail: afreedman@seyfarth.com


DWOLLA INC: Agrees to Fix Data Security Practices
-------------------------------------------------
C. Ryan Barber, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has fired a shot across
the bow of the burgeoning online-payment industry, taking an
enforcement action that marked the agency's first foray into
regulating cybersecurity.

Dwolla Inc., a Des Moines-based digital payment startup, agreed to
pay a $100,000 penalty and improve its data security practices as
part of a consent order that the bureau issued on March 2.

Without alleging that the company was breached, the bureau accused
Dwolla of overstating the measures it took to protect consumers'
personal information between December 2010 and 2014.
The consent order, which requires the company to fix its security
practices and conduct biannual risk assessments, represented the
five-year-old agency's first step into territory traditionally
policed by the Federal Trade Commission.  In August, a federal
court affirmed the FTC's authority to regulate cybersecurity in a
landmark case involving Wyndham Hotels and Resorts.

"Consumers entrust digital payment companies with significant
amounts of sensitive personal information," CFPB Director Richard
Cordray said in a prepared statement on March 2.  "With data
breaches becoming commonplace and more consumers using these
online payment systems, the risk to consumers is growing.  It is
crucial that companies put systems in place to protect this
information and accurately inform consumers about their data
security practices."

Dwolla, which had about 650,000 customers as of May 2015, did not
admit or deny the allegations and agreed to a relatively small
penalty for the CFPB, according to the consent order.

Dwolla said that the CFPB investigation covered a "snapshot in
time that ended almost two years ago," in a prepared statement
sent to The National Law Journal on March 3.  The company added
that it understands the agency's concerns with the protection of
consumers' personal data.

"The CFPB has not found that Dwolla caused any consumer harm or
created the likelihood of any consumer harm through its data
security practices.  This is consistent with the fact that since
its launch over 5 years ago, Dwolla has not detected any evidence
or indicators of a data breach, nor has Dwolla received a
notification or complaint of such an event," Dwolla said.

"During this time, Dwolla had many other layers of data security
practices and technologies in place that were not found to be
deficient, which we believe helped to prevent harm to consumers."

"The CFPB takes a very expansive view of its jurisdiction," said
Andrew Sandler, chairman and executive partner of BuckleySandler.
"This settlement is the CFPB's announcement that it intends to
hold companies responsible for ensuring there are policies and
protections around consumer data."

John Culhane -- culhane@ballardspahr.com -- a partner at Ballard
Spahr, said the bureau appears to be stretching its authority over
"unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices" to regulate
cybersecurity.  The Dodd-Frank Act gave the bureau jurisdiction
over privacy but left data security with the FTC and prudential
regulators, he said.

"It's their first step in this area, and they're really pushing
the boundaries of their authority," Mr. Culhane said.  "It sure
looks like they're using their [unfair acts] authority to make an
end run around that restriction."

With its opening salvo in the data security domain, the bureau
appears to have gone for a quick and clean resolution that was
reached without any significant challenge to its jurisdiction.

"The CFPB has a well-developed practice to initiate new
enforcement initiatives by announcing an initial consent decree
with smaller organizations that might not have the same resources
to defend themselves, and then proceeding from there,"
Mr. Sandler said.

By contrast, the CFPB faced stiff resistance last year when it
issued a civil investigative demand that critics viewed as an
effort to bring college accreditors under its jurisdiction.  The
bureau eventually took the Accrediting Council for Independent
Colleges and Schools to federal court, where the agency's petition
to enforce the civil investigative demand is still pending.

According to the consent order, Dwolla, which was represented in
the matter by Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr, claimed on its
website that it met or surpassed industry security standards, even
though its transactions, servers and data centers did not comply
with those standards.  The company also failed to live up to
claims that it encrypted all sensitive personal information,
according to the bureau.


DYNAMIC LOGISTICS: "Gomez" Suit Seeks Wages and OT Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Florinda Gomez, Plaintiff, on behalf of all employees similarly
situated v. Dynamic Worldwide Logistics, Inc., et al., Defendants,
Case No. BC612493 (Super. Cal., March 3, 2016) is brought against
the Defendants by failure to pay all wages including overtime,
meal periods, rest period, keep accurate payroll records and wages
upon ending employment pursuant to California Labor Code.

Plaintiff and Class Members are employed by the Defendants in a
non-exempt hourly position during the Class Period in the County
of Los Angeles.

Dynamic Worldwide Logistics, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation
conducting business is good standing in Los Angeles County,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Morgan E. Glynn, Esq.
     Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
     MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
     249 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
     Long Beach, CA 90802
     Tel: (562) 590-5550
     Fax: (562) 590-8400
     Email: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
            mglynn@mahoney-law.net


ELITE GUARD: Faces "Targia" Suit for FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
FRANK TARGIA, and others similarly-situated v. ELITE GUARD AND
PATROL SERVICES, INC., a Florida Corporation, KEVIN BUFFINGTON,
individually, and DAVID FAMBRINI, individually, Case 1:16-cv-
20761-JLK (S.D. Fla., March 1, 2016), seeks to recover monetary
damages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees
for alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The corporate Defendant operates a security guard company in
Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
     20801 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 403
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Phone: (786) 923-5899
     E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

        - and -

     Isaac Mamane, Esq.
     MAMANE LAW LLC
     1150 Kane Concourse, Fourth Floor
     Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
     Phone: 305-773-6661
     E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


ENCANA OIL: Well Site Supervisor Concedes to Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Christine M. Arguello granted in part and denied in
part defendant's motion to compel arbitration in the case RONALD
L. DENT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ENCANA OIL & GAS, INC., Defendant, Civil
Action No. 15-cv-01800-CMA (D. Colo.)

Ronald Dent worked for Encana as a well site supervisor from,
approximately, May 2007 to December 2014. Dent claims that Encana
misclassified him and other well site supervisors as independent
contractors and, therefore, violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) when it failed to pay time and a half for work in excess of
40 hours per week. Dent filed a complaint, which he amended that
same day, alleging violations of the FLSA and the Colorado Wage
Claim Act (CWCA). In addition to prosecuting the claims on his own
behalf, Dent seeks to bring his FLSA claim as a collective action
and his CWCA claim as a class action.

Encana filed a motion to compel arbitration of Dent's individual
claims and to dismiss or, alternatively, to close or stay
litigation.

On October 16, 2015, Dent filed the consent of Mickey Peck to opt-
in to plaintiff's FLSA collective action. Encana has not moved to
compel arbitration with Mr. Peck. On October 26, 2015, Dent
responded to Encana's motion to compel arbitration, stating
thatdoes not oppose Encana's request to proceed in arbitration and
that he has initiated his claim in arbitration.

Judge Arguello granted in part and denied in part defendant's
motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff's individual claims and
to dismiss, or alternatively, to close or stay litigation. The
parties shall file a joint status report every six months
beginning six months from the date of the order.

A copy of Judge Arguello's order dated February 17, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/pMFNG1from Leagle.com.

Ronald L Dent, Plaintiff, represented by:

     John A. Neuman Esq.
     Don J. Foty, Esq.
     KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
     711 W. Alabama
     Houston, TX 77006
     Telephone: 713-523-0001
     Facsimile: 713-523-1116

          - and -

Patrick Kevin Leyendecker, Esq. -- kleyendecker@azalaw.com -- at
Ahmad Zavitsanos Anaipakos Alavi & Zavitsanos, PC

Encana Oil & Gas, Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew David
Spohn -- matthew.spohn@nortonrosefulbright.com -- at Norton Rose
Fulbright US LLP


ENDEAVOUR ENERGY: Bushfire Victims Lack Mental Health Support
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Oriti, writing for ABC, reports that a New South Wales
mayor says not enough is being done to address the issue of mental
health in the wake of natural disasters.

Councillor Mark Greenhill, the Mayor of the Blue Mountains, has
reported a recent spike in the number of people needing
psychological help more than two years after their homes were
destroyed in the Blue Mountains bushfires in New South Wales.

And psychologists say communities across Australia are dealing
with the same problems.

A recent Blue Mountains council survey found that residents in 41
per cent of the affected households had requested psychological
support in the past six months.

Cr Greenhill said people were so busy rebuilding their lives and
their homes that they had not had time to sit down and reflect on
how the fires had affected them.

"And then there are those who are enduring long-term psycho-social
effects.  This event is not over for them," he said.

But Cr Greenhill said the necessary help was not available, and
the task of providing support should not just be left to the
states and territories.

"There is no longer a recovery program in place because the
funding dried up at an arbitrary date," Cr Greenhill said.

"One wonders whether a national framework for recovery processes
mightn't be a bad idea."

Psychologist Bob Montgomery, a former president of the Australian
Psychological Society, said the Blue Mountains experience was not
unusual; with every disaster like those fires, about 20 per cent
of those affected were likely to suffer from serious post-
traumatic problems.

"There's certainly a lack of support because of a lack of
understanding," Dr Montgomery said.

"There are more emergency personnel and more and more
psychologists who have had appropriate training.

"That still leaves us of course with the potential for a gap in
providing the resources that the long-term person will need."

'There was a thought that we might all be incinerated'

The owner of a Blue Mountains preschool in the suburb of Winmalee,
Joan Murray, said she was still coming to terms with the events of
October 2013, when a bushfire came within metres of the building.

It's only once you stop that you have the chance to think, oh my
God, we really did come through that.

Joan Murray, owner Blue Mountains preschool

"There was a thought that we might all be incinerated,"
Ms. Murray said.

"And I thought, if we get all the kids in one group and huddle
together and the adults lie on top of them, there was a slight
chance that one would survive."

Ms. Murray sang to the children to keep them calm before they were
evacuated, just in time.

The preschool grounds were destroyed as well as parts of her house
next door, and a long journey followed to rebuild her life and her
business.

"No agency knocked on our door and said, 'we've come to help you',
so we just took it on board to help ourselves," Ms Murray said.

"It is hitting in now.  And if you've been pushing yourself so
hard, it's only once you stop that you have the chance to think,
'oh my God, we really did come through that'."

Ms. Murray said a class action had also resurrected painful
memories, as hundreds of victims take on power company Endeavour
Energy with allegations a poorly maintained tree was to blame for
the disaster.


ENTERGY OPERATIONS: Reaches Settlement with 2 Supervisors
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jane Triche Milazo of the Eastern District of
Louisiana granted the parties' motions for approval of settlement
in the case STEPHEN ALLEN, JR ET AL., v. ENTERGY OPERATIONS INC,
Civil Action No. 11-1571 (E.D. La.)

Plaintiffs are or were employed by defendant Entergy Operations,
Inc. and all held positions as security shift supervisors at the
Waterford 3 nuclear plant in Killona, Louisiana. They brought an
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in which
plaintiffs allege that defendant failed to compensate them for
overtime hours worked.

Defendant has reached a settlement with two of the 21 plaintiffs,
Wayne Lacy and Tharon Simon, and filed two motions for the
approval of the settlements with Lacy and Simon.

Judge Millazo granted the motions and accepted the settlements and
dismisses without prejudice the claims of Lacy and Simon.

A copy of Judge Milazzo's order and reasons dated February 11,
2016, is available at http://goo.gl/HYdmPofrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

     Rodney Glenn Cater, Esq.
     Amanda Cater Graeber, Esq.
     CATER & ASSOCIATES, LLC
     124 S Clark St.
     New Orleans, LA 70119
     Telephone: 504-485-5888
     Facsimile: 504-485-5958

          - and -

     Christopher Blaise Edwards, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER B. EDWARDS
     501 Derbigny St.
     Gretna, LA 70053
     Telephone: 504-366-1121

Entergy Operations Inc, Defendant, represented by Amelia Williams
Koch -- akoch@bakerdonelson.com -- Kathlyn G. Perez --
kperez@bakerdonelson.com -- Jennifer Burrows McNamara --
jmcnamara@bakerdonelson.com -- Laura E. Carlisle --
lcarlisle@bakerdonelson.com -- at Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell
& Berkowitz; Renee Williams Masinter -- at Entergy Services, Inc.


FAMOUS CORNER: "Arellano" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------
Francisco Javier Arellano, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and
Fair Labor Standards Act v. Famous Corner, Inc. d/b/a Grill Point,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01136-FB-RML (E.D. N.Y.,
March 7, 2016) seeks payment of overtime compensation for all
hours worked over 40 each workweek.

Famous Corner, Inc. d/b/a Grill point and John Doe Corporation
operate as a single enterprise, it involves a Grocery Store.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FLINT, MI: Seven Families File Tainted Water Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Connor, writing for NBC News, reports that Flint mom Melissa
Lightfoot says her youngest child, Payton, is one of the top
students in her kindergarten class, but she is "so scared that
could all change next year."

That's because the 5-year-old -- along with her two older siblings
-- was found to have high lead levels in her blood after the
Michigan city switched to a more corrosive water source in 2015.

The little girl described by her mom as the "diva of the family"
has since been diagnosed with attention-deficit disorder, just
like 8-year-old sister Kamryn and 13-year-old brother Tra'Vaughn.

"This is real," Lightfoot, 33, told NBC News on March 6.  "This
right here is scary."

Ms. Lightfoot's family is one of seven who filed a class action
lawsuit on March 7, seeking to hold a raft of city and state
officials responsible for the lead-poisoning crisis that has made
Flint into a symbol of government failure and environmental
disaster.

The federal suit, filed under the Safe Water and Lead-Free Water
Acts, is the latest in a tide of litigation spawned by the crisis.

Lawyers will ask the courts to certify a class action that would
cover any Flint kids who were poisoned when water from the Flint
River corroded aging pipes and leached lead into the system.

Ms. Lightfoot said that before the city changed water sources, her
children were tested for lead and were not found to be in danger.
But by late 2014, their levels were above 5 micrograms per
deciliter, which shows an alarming level of exposure.

Doctors initially assumed it was from paint, but Ms. Lightfoot
lives in Section 8 housing that was certified lead-free, she said.
After several retests, she said, her pediatrician told her, "It
could be the water."

Flint mom Melissa Lightfoot says her youngest child, Payton, is
one of the top students in her kindergarten class, but she is "so
scared that could all change next year."

That's because the 5-year-old -- along with her two older siblings
-- was found to have high lead levels in her blood after the
Michigan city switched to a more corrosive water source in 2015.

"I was scared," Ms. Lightfoot said.  "My kids are getting poisoned
from something that's a necessity and as a parent there's nothing
I can do to help them.  It's already in them, I can't take it out,
and there's no medicine for it."

Ms. Lightfoot -- who now uses bottled water even for bathing --
said she has seen her children's behavior deteriorate since their
elevated lead levels were discovered; their attention drifts and
they're prone to fits of anger.  The girls suffered hair loss, and
Kamryn developed rashes.

"I'm constantly at a doctor's office," she said.  "If it's not a
doctor's office, it's an appointment for therapy, because of this
lead being in my kids."

Of the three children, Payton had the highest level, close to 8
micrograms per deciliter.  But lawyers said one of the other
plaintiffs in the suit tested as high as 30.

"Lead poisoning is an insidious disease," said one of the
attorneys, Hunter Shkolnik.  "We know the brain is permanently and
irreversibly damaged but it doesn't manifest itself immediately.
These children have been pushed so far down now they cannot ever
achieve what was expected of them.

"What we're trying to do here is get action and get action quick,"
he added.  "There are many more children in the community who need
attention.  It cannot wait any longer."

Another lawyer, Adam Slater, said the suit will attempt to "hold
accountable" those responsible for changing Flint's water source,
failing to take steps to control corrosion, reassuring the public
the water was safe to drink, and failing to heed early warnings
that it was not.

The Flint city attorney and Michigan state attorney general
declined to comment on pending litigation.  To proceed, the
plaintiffs will have to show why the city and state are not
covered by governmental immunity.

The class action also names engineering firm Lockwood,
Andrews and Newman, which was hired by Flint before the switch.
The company said in a statement that its work was of "limited
scope" and that the decision not to use corrosion control was made
by the government and not its engineers.

Although the city has changed back to its old water supply and is
taking steps to control the lead, Lightfoot said her trust has
been permanently broken, and her peace of mind shattered by
uncertainty.

"I don't know how the rest of my kids' lives are going to play out
because of how high their lead levels are," she said.

"Now I just want to get my kids out of Flint."


FLINT, MI: "Boler" Suit Seeks Damages Over Polluted Water
---------------------------------------------------------
Beatrice Boler, individually and as a class representative, Pastor
Edwin Anderson, and Mrs. Alline Anderson, individually and as a
class representatives, EPCO Sales LLC, individually and as a class
representative, the Plaintiffs, v. Darnell Earley, individually,
and in his official capacity as Emergency Manager, Gerald Ambrose,
individually, and in his official capacity as Emergency Manager,
Dayne Walling, individually, and in his official capacity as
Mayor, City Of Flint, Hon. Richard Dale Snyder, individually, and
in his official capacity as Governor, State of Michigan, State of
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, and State of
Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, Case No. 2:16-
cv-10323-PDB-APP (E.D. Mich., Southern Division, January 31,
2016), seeks equitable relief and damages, arising out of
Defendants' acts that unilaterally lead-polluted and Legionella-
infected the City's water supply, turning it into poison in the
process.

The Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants have violated their due
process rights by unilaterally depriving the citizenry of safe and
potable water; failing to act for the welfare of
the general public; and acting in gross negligence by failing to
address a dangerous environmental hazard.

Located along the Flint River, 66 miles northwest of Detroit,
Flint is the largest city and county seat of Genesee County,
Michigan.


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Valdemar L. Washington, Esq.
          VALDEMAR L. WASHINGTON, PLLC
          Attorney for Plaintiffs
          718 Beach Street/ P.O. Box 187
          Flint, MI 48501-0187
          Telephone: (810) 407 6868
          Facsimile: (810) 265 7315
          Email: vlwlegal@aol.com


FLORIDA: DHSMV Faces Class Suit Alleging Civil Rights Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alfredo Crespin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor
Vehicles and Terry L. Rhodes, Executive Director, Case No. 6:16-
cv-00276-ACC-DAB (M.D. Fla., February 17, 2016) accuses the
Defendants of Civil Rights violation.

The Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles is a
statutorily established cabinet agency of the Florida government.
The Department provides highway safety and security in Florida.
Terry L. Rhodes is the executive director of the Department.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Scott Oliver, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID S. OLIVER
          424 E Central Blvd., Suite 228
          Orlando, FL 32801-1923
          Telephone: (407) 402-9379
          E-mail: dso911legal@gmail.com

               - and -

          Stuart I. Hyman, Esq.
          STUART I. HYMAN, PA
          1520 E Amelia St.
          Orlando, FL 32803
          Telephone: (407) 896-0536
          Facsimile: (407) 896-0540
          E-mail: dui1stlady@aol.com


G.S. WILCOX: Gorss Motels Files Suit in Conn. District Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Gorss Motels Inc. v. G.S. Wilcox & Co., John
Doe 1-10, CASE #: 3:16-cv-00349 (D. Conn., March 1, 2016), demands
$1,000,000.

G.S. Wilcox & Co. is a full service mortgage-banking firm, which
specializes in the origination and servicing of commercial real
estate mortgages in the range of $1M-$100M.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
     BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
     85 Miles Avenue
     White Plains, NY 10606
     Phone: (914) 358-5345
     Fax: (212) 571-0284
     E-mail: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com


GENUINE TITLE: Bid for Protective Order in "Fangman" Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
Edward J. Fangman and Vicki Fangman and 46 other Plaintiffs bring
a class action lawsuit against various lenders alleging violations
of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.  The case is, EDWARD
J. AND VICKI FANGMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GENUINE TITLE, LLC,
et al., Defendants, Case No. RDB-14-0081 (D. Md.).

On May 15, 2015, Plaintiffs issued a subpoena to the Maryland
Insurance Administration. The subpoena seeks:

     -- All written and/or recorded statements by Genuine Title,
        LLC and/or its agents, servants, representatives and/or
        employees in the MIA's possession, including, but not
        limited to the deposition transcripts of Jay Zuckerberg
        and Brandon Glickstein;

     -- A copy of Genuine Title, LLC's hard drive, network
        server(s), electronic data and/or computer files in MIA's
        possession; and

     -- A complete copy of any and all documents seized from
        Genuine Title, LLC and/or its agents, servants,
        representatives and/or employees.

The Defendants asked the Court to enter a protective order under
Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1) "forbidding
the Plaintiffs from obtaining the records sought by them under"
the MIA subpoena and (2) "requiring the Plaintiffs to withdraw the
MIA subpoena."

Additionally, defendant PNC Mortgage asked the Court to enter a
protective order under Rule 26(c) prohibiting Plaintiffs from
obtaining documents pursuant to the MIA subpoena.

Plaintiffs contend that Defendants lack standing to challenge the
MIA Subpoena. Plaintiffs point out that Defendants have not
claimed a personal right or privilege in the MIA's information
that would confer standing upon all of them to seek protection
from the Court.

In his Memorandum Order dated February 12, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/7CiTDbfrom Leagle.com, District Justice Richard D.
Bennett declined to suspend Plaintiffs' discovery rights because
of their clearly demonstrated need to obtain information about the
extent of Genuine Title's actions and rejected Defendants' pending
request to prevent Plaintiffs from obtaining records from the
MIA's investigation of Genuine Title.

Plaintiffs are represented by Michael Paul Smith,
Esq. -- mpsmith@sgs-law.com -- Sarah A. Zadrozny, Esq. --
szadrozny@sgs-law.com -- SMITH, GILDEA & SCHMIDT, LLC & Veronica
Byam Nannis, Esq. -- vnannis@jgllaw.com -- Timothy Francis
Maloney, Esq. -- tmaloney@jgllaw.com -- JOSEPH GREENWALD AND LAAKE
PA

Defendants are represented by Russell J. Pope, Esq. -- rjpope@tph-
law.com -- Virginia Wood Barnhart, Esq. -- vwbarnhart@tph-law.com
-- TREANOR POPE AND HUGHES PA & John Augustine Bourgeois, Esq. --
jbourgeois@kg-law.com -- KRAMON AND GRAHAM PA


GLOBAL TEL*LINK: "James" Suit Sent to Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------
District Judge William J. Martini of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey granted in part Defendants'
motion to compel arbitration in the case captioned, BOBBIE JAMES,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION, INMATE
TELEPHONE SERVICE and DSI-ITI LLC, Defendants, Case No. 13-4989
(WJM) (D.N.J.).

The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action over fees charged
by the Defendants for phone calls made by inmates from pay phones
in New Jersey correctional institutions.  The plaintiffs Bobbie
James, Crystal Gibson, Betty King, John Crow, and Barbara, Mark,
and Milan Skladany, are inmates or friends or family of inmates,
and used GTL's calling services in order to communicate with their
loved ones. Global Tel*Link Corporation, Inmate Telephone Service,
and DSI-ITI LLC manage telecommunications services at state and
local correctional facilities in New Jersey and other states.
Those who create an account through GTL's website are shown a copy
of GTL's Terms of Use within their browser, and the user must
click a button labeled "Accept" in order to complete the account
creation process. The TOU contains an arbitration agreement and a
corresponding class-action waiver.

The Plaintiffs filed the putative class action in August 2013
alleging violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the
Federal Communications Act, the Takings Clause of the Fifth
Amendment, and various New Jersey public utilities statutes, as
well as alleging unjust enrichment and seeking declaratory
judgment.

Defendants moved to compel arbitration and stay the proceeding in
the interim.

In his Opinion dated February 11, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/GGyzXEfrom Leagle.com, Judge Martini found that only
Gibson is required to arbitrate her claims.  Accordingly, the
Court granted the Defendants' motion to stay Gibson's claims
pending completion of arbitration as mandated by the FAA but
declined to stay the claims of the remaining Plaintiffs, who are
not bound by the arbitration agreement.

Plaintiffs are represented by James E. Cecchi, Esq. -
JCecchi@carellabyrne.com -- & Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq. -
LTaylor@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY
& AGNELLO, James Atkinson Plaisted, Esq. --
jplaisted@walderhayden.com -- & Lin Claire Solomon, Esq. --
lcsolomon@walderhayden.com -- WALDER HAYDEN P.A.

Global Tel*Link Corporation is represented by Aaron Van Nostrand,
Esq. -- vannostranda@gtlaw.com -- & Philip R. Sellinger, Esq. --
psellinger@gtlaw.com -- GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP


GOLD KEY: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, "Bleckman" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Bleckman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Gold Key Credit, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-
00815 (E.D.N.Y., February 17, 2016) alleges violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

Headquartered in Brooksville, Florida, Gold Key Credit, Inc.,
provides collections and receivables management services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 50
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281-7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


GOOGLE INC: Yesh Music Sues for Alleged Copyright Infringement
--------------------------------------------------------------
YESH MUSIC, LLC, and JOHN K. EMANUELE, individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated copyright holders, v. GOOGLE INC.,
Case 1:16-cv-01566 (S.D.N.Y., March 1, 2016), was based on alleged
copyright infringement pursuant to the Copyright Act and Copyright
Revisions Act.

YESH is in the business of music publishing.

The sole members of the Plaintiff are Richard Cupolo and John
Emanuele, who are also the sole composers of the Copyrighted
Compositions.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Richard M. Garbarini, Esq.
     GARBARINI FITZGERALD P.C.
     250 Park Avenue
     7th Floor
     New York, NY 10177
     Phone: (212) 300-5358
     Fax: (347) 28-9478


GOOGLE INC: Faces "Rivera" Suit Under Biometric Info Privacy Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
LINDABETH RIVERA v. GOOGLE INC., Case: 1:16-cv-02714 (N.D. Ill.,
March 1, 2016), seeks damages and other alleged legal and
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Google in
collecting, storing and using Plaintiff's and other similarly
situated individuals' biometric identifiers and biometric
information without informed written consent, in direct violation
of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Katrina Carroll, Esq.
     Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
     Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC
     211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 500
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Phone: (312) 750-1265
     E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
             kshamberg@litedepalma.com

        - and -
     AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
     Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
     Tina Wolfson, Esq.
     Brad King, Esq.
     1016 Palm Avenue
     West Hollywood, CA 90069
     Phone: (310) 474-9111
     Fax: (310) 474-8585
     E-mail: radhoot@ahdootwolfson.com
             twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
             bking@ahdootwolfson.com

        - and -

     Carey Rodriguez, Esq.
     David P. Milian, Esq.
     Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
     MILIAN GONYA, LLP
     1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone: (305) 372-7474
     Fax: (305) 372-7475
     E-mail: dmilian@careyrodriguez.com
             fhedin@careyrodriguez.com


H & M HENNES: Parties Stipulate Regarding Tran Class Action Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned SER LAO, as an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. H & M HENNES &
MAURITZ, L.P., a New York limited partnership; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-333 EJD (N.D. Cal.),
the parties entered into a stipulation regarding the class action
settlement in the case Tran v. H & M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P., Case
No. 111CV215599, and agreed that the class settlement shall not
apply to plaintiff Ser Lao and putative class members' claims for:

          (1) unpaid wages/overtime under California Labor Code
              Sections 510, 558, 1194, 1197, and 1197.1 that
              resulted from alleged security checks;

          (2) premium pay for missed meal and rest periods under
              California Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512 that
              resulted from alleged security checks; and

          (3) unpaid overtime under California Labor Code
              Sections 510, 558, 1194, and 1197.1 that resulted
              from Defendant's alleged miscalculation of the
              regular rate of pay based on Defendant's alleged
              failure to include in the regular rate all non-
              discretionary remuneration and/or incentive pay,
              including without limitation, quarterly and/or
              monthly bonuses.

A full-text copy of the February 24, 2016 stipulation is available
at http://is.gd/iaiyFVfrom Leagle.com.

Ser Lao, Plaintiff, represented by Larry W Lee, Diversity Law
Group, P.C..

H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P., Defendant, represented by Eve L.
Torres -- eltorres@manatt.com --  Manatt, Phelps, Robert Howard
Platt -- rplatt@manatt.com -- Manatt Phelps & Phillips & Andrew
Lee Satenberg -- asatenberg@manatt.com -- Manatt, Phelps &
Phillips, LLP.


HOT PIZZAS: Faces "Clark" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wage
-------------------------------------------------------
James Clark, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. Hot Pizzas, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-
cv-00631-MHB (D. Ariz., March 7, 2016), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Hot Pizza, LLC operates approximately 58 Pizza Hut franchise
stores in Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan Thompson, Esq.
      WATTS GUERRA LLP
      525 South Douglas Street, Suite 260
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Tel: (424) -220-8141
      Fax: (424) 732-8190
      Email: rthompson@wattsguerra.com

          - and -

      Jack D. McInnes, Esq.
      PAUL McINNES LLP
      601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
      Kansas City, MO 64106
      Tel: (816) 984-8100
      Fax: (816) 984-8101
      Email: mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com

         - and -

      Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
      WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
      11550 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
      St. Louis, MO 63141
      Tel: (314) 997-9150
      Fax: (314) 997-9170
      Email: markp@wp-attorneys.com


HOTEL CLEANING: Faces "Velez" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------
Jose Melendez Velez, and all others similarly-situated v. Hotel
Cleaning Services, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00293 (D. Colo.,
February 8, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for unpaid
overtime and statutory damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendant provides overnight cleaning services and sanitation
to luxury hotels, resorts, spas, restaurants, and commercial
facilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN
      20 N Orange Ave Ste 1600
      Orlando, FL 32801
      Tel: (407) 420-1414
      E-mail: BMazaheri@forthepeople.com


ILLINOIS BELL: Judge Narrows Claims in "Malkowski" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan of the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, granted defendant's partial motion to
dismiss in the case RONALD MALKOWSKI, Plaintiff, v. ILLINOIS BELL
TELEPHONE COMPANY d/b/a AT&T ILLINOIS, Defendant, No. 15 C 2749
(N.D. Ill.)

Malkowski allegedly worked as a Cable Splicer for defendant
Illinois Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T Illinois' from January
2006 to April 2014. Malkowski alleges that Bell permitted
Malkowski to perform work before his shift, expected him to work
during his meal breaks, and permitted him to work after his shift
ended, all without paying him for the hours worked.

Malkowski indicates that he is a class member in Blakes v. Ill.
Bell Tel. Co., in which he is pursuing certain Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) claims against Bell. In Blakes, the court
initially conditionally certified certain claims and later
decertified certain claims. After the decertification, Malkowski
joined with certain plaintiffs from Blakes to pursue the
decertified claims in a new action named Tinoco v. Ill. Bell. Tel.
Co. On March 24, 2015, the judge in Tinoco granted Bell's motion
to sever, and as a result, Malkowski was assigned the instant case
number under which he was directed to pursue his claims from
Tinoco.

Malkowski includes in his second amended complaint in the present
case claims alleging violations of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 201
et seq., the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820 ILCS 105/1 et seq.
(IMWL), and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA),
820 ILCS 115 et seq.

Bell moves to dismiss the IMWL and IWPCA claims, and a portion of
the FLSA claims.

Judge Der-Yeghiayan granted Bell's motion to dismiss certain FLSA
claims and also granted Bell's motion to dismiss the IMWL claims
and IWPCA claims.  A copy of Judge Der-Yeghiayan's memorandum
opinion dated January 15, 2016, is available at
http://goo.gl/6fiObnfrom Leagle.com.

Ronald Malkowski, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Colleen M. McLaughlin, Esq.
     Elissa Joy Hobfoll, Esq.
     Gregory Scott Dierdorf, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF COLLEEN M. MCLAUGHLIN
     1751 S Naperville Rd
     Wheaton, IL 60189
     Telephone: 630-221-0305

Illinois Bell Telephone Company, Defendant, represented by Ellen E
Boshkoff -- ellen.boshkoff@FaegreBD.com -- George Alan Stohner --
george.stohner@FaegreBD.com -- Gregory P. Abrams --
gregory.abrams@FaegreBD.com -- Lindsey M. Hogan --
lindsey.hogan@FaegreBD.com -- at Faegre Baker Daniels LLP


INTEGRITY SERVICES: "Brundage" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Allen Brundage, Terry Brundage and Brett Dehart, Plaintiffs, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Integrity Field Services Inc., Vern Frega and Danielle Frega,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00538 (N.D. Ohio, March 7, 2016) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Integrity is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of
business in Medina County, Ohio and is a nationwide full service
repair and preservation company serving financial institution and
government entities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Stephan I. Voudris, Esq.
     Alix Noureddine, Esq.
     VOUDRIS LAW LLC
     8401 Chagrin Road, Suite 8
     Chagrin Falls, OH 44023
     Tel: 440-543-0670
     Fax: 440-543-0721
     Email: svoudris@voudrislaw.com
            anoureddine@voudrislaw.com


J. CREW: Faces "D'Aversa" Suit for Alleged Breach of Contract
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph A. D'Aversa v. J. Crew Group, Inc., J. Crew Operating
Corp., J. Crew Inc., J. Crew International, Inc., Chinos Holdings,
Inc., Chinos Intermediate Holdings A, Inc., Chinos Intermediate
Holdings B, Inc., CASE #: 1:16-cv-01590-DLC (S.D.N.Y., March 2,
2016), alleges breach of contract.

J. Crew Group, Inc., is an American multi-brand, multi-channel,
specialty retailer. The company offers an assortment of women's,
men's and children's apparel and accessories.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ross Howard Schmierer, Esq.
     PARIS ACKERMAN & SCHMIERER, LLP
     101 Eisenhower Parkway
     Roseland, NJ 07068
     Phone: (973) 228-6667
     Fax: (973) 629-1246
     E-mail: ross@paslawfirm.com


KAISER FOUNDATION: Conditional Certification Okayed in "Feaver"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ROSE FEAVER, an individual, MYUNGSHUN SHIM,
an individual, ARTIN ADAMIAN, an individual, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KAISER
FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, and
Does 1 through 50, Inclusive Defendants, Case No. 3:15-CV-00890-
EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen approved a stipulation
regarding notice of conditional certification and proposed order
submitted by the plaintiffs, Rose Feaver, Artin Adamian, and
Myungsun Shim, and defendants Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.
and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc.

The stipulation was pursuant to the court's order granting the
plaintiff's motion for conditional certification dated January 7,
2016.

The parties selected Rust Consulting, Inc. to serve as the Claims
Administrator with regard to the notice plan.  The notice
specified that all opt-in notifications must be postmarked or
actually received by the Claims Administrator within 45 days from
the date of mailing of the notice.

A full-text copy of Judge Chen's March 2, 2016 order is available
at http://is.gd/352EFqfrom Leagle.com.

Rose Feaver, Artin Adamian, Myungshun Shim, Plaintiffs,
represented by Prescott Wayne Littlefield, Kearney Littlefield
LLP, Richard David Lambert, Stonebarger Law, Thomas Andrew
Kearney, Kearney Littlefield LLP & Gene J. Stonebarger,
Stonebarger Law, APC.

Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Kaiser Foundation Hospitals,
Defendants, represented by Jessica S. Lieberman, Seyfarth Shaw
LLP, pro hac vice, Richard Lee Alfred, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, pro hac
vice, Christian Joseph Rowley, Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Jason Michael
Allen, Seyfarth Shaw LLP.


KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces Suit for Allegedly Overcharging Members
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Gallimore, and Anna Rahm v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan,
Inc. and Does 1 through 20, BC 612259 (Cal. Super., County of Los
Angeles, March 1, 2016), alleges that Kaiser has systematically
overcharged its members for frequently prescribed generic drugs.

Kaiser is a "health care service plan," also commonly referred to
as a Health Maintenance Organization ("HMO") headquartered in
Oakland, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael J. Bidart, Esq.
     Ricardo Echeverria, Esq.
     Danica Crittenden, Esq.
     SHERNOFF BIDART ECHEVERRIA BENTLEY LLP
     600 South Indian Hill Boulevard
     Claremont, CA 91711
     Phone: (909) 621-4935
     Fax: (909) 625 6915

        - and -

     Robert S. Gianelli, Esq.
     Joshua S. Davis, Esq.
     Adrian J. Barrio, Esq.
     GIANELLI & MORRIS
     550 South Hope St., Suite 1645
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: (213) 489-1600
     Fax: (213) 489-1611


KWONG YET: Judge Approves Parties' Settlement Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Miranda M. Du of the District of Nevada approved
the parties' stipulation and settlement agreement in the case
CIRENA TORRES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. KWONG YET LUNG CO., INC. (d/b/a
International Marketplace), and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:14-cv-02223-MMD-PAL (D. Nev.)

On October 20, 2015, the court entered an order granting
plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement. Plaintiff and defendant have filed a motion for final
approval of class action settlement. Also, plaintiff and class
counsel, have filed a motion for award of attorneys' fees and
costs to class counsel and incentive payment to the class
representative.

Judge Du granted final approval of the proposed settlement upon
the terms and conditions set forth in the settlement agreement.
The Judge finds that the terms of the proposed settlement are
fair, adequate and reasonable and comply with Rule 23(e) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP).

The Court certified this Settlement Class for settlement purposes
only:

"all consumers who, at any time during the period December 31,
2012 to December 13, 2014 (the Settlement Class Period), were
provided an electronically printed receipt at the point of a sale
or transaction at the International Marketplace Store, on which
receipt was printed more than the last 5 digits of the credit card
or debit card number and/or the expiration date of the consumer's
credit card or debit card."

The court appointed plaintiff Cirena Torres as the class
representative for the settlement class and appointed attorney
Chant Yedalian of Chant & Company A Professional Law Corporation
and attorney Kenneth M. Roberts of Dempsey, Roberts & Smith, Ltd.
as class counsel for the settlement class.

The court ruled that the $550 hourly rate of class counsel Chant
Yedalian, and the $350 hourly rate of class counsel Kenneth M.
Roberts, are reasonable based upon each of their respective
qualifications, skills and experience and awards $135,000 in
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to class counsel. The court
also awards $5,000 to the class representative, Cirena Torres, as
an incentive award to compensate her for her service as the
representative of the settlement class.

A copy of Judge Du's order dated February 11, 2016, is available
at http://is.gd/8x919Afrom Leagle.com.

Cirena Torres, Plaintiff, represented by Chant Yedalian --
chant@chant.mobi -- at Chant & Company; Kenneth M Roberts -- at
Dempsey, Roberts & Smith, Ltd.

Kwong Yet Lung Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Anthony J.
DiRaimondo -- adiraimondo@rrsc-law.com -- David A. Carroll --
dcarroll@rrsc-law.com -- at Rice Reuther Sullivan & Carroll, LLP;
Rachel Kingrey -- rkingrey@gardere.com -- at Gardere Wynne Sewell
LLP


LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Faces Merger-Related Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Bernert, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Leapfrog Enterprises Inc., VTech Holdings Limited,
Bonita Merger Sub, L.L.C., William B. Chiasson, Thomas J.
Kalinske, John Barbour, E. Stanton McKee Jr., Randy O. Rissman,
Caden Wang, and Stephen Youngwood, Case No. RG16803918 (Cal.
Super. Ct., February 16, 2016) arises from VTech's proposed
acquisition of Leapfrog.

Leapfrog is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Emeryville, California.  Leapfrog is an
educational entertainment company that designs, develops, and
markets technology-based learning products and related content for
the education of children from infancy through grade school.

VTech is an exempted company incorporated in Bermuda with limited
liability with its principal executive offices located Tai Po, New
Territories.  Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation and a wholly-
owned subsidiary of VTech created for the purposes of effectuating
the proposed transaction.  The Individual Defendants are directors
and officers of the companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          J. Brandon Walker, Esq.
          BRAGAR BAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
          885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 308-5858
          Facsimile: (212) 486-0462
          E-mail: walker@bespc.com


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Faces "Huang" Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Yanqiao Huang, Plaintiff, on behalf of all others persons
similarly situated v. Lending Club Corporation, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. CIV537637 (Cal. Super., March 3, 2016), seeks
damages for alleged materially false and misleading statements
pursuant to Securities Act.  The Plaintiff brought this securities
class action on behalf of all other persons or entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of LendingClub
pursuant and/ or traceable to the Registration Statement and
Prospectus declared effective by the Securities and Exchange
Commission on December 10, 2014, and issued in connection with the
Company's initial public stock offering on or around December 11,
2014.

Also named as defendants are certain of LendingClub's officers and
directors, and the underwriters of the Company's offering,
including Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Credit
Suisse Securities ( USA) LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Allen
& Company LLC, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, BMO
Capital Markets Corp., William Blair & Company, L.L.C., Wells
Fargo Securities, LLC.

LendingClub is a US peer-to-peer lending company headquartered in
San Francisco, California. The Company's shares are traded on the
NYSE stock exchange under the ticker symbol "LC."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
     THE ROSE LAW FIRM, P.A.
     355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Tel: (213) 785-2610
     Fax: (213) 226-4684
     Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Faces "Kearns" Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Loyd Kearns, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LendingClub Corporation, et al., Defendants,
Case No. CIV537633 (Cal. Super., March 3, 2016) seeks damages for
materially false and misleading statements pursuant to Securities
Act.  The Plaintiff brought this securities class action on behalf
of all other persons or entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock of LendingClub by means of the
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
the Company's December 10, 2014, initial public offering.

Also named as defendants are certain of LendingClub's officers and
directors, and the underwriters of the Company's offering,
including Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Credit
Suisse Securities ( USA) LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Allen
& Company LLC, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, BMO
Capital Markets Corp., William Blair & Company, L.L.C., Wells
Fargo Securities, LLC.

LendingClub is a US peer-to-peer lending company headquartered in
San Francisco, California. The Company's shares are traded on the
NYSE stock exchange under the ticker symbol "LC."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
     Robert V. Portnoy, Esq.
     Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
     Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     Los Angeles, CA 90076
     Tel: (310) 201-9150
     Fax: (310) 201-9160
     Email: rprongay@gglancylaw.com

          - and -

     Howard G. Smith, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
     3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
     Bensalem, PA 19020
     Tel: (215) 638-4847
     Fax: (215) 638-4867


LLOYDS TSB: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in "Willcox" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Lloyds TSB Bank PLC has taken an appeal from a district court's
class certification order in the case BRADLEY WILLCOX, FRANK
DOMINICK, and MICHELE SHERIE DOMINICK, Plaintiffs, v. LLOYDS TSB
BANK, PLC and DOES 1-15, Defendants, Civ. No. 13-00508 ACK-RLP (D.
Haw.).

On January 8, 2016, District Judge Alan C. Kay of the District
Court of Hawaii adopted in part, rejected in part and modified in
part the findings and recommendations in the case.

On January 22, 2016, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(f), Lloyds filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit a Petition for Permission to Appeal the Class
Certification Order.

Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to the Petition for Permission to
Appeal on February 1, 2016.

The Ninth Circuit appeal is docket as No. 16-80009.

Lloyds Bank PLC (Lloyds) is organized under the laws of the United
Kingdom but maintains branches throughout the world, including a
branch in Hong Kong. Lloyds is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lloyds
Banking Group, PLC.

Plaintiff Bradley Willcox is a resident of Hawaii who, in 2007,
took out $1,284,500 in four international mortgage systems (IMS)
loans from Lloyds, secured by four real properties located in
Honolulu, Hawaii.  Willcox took out the loans in U.S. Dollars but
chose to redenominate them to Japanese Yen shortly after the
transaction closed.

The operative third amended complaint (TAC) was filed on March 27,
2015. The TAC names Frank and Michele Sherie Dominick and Bradley
Willcox as representatives for the putative class action against
defendant Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC, now known as Lloyds Bank PLC.
Plaintiffs' TAC bring claims for breach of contract (Count I) and
breach of an implied term limiting Lloyds' discretion to change
the interest rate (Count II) related to the IMS.

On July 15, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
Magistrate Judge Puglisi issued his findings and recommendations
to grant in part and deny in part plaintiffs' motion for class
certification (F&R) on November 12, 2015.

Magistrate Judge Puglisi recommends that the case be certified as
a class action, appoint Willcox as class representative, appoint
Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing and Steptoe & Johnson LLP as class
counsel, directing the parties to meet and confer regarding notice
to class members, denying any remaining relief requested in
plaintiffs' class certification motion and defined a class as:

"All persons and entities who entered prior to August 2009 into an
IMS [International Mortgage System] loan with Lloyds that
contained a Hong Kong choice-of-law provision and an interest rate
provision based upon Cost of Funds and who are, or were at any
time during entering into such an IMS loan, residents or citizens
of the State of Hawaii, or owners of property in Hawaii that was
mortgaged to secure any such IMS loan."

Lloyds filed its objections to findings and recommendations to
grant in part and deny in part plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

In an order dated January 8, 2016, available at
http://goo.gl/C8bdxpfrom Leagle.com, Judge Kay adopted in part,
rejected in part, and modified in part the Findings and
Recommendations.  Judge Kay held that plaintiffs have demonstrated
the superiority of class litigation under Rule 23(b)(3) as to the
class defined. However, the court will certify the class as
defined with the modification that the class shall be limited to
plaintiffs of U.S. and Canadian citizenship. The Court adopted the
remainder of the Findings and Recommendations, over Lloyd's
objections.

Plaintiffs, represented by Gary Lombardo -- glombardo@steptoe.com
-- Morgan Hector -- mhector@steptoe.com -- Stephen A. Fennel --
sfennell@steptoe.com -- at Steptoe & Johnson LLP; Paul Alston --
palston@ahfi.com -- Glenn T. Melchinger -- gtm@ahfi.com -- at
Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing

Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC, Defendant, represented by Amy L. Woodward
-- awoodward@carlsmith.com -- Christian K. Adams --
cadams@carlsmith.com -- at Carlsmith Ball LLP

Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC, a bank organized and existing under the laws
of the United Kingdom, Defendant, represented by Martha S.
Sullivan -- martha.sullivan@squirepb.com -- at Squire Sanders LLP

Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC, Defendant, represented by Rebecca W.
Haverstick -- rebecca.haverstick@squirepb.com -- Sean L. McGrane -
- sean.mcgrane@squirepb.com -- at Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP


LLOYDS TSB: Judge Rules on Summary Judgment Bids in "Willcox"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, BRADLEY WILLCOX, FRANK DOMINICK, and
MICHELE SHERIE DOMINICK, Plaintiffs, v. LLOYDS TSB BANK, PLC and
DOES 1-15, Defendants, Case No. 13-00508 ACK-RLP (D. Haw.),
District Judge Alan C. Kay of the United States District Court for
the District of Hawaii:

     -- denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
        on Their and the Putative Class's Claim for Breach of
        Contract,

     -- granted in part Defendant Lloyds TSB Bank PLC's Motion
        for Summary Judgment and sua sponte granted partial
        summary judgment to Plaintiffs on Count II, and

     -- denied Plaintiffs' request for declaratory relief.

Lloyds Bank PLC (Lloyds) is organized under the laws of the United
Kingdom but maintains branches throughout the world, including a
branch in Hong Kong. Lloyds is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lloyds
Banking Group, PLC.

Plaintiff Bradley Willcox is a resident of Hawaii who, in 2007,
took out $1,284,500 in four international mortgage systems (IMS)
loans from Lloyds, secured by four real properties located in
Honolulu, Hawaii.  Willcox took out the loans in U.S. Dollars but
chose to redenominate them to Japanese Yen shortly after the
transaction closed.

The operative third amended complaint (TAC) was filed on March 27,
2015. The TAC names Frank and Michele Sherie Dominick and Bradley
Willcox as representatives for the putative class action against
defendant Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC, now known as Lloyds Bank PLC.
Plaintiffs' TAC bring claims for breach of contract (Count I) and
breach of an implied term limiting Lloyds' discretion to change
the interest rate (Count II) related to the IMS.

Plaintiffs contend that Lloyds impermissibly included in its Cost
of Funds calculation a charge that constituted neither an actual
cost to Lloyds in funding the loans nor a liquidity requirement.

The IMS loans at issue in this case were made from approximately
2005-2009 and secured by mortgages on real property in Hawaii and
California.  The loans have an interest rate that is set at 1.5%
above Lloyds' "Cost of Funds," with the interest rate fixed for
successive three-month periods.

Plaintiffs claim that, in or around 2009, Lloyds added several new
basis points to its Cost of Funds calculation in order to reflect
the imposition by its parent company of a "liquidity transfer
pricing" ("LTP") charge.

In October 2015, Plaintiffs and Lloyds had filed the cross-motions
for summary judgment. Lloyds moved for summary judgment as to both
of Plaintiffs' Counts I and II.  Plaintiffs moved for summary
judgment only as to their Count I and request "immediate
declaratory relief" as to that claim.  Both filed opposition to
the other's summary judgment motion.

On January 8, 2016, Judge Kay adopted in part, rejected in part,
and modified in part a magistrate judge's Findings and
Recommendations with respect to Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  Judge Kay certified the class as defined with the
modification that the class shall be limited to plaintiffs of U.S.
and Canadian citizenship. The remainder of the Findings and
Recommendations was adopted, over Lloyd's objections.

On January 19-20, 2016, the Court held a two-day hearing regarding
the summary judgment motions.

In his Order dated February 11, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/uPySyMfrom Leagle.com, Judge Kay found that the Cost
of Funds provision in the facility agreements does not prescribe a
specific methodology for calculating the Cost of Funds component
of the IMS loans' interest rate; does not specifically require the
Cost of Funds component to track 3-month LIBOR; and does not
specifically require Lloyds to fund Plaintiffs' loans with short-
term money. However, the agreements do allow Lloyds to pass on
liquidity costs and liquidity requirements to borrowers.

The Court found an implied term in the agreements which limits
Lloyds' discretion to alter interest rates. That implied term
requires Lloyds, when altering interest rates, to do so in a
manner that comports with purely commercial considerations,
including whether it is in financial difficulty because it is
obliged to pay higher rates on interest to the money market;
however, Lloyds must refrain from acting dishonestly, for an
improper purpose, capriciously, or arbitrarily, or in a manner so
unreasonable that no reasonable lender would do the same.

The Court held that issues of material fact regarding Lloyds'
alleged breach of the express and implied terms of the facility
agreements remain.

Plaintiffs are represented by Gary Lombardo, Esq. --
glombardo@steptoe.com -- & Morgan Hector, Esq. -
mhector@steptoe.com -- STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP, Paul Alston, Esq. -
palston@ahfi.com -- & Glenn T. Melchinger, Esq. -
gmelchinger@ahfi.com -- ALSTON HUNT FLOYD & ING

Lloyds TBS Bank PLC is represented by Amy L. Woodward, Esq. --
awoodward@carlsmith.com -- & Christian K. Adams, Esq. --
cadams@carlsmith.com -- CARLSMITH BALL LLP, Martha S. Sullivan,
Esq. -- martha.sullivan@squirepb.com -- Rebecca W. Haverstick,
Esq. -- rebecca.haverstick@squirepb.com -- & Sean L. McGrane, Esq.
-- sean.mcgrane@squirepb.com -- SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS LLP


MARCOPPER MINING: Appeal in Fishermen's Class Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
Vince Alvic Alexis F. Nonato, writing for Business World Online,
report that the Court of Appeals (CA) has denied Marcopper Mining
Corp.'s appeal against its decision subjecting to trial the class
suit by local fishermen affected by a mining pit's collapse 20
years ago.

The mining firm unsuccessfully petitioned the appellate court to
reverse the Boac Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 38's July 5,
2013 order denying its motion to dismiss the Calancan Bay
Fisherfolk Federation's (CBFF) class action.

In dismissing the mining firm's motion for reconsideration, the CA
Former Fifth Division also defended its June 29, 2015 decision
that cited Wikipedia and other online sources in explaining why it
allowed the Boac court to tackle the suit.

Marcopper claimed the June ruling -- based on the grounds of
massive damage to locals' health and the environment -- was
anchored on unsubstantiated conclusion of facts tantamount to
prejudgment of the case.

But the appellate court, in a five-page resolution penned by
Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr., rejected this contention.

It did not give credence to Marcopper's argument that its earlier
decision was based on unofficial and unverified reports found on
the Internet that are neither part of the case records nor matters
of judicial notice.

The appellate court explained it had to study why the mining pit
collapsed in March 1996 and how the villagers and the island's
water systems were affected by the ensuing tailings leak.  It held
that the use of Internet articles to resolve the petition to
dismiss the class suit was "in a fair and just manner."

The appellate court reasoned out that even the Supreme Court since
2004 has cited articles from Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia built
collaboratively by online users.

"Resort to the internet was made to supplant the missing
information that will provide a sufficient background to apprise
the Court of the basis and the reason for the tort case filed by
the fishermen," the CA added.

The June 29, 2015 decision allowed the Boac RTC to proceed with
the case after finding the incident to be "an environmental
disaster with far-reaching consequences" which the trial court can
take cognizance of.

The appellate court also took note of the fact the class suit
listed the names of persons who died and children who were
afflicted with diseases in the aftermath of the disaster.

According to the original decision's footnotes, the following
findings were sourced from Wikipedia on June 1, 2015: an estimated
84 million metric tons of mine tailings were discharged into
Calancan Bay from 1975 to 1988, and some mine tailings exposed to
ocean breeze were carried by the wind to the nearby rice fields,
open water wells and village homes.

Another fact culled from the online encyclopedia is President
Fidel V. Ramos's March 1998 placement of certain Calancan Bay
villages under the "state of calamity for health reasons."  It
also cited the Wikipedia definition of "mine tailings."

The decision also cited a feature story published by the
Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism in 1999, which
detailed the plight of the disaster's victims.

Marcopper's petition against the Boac RTC was based on procedural
grounds, arguing CBFF committed undue delay in seeking relief. The
firm claimed the complainants were already aware of the discharge
of mine tailings in the 1980s, yet they did not take any legal
action at the time.


MDL 2588: Whole Foods Destroyed Evidence, Plaintiffs Allege
-----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in 11 consolidated nationwide class actions
consolidated in the Federal District Court for the Western
District of Texas as In Re: Whole Foods Market, Inc. Greek Yogurt
and Sales Practices Litigation Case No. 14-MC-2588-SS, all of
which allege that "Whole Foods 365 Everyday Value Plain Greek
Yogurt" contained 6 times more sugar than what was stated on the
product label, filed papers in federal court on March 4, 2016,
asking the court to sanction Whole Foods for destroying what the
motion calls the most crucial evidence in the case.

Specifically, these plaintiffs claim that they recently learned
that Whole Foods had secretly destroyed its entire stock pile of
the yogurt -- hundreds of thousands of containers -- after
promising both the plaintiffs and the court that it would preserve
enough samples of the yogurt for testing in the litigation.
According to the plaintiffs, the destruction of the yogurt
jeopardizes the plaintiffs' ability to prove their case in court,
because there is no longer enough yogurt left to adequately test
the sugar content of the yogurt according to FDA standards.

The motion asks the court where the 11 class actions were
consolidated, including cases from Pennsylvania and New Jersey, to
impose sanctions on Whole Foods for violating a well-established
legal duty to preserve evidence in its custody. The requested
sanctions include barring Whole Foods from challenging the results
of prior tests performed on the yogurt by plaintiffs' experts and
requiring Whole Foods to pay for an investigation into exactly
how, when and why the yogurt was destroyed and why no samples were
kept.

Speaking on behalf of the plaintiffs in all 11 class actions,
Plaintiff's attorney Stephen DeNittis of Marlton, New Jersey,
stated:

"We were frankly dumbfounded when we learned of this. I have
encountered cases where someone erased a few emails, or one or two
documents go missing, but I have never seen a situation where we
were suddenly told that an entire product line --- hundreds of
thousands of containers -- has somehow mysteriously disappeared
off the planet. Its extremely worrying, especially after Whole
Foods had repeatedly assured us for many months that the yogurt
was being preserved. I had expected better from a company like
Whole Foods, which holds itself out to the public as being
concerned with more than just its bottom line."

In the MDL, Plaintiffs bring claims for violations of various
state consumer protection and unfair competition statutes as well
as claims for breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, negligent
misrepresentation, and for other equitable remedies.  Plaintiffs
are 18 individuals sue in their individual capacities and on
behalf of a putative national consumer class and ten putative
state subclasses comprised of consumers in Arizona, California,
Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, and Texas.  They allege that defendant WFM Private
Label, L.P., contracted with a third-party manufacturer,
Skotidakis, Inc., to produce a yogurt for sale as a store-brand
product to be sold at Whole Foods Market grocery stores across the
country.  Whole Foods own and operate Whole Foods Market grocery
stores, in which they sell a line of Whole Foods branded products
marketed as a healthier alternative to other brands.

The Plaintiffs claim that the yogurt was sold in 0% milkfat and 2%
milkfat versions. According to the nutrition facts label on the
back of the product, the Yogurt contains 2 grams of sugar per one
cup serving.  Plaintiffs claim the statement was false as
according to six tests conducted by Consumer Reports magazine, the
yogurt actually contained 11.4 grams of sugar per serving --
nearly six times the stated amount. Plaintiffs rely solely on the
testing conducted by Consumer Reports and do not allege they have
conducted any independent laboratory testing of the Yogurt to
corroborate Consumer Reports' conclusions.

Plaintiffs allege defendants were aware the nutritional
information on the yogurt was false, but marketed and sold the
product anyway in order to obtain a competitive advantage in the
market. Plaintiffs further allege defendants sold the yogurt at a
higher price than they would have had they labeled the sugar
content accurately. Plaintiffs claim they were harmed by the
alleged misrepresentation because they chose to purchase the
yogurt at least in part based on its low sugar content, and that
they paid more for the Yogurt than they would have had the label
been truthful. Plaintiffs also allege they relied on defendants'
representation in purchasing the yogurt and that they would not
have purchased the yogurt if they had known it actually contained
more than 2 grams of sugar per serving.

Plaintiffs brought claims against defendants for violations of
various state consumer protection and unfair competition statutes
as well as claims for breach of express and implied warranty,
unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and for
declaratory and injunctive relief Plaintiffs seek to represent a
national class of all consumers who purchased the Yogurt on or
after August 1, 2010. Plaintiffs also seek to represent a number
of state subclasses that include all consumers who purchased the
yogurt in Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts,
Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas on or
after certain dates ranging from August 6, 2008 to October 10,
2012, depending on the subclass. Plaintiffs collectively filed a
Second Amended Consolidated Complaint (SACC).

Defendant Whole Foods and other defendants asked the court to
dismiss the entirety of the SACC with prejudice on the grounds
plaintiffs' claims are preempted by federal law, fail to state a
plausible theory of causation, reliance, or injury, and fail to
plead their fraud claims with the particularity required by Rule
9(b).  The Defendants argued that Plaintiffs state law claims are
preempted by the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and FDA
regulations because they seek to impose more stringent labeling
requirements than those imposed by federal law.  The Defendants
also argued plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive relief and
their request for declaratory relief should be denied because the
issues will be decided in the context of other claims.

In an order dated February 12, 2016, available at
http://goo.gl/RpPL5vfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Sam Sparks
held that Plaintiffs' state law claims are preempted by federal
law and thus subject to dismissal.  The Court gave Plaintiffs
leave to amend the SACC to remedy the pleading deficiencies.
Plaintiffs were directed to file a third amended consolidated
complaint no later than March 4, 2016.  Judge Sparks denied Whole
Foods's motion to dismiss as moot and granted the other
defendants' motion to dismiss.  The Court said it will address
Defendants' remaining arguments pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule
12(b) and Rule 12(f) should they choose to re-file the motions.

"The Court encourages Plaintiffs to attempt to obtain the test
results from a third party or otherwise conduct testing in
compliance with FDA regulations themselves such that they can in
good faith file a Third Amended Consolidated Complaint that pleads
a plausible violation of the FDCA. However, if Plaintiffs are
unable to obtain such results, or otherwise find it "impossible to
currently conduct the protocol" required due to the alleged
destruction of the Yogurt by Defendants -- and, in turn impossible
to plead claims that are not preempted -- Plaintiffs are welcome
to address the spoliation arguments that would inevitably arise if
the litigation were permitted to proceed," the Judge said in
February.

Plaintiffs Kevin Grodnick, Janet Woo, and Kathy Yeung are
represented by Ross H. Schmierer -- ross@paslawfirm.com -- Paris
Ackmerman & Schmierer LLP.

Plaintiffs Carmine Clemente and Samantha Kilgallen are represented
by Stephen P. DeNittis -- sdenittis@denittislaw.com
-- DeNittis Osefchen, P.C. & Steven A. Gibbins, Law Offices of
Steve Gibbins.

Plaintiffs Chas Jackson and Josh Koffman are represented by Adrian
Bacon -- abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com -- Law Offices of Todd
Friedman PC, Suren Weerasuriya --
sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com -- Law Offices of Todd M.
Friedman PC & Todd M. Friedman --
tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com -- Law Offices of Todd M.
Friedman, P.C.

Ryan Markley, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua Harris Eggnatz, The
Eggnatz Law Firm PA & Michael Thomas Fraser --
frasermt83@gmail.com -- Fraser Law Firm. P.C.

Charles J. LaDuca -- charles@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert &
LaDuca, LLP, Erica C. Mirabella, Jon M. Herskowitz, Baron &
Herskowitz, Joseph Siprut, Siprut PC, Tina Wolfson --
twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C. & William H.
Anderson -- wanderson@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP,
represent Plaintiffs Tracey Knox, Sarah McDonagh, Derek Guluba,
and Barbara Trevino.

Ashley Richards is represented by Charles S Zimmerman --
csz@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed PLLP & Hart L. Robinovitch --
hlr@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed PLLP.

Mark Bilder is represented by Joseph A. Osefchen --
josefchen@denittislaw.com -- DeNittis Osefchen, P.C., Stephen P.
DeNittis, DeNittis Osefchen, P.C. & Steven A. Gibbins, Law Offices
of Steve Gibbins

Sarah Rodhouse is represented by David L. Steelman --
dsteelman@steelmanandgaunt.com -- STEELMAN, GAUNT & HORSEFIELD &
Matthew H. Armstrong -- marmstrong@uselaws.com -- Schlichter,
Bogard & Denton, LLP

Richard Steeley is represented by Joseph A. Osefchen, DeNittis
Osefchen, P.C., Stephen P. DeNittis, DeNittis Osefchen, P.C. &
Steven A. Gibbins -- sgibbins@1411west.com -- Law Offices of Steve
Gibbins

Stephen Kubick is represented by Janine Lee Pollack --
pollack@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP,
Marc R. Stanley -- marcstanley@mac.com -- Stanley Law Group,
Martin Darren Hebel Woodward -- mwoodward@stanleylawgroup.com --
Stanley Law Group, Matthew J. Zevin -- mzevin@aol.com -- Stanley
Law Group, Nancy A. Kulesa -- nkulesa@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky
LLP, Shannon L. Hopkins -- shopkins@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky
LLP & Stephanie A. Bartone -- sbartone@zlk.com -- Levi &
Korsinsky, LLP

Meredith Frydman is represented by Antonio Vozzolo, Faruqi &
Faruqi, LLP & Corey D. Holzer, Holzer & Holzer, LLC

Defendants Whole Foods Market, Inc., et al., are represented by
Jay William Connolly -- jwconnolly@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw
LLP, John H. Hempfling, II, National Litigation Counsel & Joseph
John Orzano -- jorzano@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP


MECHEL BLUESTONE: Class Certification Bid in "Ray" Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Irene C. Berger denied plaintiff Michael Ray's motion for
class certification in the case captioned MICHAEL RAY, Plaintiff,
v. MECHEL BLUESTONE, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 5:15-cv-
03014 (S.D. W.Va.).

Ray sued Mechel Bluestone, Inc., alleging that Bluestone, doing
business as Double-Bonus Coal Company, violated the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification ("WARN") Act by failing to
provide a 60-day notice to employees of a pending layoff.  Ray
moved for class certification on September 23, 2015.  The proposed
class definition included "[a]ll persons who were employed full-
time through the Double-Bonus Coal Company and Dynamic Energy and
who were subject to a reduction in force during the 30-day period
from November 20, 2013 to December 20, 2013."

Judge Berger found that, for the limited purpose of class
certification, Bluestone was a single employer against whom the
plaintiff may bring a class claim under the WARN Act on behalf of
all miners laid off at its subsidiaries, Double-Bonus and Dynamic
Energy.

However, Judge Berger found that Double-Bonus Mine No. 65,
operated by Double-Bonus, and the Coal Mountain Surface Mine No. 1
and Red Fox Surface Mine, operated by Dynamic Energy, do not
constitute a "single site of employment" for purposes of the WARN
Act because they were not within the same geographic vicinity, and
did not share the same staff and equipment.

Thus, Judge Berger concluded that Ray is unable to satisfy the
statutory requirements for bringing a class cause of action under
the WARN Act.

A full-text copy of Judge Berger's March 2, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/RbJHmCfrom
Leagle.com.

Michael Ray, Plaintiff, represented by Bren J. Pomponio, MOUNTAIN
STATE JUSTICE, INC. & Samuel Brown Petsonk, MOUNTAIN STATE
JUSTICE, INC.

Mechel Bluestone, Inc., Double-Bonus Coal Company, Dynamic Energy,
Inc., Defendants, represented by Andrew L. Ellis, WOOTON WOOTON &
DAVIS, John F. Hussell, IV, WOOTON WOOTON & DAVIS & John D.
Wooton, Jr., THE WOOTON LAW FIRM.


MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: "Bainbridge" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bainbridge, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Medline Industries, Inc., Case No. 5:16-cv-
00555 (N.D. Ohio, March 7, 2016), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendant is a privately held manufacturer and distributor of
healthcare supplies in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
     Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
     Nilges Draher, LLC
     4580 Stephen Circle, N.W., Suite 201
     Canton, OH 44718
     Tel: 330-470-4428
     Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
            sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


MICHAEL S. HARRISON: "Djakovac" Suit Claims FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
RIJALDA DJAKOVAC on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. MICHAEL S. HARRISON, and MICHAEL S. HARRISON, LLC,
CASE #: 2:16-cv-01173-WJM-MF (D.N.J. March 2, 2016), alleges
violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The case was assigned to Judge William J. Martini and referred to
Magistrate Judge Mark Falk.

The Defendants are categorized under Debt Collection Attorneys and
Lawyers, established in 1980 and incorporated in New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MINNESOTA TIMBERWOLVES: GLS Cos. Sues Over New Ticket Policy
------------------------------------------------------------
GLS Companies and James Mattson, Plaintiffs, individually and on
behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated v. Minnesota
Timberwolves Basketball LP, Case No. 27-CV-16-2816 (D. Minn.,
March 3, 2016), contends that the Timberwolves' new ticket policy
eliminates paper tickets and imposes draconian and unlawful
limitations on the ability of ticket holders, including season
ticketholders, to acquire, sell, or transfer the tickets for which
they paid.

Defendant Minnesota Timberwolves Basketball LP is a Minnesota
limited partnership with its principal place of business located
at 600 First Avenue North, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
      Wm Dane DeKrey, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
      1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Tel: (612) 341-0400
      Fax: (612) 341-0844
      Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
             Dane.dekrey@zimmreed.com

          - and -

      Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
      14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Suite 145
      Scottsdale, AZ 85254
      Tel: (480) 348-6400
      Fax: (480) 348-6415
      Email: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com

          - and -

      Caleb Marker, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
      Tel: (877) 500-8780
      Fax: (877) 500-8781
      Email: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com

          - and -

      Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
      James W. Anderson, Esq.
      HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
      310 Clifton Avenue
      Minneapolis, MN 55403
      Tel: (612) 338-4605
      Fax: (612) 338-4692
      Email: vesades@heinsmills.com
             janderson@heinsmills.com


NATE'S CORP: "Mongiove" Action Has Conditional Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York granted Plaintiffs'
motion in the case captioned, PETER MONGIOVE and YARINEL GONZALEZ,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. NATE'S CORP., SAND LANE PHARMACY CORP., VITACARE
PHARMACY CORP., BORIS NATENZON, ANGELA NATENZON, BERNARD
GLEZERMAN, and SIMON LORBERT, Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-1024
(NGG)(RML) (E.D.N.Y.).

Peter Mongiove is employed by Defendants as a pharmacist. Yarinel
Gonzalez is employed by Defendants as a pharmacy technician.
Plaintiffs allege that the policies implemented by the Individual
Defendants at each Corporate Defendant violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act in two ways. First, Plaintiffs allege that they were
not paid for each hour that they worked; and second, they allege
that they were not paid the proper overtime rate.

On June 6, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint asserting
claims under of the FLSA, New York Labor Law, New York common law,
and New York City Law.  Plaintiffs filed a fully-briefed motion to
conditionally certify an FLSA collective action arguing that the
Amended Complaint asserts collective claims on behalf of
Plaintiffs and other employees due to "Defendants' failure to pay
overtime compensation required by federal and state law and
regulations to Plaintiffs who worked in excess of forty (40) hours
per week."

In his Memorandum & Order dated February 9, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/3Aqoqcfrom Leagle.com, Judge Garaufis found that
Plaintiffs have adduced sufficient evidence to justify preliminary
certification of a collective action.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael Taubenfeld, Esq.
     SERRINS FISHER LLP
     233 Broadway #2340
     New York, NY 10279
     Tel: (646)741-3490

Defendants are represented by Jennifer A. Ramme, Esq. --
jramme@lcbf.com -- Rebecca R. Embry, Esq. -- rembry@lcbf.com --
LANDMAN CORSI BALLAINE & FORD PC


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Players Get More Than $10MM Jury Verdicts
------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Rozen, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that at two Texas
trials in February, plaintiffs at each won more than $10 million
jury verdicts after their counsel cross-examined the same defense
expert, Francisco Perez, a clinical neuropsychologist.

Mr. Perez worked previously for an insurance company, evaluating
NFL players' requests for disability benefits.  During cross-
examinations, plaintiff lawyers identified the denial of the NFL
players' claims and asked Mr. Perez about any role he played in
those rejections.

The defendants in each case had asked Perez to testify to counter
plaintiffs' allegations that their negligence had led to the
plaintiffs' head injuries.  In one of the two trials, a teen
plaintiff and his family alleged he was injured while engaging in
a recreational boxing match.  The plaintiffs alleged the maker of
the oversized boxing gloves the teen used for the event was
responsible for his injuries.  In the other case, a teen plaintiff
and his family alleged he was injured when he fell from a
trampoline at an indoor trampoline park; the plaintiffs alleged
the park operator was responsible for the injuries.  During direct
testimony, Mr. Perez referred to possible causes other than the
boxing match or trampoline fall for the plaintiffs' alleged
symptoms.

But during the cross-examination of Mr. Perez at each of the
trials, plaintiff counsel questioned his theories and highlighted
the neuropsychologist's role in determining that NFL players had
not suffered post-concussion syndrome, a conclusion that meant
they could be denied disability benefits.  The plaintiff lawyers'
tough questioning of Perez appears to have triggered a favorable
response for their clients from both jury panels, which each
awarded unanimously millions in punitive damages against the
defendants.

"Your job is to make sure that none of the players get paid
For -- for post-concussion syndrome? That's your job?" San Antonio
plaintiff lawyer Tom Rhodes asked Mr. Perez during the trial for
the boxing match plaintiffs.

At that trial, held in San Antonio, Mr. Rhodes represented the
teen who had allegedly suffered head injuries from the boxing
match and his family members.  At the conclusion of the trial in
February, Mr. Rhodes' clients won a $17.47 million verdict against
Nina Jump Inc., the maker of the oversized gloves. Nina Jump's
defense team called Mr. Perez as an expert witness for the
defense, and then Mr. Rhodes cross-examined him.

When asked to comment for this story, Mr. Perez said that media
"has poisoned" the debate about NFL players' alleged injuries.  He
also complained that in the courtroom, "Civility is gone and
professionalism has disappeared."

On the stand, Mr. Perez told Mr. Rhodes: "My job is to objectively
evaluate the person when they come to me to render opinions within
the best reasonable probability that I can render for the specific
person that I see."

"Okay. And you have evaluated 50 of [the NFL players]. Right?" Mr.
Rhodes asked.

"About 50 of them," Mr. Perez replied.

"And every single one of those 50 that you have evaluated injury
you have said they don't have it," Mr. Rhodes said.
Mr. Perez protested and said he was "not the one who denies" the
NFL players the disability benefits; he simply sends his reports
to the insurance company, Perez testified.

"I don't even know whether they get accepted or not," Mr. Perez
explained.

But Mr. Rhodes persisted.  "But whatever you send to that
insurance company says don't pay them from a neuropsychological
standpoint?" he asked.


NEW FOOD GUY: Caterer Provides Enough for a Part Time Wage Earner
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John L. Kane of the District of Colorado granted
defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings in the case
BRIDGETTE MARLOW, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. THE NEW FOOD GUY, INC., and BRETT TUCKER,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-cv-01327 (D. Colo.)

The New Food Guy, Inc. operates a catering business in Lakewood,
Colorado under the name Relish Catering and Brett Tucker is one of
its owners.  Bridgette Marlow worked part-time for Relish for
three months in 2013 and for six months in 2014. Throughout her
employment Relish paid Marlow a regular hourly wage of $12.00 per
hour and an overtime rate of time and one-half or, more precisely
stated, $18.00 per hour.

Marlow filed a complaint and then an amended complaint bringing
claims of her own and on behalf of others similarly situated as a
collective action under Sec. 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) and a Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 class action for the remaining
three claims under the Colorado Wage Claim Act and a common law
breach of contract claim.

Defendants then filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings or in
the alternative a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff withdrew
the breach of contract claim and no longer requests the exercise
of jurisdiction on the state statutory claims as supplemental to
the FLSA claim.

Judge Kane granted defendants' motion for judgment on the
pleadings.

A copy of Judge Kane's order dated February 17, 2016, is available
at http://goo.gl/2z2nZofrom Leagle.com.

Bridgette Marlow, Plaintiff, represented by Brian David Gonzales -
- Bgonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com -- at The Law Offices of Brian D.
Gonzales

Defendants, represented by Jennifer Lyn Gokenbach --
info@gokenbachlaw.com -- at Gokenbach Law, LLC


NEW JERSEY: Class Suit Over Divorce, Child Custody Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Michael A. Shipp of the District of New Jersey
entered an order dated Feb. 19, 2016, dismissing the case, DEBORA
L. ROLOFF, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
GOVERNOR CHRISTOPHER CHRISTIE, et al., Defendants, Civil Action
No. 15-1432 (MAS)(TJB) (D.N.J.)

This follows a January 13, 2016 Memorandum Opinion by the judge
that granted defendants' motions to dismiss the case.

The putative class action arises from an ongoing State court
divorce and spousal/child support action between pro se Plaintiff
Debora L. Roloff and her former spouse Defendant Brian S. Roloff,
which was filed in the Family Division of the New Jersey Superior
Court.  Brian filed a divorce against Plaintiff in September 2007.
Plaintiff alleges that Judge Jorgensen ordered full custody of the
two children to Brian.  Plaintiff alleges that her former husband
gave false testimony that she was abusive and unable to parent.
Plaintiff alleges that on March 30, 2009, she and her ex-husband
divorced. Plaintiff further alleges that since September 2007,
despite numerous motions to the New Jersey Superior Court, her ex-
husband has not allowed her to see her children. Plaintiff asserts
that her due process and equal protection rights were violated.

Plaintiff also alleges that United States Attorney Paul Fishman
has ignored her request to gather a grand jury and defendants Stan
Wischnowski and The Philadelphia Inquirer knew of the violations
of her federal rights but practiced yellow journalism and refused
to expose them.

Plaintiff filed a 12-count complaint against her ex-husband, her
ex-husband's prior attorneys, her prior attorneys, state court
judges, a probation officer, a newspaper company, as well as,
several state and federal officials, including Governor
Christopher Christie, State Senate President Stephen Sweeney, and
United States Attorney Paul Fishman, for conspiring to deprive her
of various federal and state rights and for violating various
federal and state statutes, including the civil Racketeering
Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. Section
1962, and the New Jersey Open Public Records Act, N.J.S.A.
47:1A-1.

Defendants John A. Patti, Esq., Laura D'Orsi, Esq., Paula A.
Menar, Esq., Brian S. Roloff, Katy E. Ronney, Stan Wischnowski,
The Philadelphia Inquirer, Governor Christopher Christie,
Honorable Glenn A. Grant, J.A.D., State of New Jersey, Superior
Court of New Jersey, Honorable John A. Jorgensen, II, J.S.C.,
Middlesex Vicinage Probation Division, New Jersey Family Support
Payment Center, and Michael Mignin filed motions to dismiss the
suit.

Applying the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, District Judge Shipp held
that the Court lacks jurisdiction to decide Plaintiff's challenge
to the award of sole custody to her ex-husband and the denial of
visitation rights to her.

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevents the lower federal courts from
exercising jurisdiction over cases brought by 'state-court losers'
challenging the 'state-court judgments rendered before the
district court proceedings commenced.'"

A copy of Judge Shipp's memorandum opinion dated January 13, 2016,
is available at http://goo.gl/Hr1Kdrfrom Leagle.com.

Debora L. Roloff, All Others Similar Situated, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Governor Christopher Christie, Glenn Grant, State Of New Jersey,
New Jersey Family Support Payment Center, Superior Court Of New
Jersey, Judge John A. Jorgensen, Middlesex County Probation
Office, Michael Mignon, Defendants, represented by Akeel Ahmad
Qureshi, State Of New Jersey

Brian S. Roloff and Katy Rooney, Defendants, represented by:

     Darren M. Baldo, Esq.
     4093 Quakerbridge Rd.
     Princeton Junction, NJ 08550
     Telephone: 609-799-0090

John A. Patti and Laura M. D'orsi Defendants, represented by
Leonardo M. Tamburello -- ltamburello@mdmc-law.com -- at McElroy,
Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP

Paula Menar, Defendant, represented by:

     Paula A. Menar, Esq.
     MENAR & MENAR
     83 Morris Street, Suite 3
     New Brunswick, NJ 08901
     Telephone: 732-227-1188

The Philadelphia Inquire and Its Affiliates and Stan Wischnowski
Defendant, represented by Michael Edward Baughman --
baughmanm@pepperlaw.com -- at Pepper Hamilton LLP


NISHIKAWA RUBBER: "Ascher" Suit Alleges Antitrust Law Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Halley Ascher, Gregory Asken, Melissa Barron, Kimberly Bennett,
David Bernstein, Ron Blau, Tenisha Burgos, Kent Busek, Jennifer
Chase, Rita Cornish, Nathan Croom, Lori Curtis, Jessica DeCastro,
Theresia Dillard, Alena Farrell, Jane Fitzgerald, Carroll Gibbs,
Dori Gilels, Jason Grala, Ian Groves, Curtis Gunnerson, Paul
Gustafson, Tom Halverson, Curtis Harr, Andrew Hedlund, Gary Arthur
Herr, John Hollingsworth, Leonard Julian, Carol Ann Kashishian,
Elizabeth Kaufman, Robert Klingler, Kelly Klosterman, James
Marean, Rebecca Lynn Morrow, Edward T. Muscara, Stacey Nickell,
Sophie O'Keefe-Zelman, Roger Olson, William Picotte, Whitney
Porter, Cindy Prince, Janne Rice, Robert Rice, Jr., Frances
Gammell- Roach, Darrel Senior, Meetesh Shah, Darcy Sherman, Erica
Shoaf, Arthur Stukey, Kathleen Tawney, Jane Taylor, Keith Uehara,
Michael Wick, Phillip Young, and all others similarly situated v.
Nishikawa Rubber Company, Nishikawa of America, Inc. and Nishikawa
Cooper LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-10456 (E.D. Mich., February 8, 2016),
seeks damages, injunctive relief, and other relief pursuant to
federal antitrust laws and state antitrust, unfair competition,
consumer protection laws and the common law of unjust enrichment
for engaging in a long-running conspiracy to unlawfully fix,
artificially raise, maintain and/or stabilize prices, rig bids
for, and allocate the market and customers in the United States
for Body Sealings.

The Defendants manufactured, marketed and sold body sealings that
were sold and purchased throughout the U.S.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      E. Powell Miller, Esq.
      Devon P. Allard, Esq.
      THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
      950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
      Rochester, MI 48307
      Tel: (248) 841-2200
      Fax: (248) 652-2852
      E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
              dpa@millerlawpc.com

          - and -

      Hollis Salzman, Esq.
      Bernard Persky, Esq.
      William V. Reiss, Esq.
      ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
      601 Lexington Avenue, Suite 3400
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 980-7400
      Fax: (212) 980-7499
      E-mail: HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com
              BPersky@RobinsKaplan.com
              WReiss@RobinsKaplan.com

          - and -

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

          - and -

      Steven N. Williams, Esq.
      Adam J. Zapala, Esq.
      Elizabeth Tran, Esq.
      COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
      San Francisco Airport Office Center
      840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
      Burlingame, CA 94010
      Tel: (650) 697-6000
      Fax: (650) 697-0577
      E-mail: swilliams@cpmlegal.com
              azapala@cpmlegal.com
              etran@cpmlegal.com


OCEAN DOORS: Faces "Murillo" Suit for FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
JAIME ALBERTO MURILLO v. OCEAN DOORS AND WINDOWS, INC., Case 1:16-
cv-20762-KMW (S.D. Fla., March 1, 2016), seeks to recover monetary
damages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees
for alleged willful violations of overtime pay laws of the United
States under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant is a carpentry and construction company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
     20801 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 403
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Phone: (786) 923-5899
     E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com


OKLAHOMA: DHS Settles Child Welfare Consultants' Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the Oklahoma Department of Human
Services has paid out more than $5.6 million over the past four
years to a New Jersey-based consulting group to oversee reforms to
the state's child welfare system.

The payments to Public Catalyst have continued while DHS offered
voluntary buyouts to more than 400 employees in an effort to
reduce spending by the agency because of declining state revenues.

The consulting group includes three experts, paid $315 an hour,
who were appointed by a Tulsa federal judge to recommend and
monitor reforms agreed to as part of a settlement to a class-
action lawsuit that focused on the abuse of some children in state
care, The Oklahoman reported on March 6.

But the experts aren't the only ones being paid under the Public
Catalyst contract.  Their partners, associates, support staff and
consultants also have been paid hourly rates ranging from $67 to
$315, public records reveal.

During the first 47 months of the Public Catalyst contract, more
than $4.9 million went to cover professional service fees,
$278,222 for travel, $383,326 for consultant fees and $5,917 for
other expenses.

In 2011, the year before the consultants were appointed, the
Oklahoma Department of Human Services reported to the federal
government that 0.48 percent of children had experienced
maltreatment while in state care.  The rate rose to 0.89 percent
in 2012, 1.19 percent in 2013, and 1.27 percent in 2014, the last
year for which complete statistics are available.

But the experts said it would be incorrect to conclude that the
maltreatment of Oklahoma children in state care had more than
doubled under their watch.

Before the oversight period began, DHS was only reporting
instances of abuse and neglect that occurred in family settings
that were investigated by Child Protective Services.  Beginning in
2013, DHS began including instances of abuse and neglect in
institutional settings that had been investigated by the DHS
Office of Client Advocacy, causing the numbers to increase.

DHS spokeswoman Sheree Powell said preliminary data indicates the
rate of maltreatment of Oklahoma children in state care declined
every quarter during calendar year 2015, with a "dramatic drop"
between the first quarter and the last one.


PARK LI: Judge Approves Settlement in "Sadana" Wage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge P. Kevin Castel of the Southern District of New
York granted the parties joint motion to approve the settlement in
the case SIMPY SADANA, Plaintiff, v. PARK LI, LTD. and THOMAS
MULLEN, Defendants, No. 15-cv-8772 (PKC)(S.D.N.Y)

Simpy Sadana worked as a senior consultant for defendant Park Li,
Ltd. from January 2012 through August 2015, and alleges that she
frequently worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Sadana contends
that during her tenure at Park Li, she worked 1,000 total hours of
unpaid overtime, which would entitle her to a total damages award
of $98,760, inclusive of liquidated damages and statutory
penalties under the New York Labor Law (NYLL) Sadana brought a
suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section
201, et seq., and New York Labor Law.

The Defendants have contended that Sadana worked 388 overtime
hours and is entitled to no more than $36,378.88 in lost wages and
liquidated damages.

On January 25, 2016, the parties jointly moved for approval of the
proposed settlement of the action and have agreed to settle the
action for $90,000. The parties state that they negotiated the
settlement at arm's length and through counsel. Settlement was
reached at an early stage of the litigation, prior to discovery
taking place. The patties jointly argue that the settlement is
fair, reasonable and appropriate in light of the expense and delay
that would have attended prolonged litigation, and the highly
contested issue of the number of overtime hours worked by Sadana.

Judge Castel granted the parties' joint motion to approve the
settlement.

A copy of Judge Castel's memorandum and order dated February 17,
2016, is available at http://goo.gl/ez8gYnfrom Leagle.com.

Simpy Sadana, Plaintiff, represented by William H. Healey --
whealey@klugerhealey.com -- at Kluger Healey, LLC

Park Li, LTD, Defendant, represented by:

     Edward Michael Kratt, Esq.
     EDWARD KRATT, LAW OFFICE
     100 Lafayette St
     New York, NY 10013
     Telephone: 212-941-1277


PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Action Over Customer Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd., an Israeli communications
operator, on March 7 disclosed that the Company received a lawsuit
and a motion for the recognition of this lawsuit as a class
action, filed against Partner in the Central District Court on
February 21, 2016.

The claim alleges that Partner offers its customers benefits and
free gifts while in fact, the customers are being charged for
these benefits and gifts.

If the claim filed against Partner is recognized as a class
action, the total amount claimed against Partner is estimated by
the plaintiff to be approximately NIS 30 million.

Partner is reviewing and assessing the lawsuit and is unable at
this preliminary stage, to evaluate, with any degree of certainty,
the probability of success of the lawsuit or the range of
potential exposure, if any.


PATTERSON-UTI ENERGY: Faces Suit Over FLSA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
Clifford Washington, Dexter Hines, and all others similarly-
situated v. Patterson-UTI Energy, Inc., Torqued-Up Energy
Services, Inc., and Universal Pressure Pumping, Inc., Case No.
5:16-cv-00130 (W.D. Tex., February 8, 2016), is brought against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant is an oilfield services provider that provides on
shore contract drilling and pressure pumping services for the oil
and gas industry throughout the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


PHILADELPHIA PARKING: "Parsons" Case Remanded to State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, ANGELA PARSONS, et al. v. THE PHILADELPHIA
PARKING AUTHORITY, et al, Case No. 13-0955 (E.D. Pa.), District
Judge Thomas N. O'Neill, Jr. of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Plaintiff's motion
for class certification and remanded plaintiff's individual unjust
enrichment claim against defendant to the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County.

Parsons sued the City of Philadelphia alleging one count of unjust
enrichment on behalf of herself and a proposed class of
plaintiffs. Plaintiff claims that defendant "failed and refused to
deactivate the meters and kiosks or program them so that they did
not accept payment for parking for times at which no payment was
required."  Plaintiff seeks to recover on a theory of unjust
enrichment on behalf of herself and her proposed class for the
money allegedly paid to defendant when no payment was due.

Plaintiff seeks to certify a class comprised of "All individuals
and entities (1) who paid for metered parking in the City of
Philadelphia where and when such parking was to be free of charge;
and/or (2) who paid for metered parking in the City beyond the
time required by the applicable parking regulation signs."

Plaintiff's motion for class certification is based on allegations
that she and others paid for "metered parking in the City when and
where such parking was free of charge" and paid "for metered
parking beyond the time required by the applicable parking
regulation signs. Defendant contends that class certification
should be denied because plaintiff's case is inappropriate for
certification under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(1) and because plaintiff
has failed to show ascertainability and predominance as required
to certify a Rule 23(b)(3) class.

In his Memorandum dated February 11, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/LIh2sMfrom Leagle.com, Judge O'Neill, Jr. found that
plaintiff has not met her burden to show that the prosecution of
separate actions would create a risk of multiple actions that
would establish incompatible standards of conduct or that the
denial of class certification would substantially impair or impede
the ability of other putative class members to protect their
interests and to identify any mechanism by which the putative
class may be ascertained and she has not provided any evidence to
show that any method could be successful.

Plaintiff's case will be remanded to plaintiff's original choice
of forum, the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County because
the District Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over plaintiff's remaining unjust enrichment claim.

Angela Parsons is represented by:

     Edward S. Mazurek, Esq.
     THE MAZUREK LAW FIRM LLC
     1701 Market St
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: (215)988-9090

The City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania is represented by Daniel
Auerbach, Esq. -- daniel.auerbach@phila.gov -- CITY OF
PHILADELPHIA LAW DEPT


PHILIP MORRIS: Florida Jury Awards $350,000 to Smoker's Widow
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Lowrey, writing for Law360, reports that a Florida jury on
March 2 rejected a widow's bid for $11.5 million plus punitive
damages against Philip Morris USA Inc. for the death of her
husband, who smoked, instead awarding her $350,000 and assigning
the tobacco giant only a quarter of the blame for his lung cancer.

The jurors in Fort Lauderdale found that Martin McCall was mostly
responsible for his own lung cancer, but that the cancer was not
the legal cause of his death.  Ms. McCall had died of a fungal
infection in his lungs, which the plaintiffs contended was caused
by cancer treatments that weakened his immune system.

During emotional closing arguments on March 2, plaintiffs attorney
Alex Alvarez of The Alvarez Law Firm told jurors that
Martin McCall's death devastated wife Bernice McCall and will rob
her of happiness in her own last days.

"There's nothing more beautiful than enjoying the sunset of your
life with the person that you love the most," Mr. Alvarez said.
"She doesn't have that. She'll never have that . . . and it's an
enormous loss."

Martin McCall had begun smoking when he was about 12 or 13 years
old and smoked one or two packs of cigarettes every day for
roughly 40 years. He died at age 52.

His wife testified that he smoked constantly and that their bed
and furniture were riddled with burn marks.

He failed frequent attempts to quit that included stopping cold-
turkey, taking smoking cessation classes, and chewing nicotine
gum. He could not quit smoking after his cancer diagnosis, she
said.

Philip Morris' attorney Bill Geraghty of Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
told jurors that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the lung
cancer led to McCall's death.

Mr. Geraghty said that experts agreed Mr. McCall would not have
had sufficient chemotherapy to cause the degree of
immunosuppression needed to bring about the aspergillus pneumonia
or herpes infections that McCall suffered before his death.

In addition, Mr. Geraghty said that Mr. McCall smoked several
brands of cigarettes over the years, not exclusively Philip Morris
brands.

The case is one of thousands stemming from the landmark Engle
class action against tobacco companies.

The Florida Supreme Court had decertified the Engle class in 2006
and overturned a $145 billion verdict, but allowed up to 700,000
people who could have won judgments to rely on the jury's findings
to file suits of their own.  Those findings include conclusions
that smoking causes certain diseases and that tobacco companies
hid smoking's dangers.

Mr. McCall is represented by Alex Alvarez of The Alvarez Law Firm
and Jordan L. Chaikin of Chaikin Law Firm PLLC.

Philip Morris is represented by William Geraghty of Shook Hardy &
Bacon LLP and Andrew Brenner of Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP.

The case is McCall v. Philip Morris USA Inc., case number 2007-CV-
036888, in the 17th Judicial Circuit Court of the State of
Florida.


PHOENIX COMPANIES: "Roth" Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
---------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Roth, and all others similarly-situated v. The Phoenix
Companies, Inc. and U.S. Bank National Association, in its
capacity as Indenture Trustee, Case No. 650634/2016 (N.Y. Sup.,
February 8, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for breach of
contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and
negligent misrepresentation.

Defendant Phoenix, a publicly-traded insurance company, issued and
sold $300 million of Bonds to the public pursuant to a registered
offering in 2001. The Bonds currently trade on the New York Stock
Exchange under ticker "PFX".

Defendant U.S. Bank National Association is the successor Trustee
to SunTrust Bank, with its principal place of business in
Cincinnati, OH. The Trustee offers and performs corporate trust
services throughout the country, including in New York, NY.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lawrence P. Kolker, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
      FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 545-4672
      E-mail: kolker@whafh.com

          - and -

      Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq.
      CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
      One Haverford Square
      361 Lancaster Ave.
      Haverford, PA 19041-1554
      Tel: (610) 642-8500
      Fax: (610) 649-3633
      E-mail: cp@chimicles.com


PLANTATION SWEETS: Scheduling Order Entered in Farm Workers' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A discovery conference was held on February 4, 2016, in the case
EMILLANO HERRERA-VELAZQUEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PLANTATION
SWEETS, INC. VIDALIA PLANTATION, INC. RONALD A. COLLINS, NARCISO
PEREZ, and PEREZ FORESTRY, LLC, Defendants, Case No. CV614-127
(S.D. Ga.), and on February 10, Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith
entered this scheduling order:

     Last day for filing motions to
     Amend or add parties due by               May 5, 2016

     Discovery due by                          July 1, 2016

     Last day for filing all Civil
     Motions due by                            July 31, 2016

     Pretrial Order due by                     Sept. 29, 2016

     Last day to serve Expert Witness
     Report (Plaintiff) due by                 May 4, 2016

     Last day to serve Expert Witness
     Report (defendant) due by                 June 3, 2016

Plaintiff farmworkers are guest workers from Mexico and seasonal
agricultural workers from the United States recruited by
defendants, to work in and around Tattnall County, Georgia,
between 2012 and 2014. They raise Fair Labor Standards Act and
other claims, which results to the granting of conditional class
certification.

Unhappy with discovery produced upon their requests, plaintiffs
moved to compel defendants Perez and Perez Forestry, LLC to
produce a complete list of putative class member names and
addresses, as ordered by the court. They raised substantial doubt
about Perez's discovery compliance, specifically his claimed lack
of memory about key data. The court deferred ruling on the motion
to compel and directed Perez to submit an affidavit swearing under
oath to the above independent recollection assertions. He has
since responded, but plaintiffs don't believe him.

In January 2016, the Magistrate Judge ruled on Plaintiffs'
discovery motions.  Magistrate Judge Smith granted plaintiffs'
first motion to compel and awarded them $750 in attorney fees
against the Perez defendants, but denied, without prejudice,
Plaintiffs' second motion to compel.  In their second motion to
compel, plaintiffs allege hide-the-ball level deception and
intransigence, this time by defendant Ronald Collins. They asked
the court to order him to produce his electronically stored
payroll records.

In response, defendants Plantation Sweets, Vidalia Plantation, and
Collins asked the court for an order directing the parties to
appear before the court to participate in a status conference.

The Magistrate Court directed the deputy clerk to schedule the
status conference for February 4.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Smith's order dated January 14, 2016,
is available at http://goo.gl/xA1F53from Leagle.com.

On February 1, the Court granted a stipulation by the Defendants
with one of the Plaintiffs, Hildeberto Velazquez-Camacho, wherein
the Plaintiff agreed to dismiss, without prejudice, all his
claims.  That stipulation was signed by Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood.

Emiliano Herrera-Velazquez, Gaspar Resendiz-Alvarez, Hildeberto
Velazquez-Camacho, Isaias Martinez-Zavala, Plaintiffs, represented
by:

     Dawson Morton, Esq.
     Lisa J. Krisher, Esq.
     Theodore Earl Roethke, Esq.
     Georgia Legal Services
     104 Marietta St #250
     Atlanta, GA 30303
     Telephone: 404-206-5175

Michael Armstrong, Plaintiff, represented by William Bradford
Peard at Workers Legal Defense Fund, Inc.

Plum Creek Timber Company, Movant, represented by Evan H. Pontz
-- evan.pontz@troutmansanders.com -- at Troutman Sanders, LLP
Plantation Sweets, Inc., Ronald A. Collins and Vidalia Plantation,
Inc., Defendants, represented by Joe Edward Mathews, Jr. -- V.
Sharon Edenfield -- sharri@ecbcpc.com -- Gerald M. Edenfield -- at
Edenfield, Cox, Bruce & Classens, PC; John Kendall Gross -- at J.
Kendall Gross, PC

Narciso Perez and Perez Forestry, LLC, Defendants, represented by
J. Larry Stine -- jls@wimlaw.com -- Kathleen J. Jennings --
kjj@wimlaw.com -- Ray Perez -- rp@wimlaw.com -- at Wimberly,
Lawson, Steckel, Schneider Stine, PC; Gerald M. Edenfield -- at
Edenfield, Cox, Bruce & Classens, PC


PROGRESSIVE AMERICA: Bid to Dismiss AA Suncoast Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned AA SUNCOAST CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, P.A., PALM
HARBOR-WEST CHASE MEDICAL GROUP, P.A. d/b/a Tampa Bay Spine
Specialists, and SPINAL CORRECTION CENTERS, INC., on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
PROGRESSIVE AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE SELECT
INSURANCE COMPANY, and THE PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION, Defendants,
Case No. 8:15-cv-2543-T-26MAP (M.D. Fla.), Judge Richard A.
Lazzara denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint.

The second amendment complaint alleged a class action brought by
providers of chiropractic and medical services, as assignees of
PIP benefits, against a parent corporation, The Progressive
Corporation, and two of its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Progressive
Select Insurance Company and Progressive American Insurance
Company.

The defendants sought to dismiss with prejudice The Progressive
Corporation as the parent corporation of the other two subsidiary
defendants.  The plaintiffs asserted that they do not seek
vicarious or derivative liability, but a direct claim, against the
parent corporation.  Judge Lazzara held that the plaintiffs may
proceed against The Progressive Corporation because the second
amended complaint contained allegations that subsidiaries are
required to use the practices, policies and procedures of The
Progressive Corporation.

The defendants also argued that the theory of plaintiffs' claim is
antithetical to the policy and legislative history of the PIP
statute.  However, Judge Lazzara refrained from engaging in
application of statutory construction and a thorough review of
legislative history at the motion to dismiss stage, absent any
development of the record whatsoever.

The defendants sought to strike or dismiss the class allegations,
contending that PIP benefit disputes are never the proper subject
of a class action seeking declaratory or injunctive relief.  Judge
Lazzara, however, found that it is premature to determine whether
the requirements of Rule 23 cannot be met before a motion to
certify class has been filed.

Lastly, Judge Lazzara rejected the defendants' argument that the
plaintiffs have not met the condition precedent of delivering a
demand letter to claim underpayment of PIP benefits with respect
to the remainder of the claims.  The judge held that pre-suit
notice is not required for declaratory and injunctive relief.

A full-text copy of Judge Lazzara's February 25, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/bmFZ7lfrom Leagle.com.

AA Suncoast Chiropractic Clinic, P.A., Palm Harbor-West Chase
Medical Group, Plaintiff, represented by Christa L. Collins,
Harmon Woods Parker & Abrunzo, P.A., Kathryn Elizabeth Lee, Harmon
Woods Parker & Abrunzo, P.A., Lauren A. Meksraitis-Elliott,
Michael J. Meksraitis, Chartered & Matthew Dolman, Dolman Law
Group.

Spinal Correction Centers, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Christa
L. Collins, Harmon Woods Parker & Abrunzo, P.A., Lauren A.
Meksraitis-Elliott, Michael J. Meksraitis, Chartered, Matthew
Dolman, Dolman Law Group & Kathryn Elizabeth Lee, Harmon Woods
Parker & Abrunzo, P.A..

Progressive American Insurance Company, Progressive Select
Insurance Company, Defendants, represented by Marcy Levine Aldrich
-- marcy.aldrich@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP, Margaret Diane
Mathews -- margaret.mathews@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP & Ross
Elliot Linzer -- ross.linzer@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP.

The Progressive Corporation, Defendant, represented by Marcy
Levine Aldrich, Akerman LLP.


PROVIDENCE, RI: Sued for Violating Family and Medical Leave Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Local 799 of the International Association of Firefighters, AFL-
CIO by and through its President, Paul A. Doughty, and on behalf
of individual members, RF, EE, MF, RG, SG. MC and JO and others
similarly situated v. City of Providence, by and through its
Commissioner of Public Safety, Steven Pare, Case No. 1:16-cv-
00072-M-LDA (D.R.I., February 17, 2016), alleges violations of the
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.

Providence is the capital city of the U.S. state of Rhode Island.
Steven Pare is the Commissioner of Public Safety for the City of
Providence.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward C. Roy, Jr., Esq.
          1130 Ten Rod Road, Suite A-103
          North Kingstown, RI 02852
          Telephone: (401) 667-7878
          Facsimile: (401) 667-7112
          E-mail: Edward_Roy@hotmail.com


PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: NJ Court Upholds Sanctions
------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed
sanctions imposed by a trial court in the case GERARD WARD, BEN
BROOKS, HENRY DREW, and GERALD G. SORRENTINO, on their behalf and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA, A DIVISION OF PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL INC.,
Defendant, and PORT AUTHORITY POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, INC.,
PORT AUTHORITY DETECTIVES ENDOWMENT ASSOCIATION, PORT AUTHORITY
SERGEANTS BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, PORT AUTHORITY LIEUTENANTS
BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION and GASPAR J. DANESE, Individually and as
President of PORT AUTHORITY POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION INC.,
Defendants-Respondents, IN THE MATTER OF TRUJILLO RODRIGUEZ &
RICHARDS, L.L.C., Appellant, No. A-4647-13T2 (NJ Super. App. Div.)

On July 22, 2008, defendants the Port Authority Police Benevolent
Association, Inc. (PAPBA), Port Authority Detectives Endowment
Association (PADEA), Port Authority Sergeants Benevolent
Association (PASBA), Port Authority Lieutenants Benevolent
Association (PALBA), and Gaspar J. Danese obtained summary
judgment resulting in the dismissal of plaintiffs' class action
suit with prejudice.

On June 1, 2010, the PADEA, PASBA, and PALBA, represented by
Witham & Kozan and the PAPBA and Danese represented by Christine
Carey Lilore, were awarded counsel fees and costs. The order
apportioned payment of the award between plaintiffs and their
attorneys, Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards, L.L.C. (TRR) and Hill
Wallack, L.P. (HW). TRR's portion was $41,532.22.

Plaintiffs appealed and the NJ Super. App. Div. affirmed the grant
of summary judgment, finding that plaintiffs' claims were
frivolous, and that sanctions were warranted. However, NJ Super.
App. Div. concluded that the trial court failed to articulate its
findings regarding the reasonableness of the fees and hours
expended or the factors it considered in entering the award. NJ
Super. App. Div. also determined that the trial court abused its
discretion in sanctioning the individual plaintiffs but remanded
for consideration of sanctions against Trujillo Rodriguez and Hill
Wallack.

On remand, the judge conducted oral argument and issued a written
opinion finding that the award of reasonable counsel fees and
costs is the appropriate sanction against Trujillo Rodriguez and
Hill Wallack. On May 2, 2014, the judge entered an order directing
Trujillo Rodriguez and Hill Wallack to each pay $35,630 to Witham
& Kozan and $32,500 to Lilore.

On appeal, Trujillo Rodriguez argues that (1) the judge improperly
shifted all of the defense's costs to Trujillo Rodriguez and Hill
Wallack, exceeding the prior assessment of $41,532.22; (2) the
judge abused her discretion because she failed to consider certain
mitigating factors relevant to Trujillo Rodriguez in addition to
improperly considering class status as an aggravating factor; (3)
any monetary sanctions should have been nominal; and (4) Trujillo
Rodriguez was denied due process.

The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's judgment in an
opinion dated February 17, 2016, available at http://goo.gl/sQv1kM
from Leagle.com.

For appellant:

     Carl D. Poplar, Esq.
     Carl D. Poplar P.A.
     1010 Kings Highway South, Building One
     Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
     Telephone: 856-216-9979
     Facsimile: 856-216-9970

For respondents Port Authority Police Benevolent Association, Inc.
and Gaspar J. Danese:

     Christine Carey Lilore, Esq.
     386 Main Street
     Wyckoff, NJ 07481
     Telephone: 201-560-9922
     Facsimile: 201-560-9919
     Email: clilore@optonline.net

For respondents Port Authority Detectives Endowment Association,
Port Authority Sergeants Benevolent Association, and Port
Authority Lieutenants Benevolent Association:

     Craig Kozan, Esq.
     Witham & Kozan, P.A.
     2B Station Road
     Lincoln Park, NJ 07035
     Telephone: 973-305-4800
     Facsimile: 973-305-9004
     Email: ckozan@withamandkozan.com

The NJ Super. App. Div. panel consists of Judges Douglas M.
Fasciale and Carol E. Higbee.


PTC INC: Faces "Crandall" Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Matthew Crandall, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PTC Inc., et al., Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-10471 (D. Mass., March 7, 2016), is filed on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired PTC securities between
November 24, 2011 and July 29, 2015, both dates inclusive.
Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants had actual knowledge of the
materially false and misleading statements and material omissions
and intended thereby to deceive Plaintiff and the other members of
the Class.

PTC designs, manufactures, and sells Products Lifecycle Management
Systems software and maintains operation in the Americas, Europe,
and Asia Pacific including China.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
     Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
     Joel A. Fleming, Esq.
     BLOCK & LEVINTON LLP
     155 Federal Street, Suite 400
     Boston, MA 02110
     Tel: 617-398-5600
     Fax: 617-507-6020
     Email: jeff@blockesq.com
            jason@blockesq.com
            joel@blockesq.com

          - and -

     Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
     Phillip Kim, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Tel: (212) 686-1060
     Fax: (212) 202-3827
     Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
            pkim@rosenlegal.com


PTC THERAPEUTICS: May 2 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, the former
Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind
investors that they have until May 2, 2016 to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities class action lawsuit against PTC
Therapeutics, Inc., if they purchased the Company's securities
between May 6, 2014 and February 23, 2016, inclusive (the "Class
Period").  This action is pending in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey.


PTC THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Wang" Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Hong Wang, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PTC Therapeutics, Inc., Stuart Peltz and
Shane Kovacs, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01224-KM-MAH (D. N.J.,
March 3, 2016) is brought against the Defendants for materially
false and misleading statements in violation of Securities Act.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations and
prospects.

PTC Therapeutics is a pharmaceutical company with its principal
executive offices located at 100 Corporate Court, South
Plainfield, New Jersey 07080.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James E. Cecchi, Esq.
     Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
     CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
     5 Becker Farm Road
     Roseland, NJ 07068
     Tel: (973) 994-1700

          - and -

     Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
     Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
     Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
     Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Tel: (310) 201-9150


QUINN'S RENTAL: Faces "McGrew" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
SEAN McGREW, v. QUINN'S RENTAL SERVICES (USA), LLC, F/K/A QUINN'S
ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, F/K/A LEE SPECIALTIES (USA), LLC, JAMES R.
LEE, DOUG QUINN and STEVE VAN TETERING, Case 4:16-cv-00543 (S.D.
Tex., March 1, 2016), seeks to recover compensation, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Quinn's Rental Services provides specialized Lee Specialties
oilfield equipment in USA and Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Clif Alexander
     Austin W. Anderson
     Lauren E. Braddy
     PHIPPS ANDERSON DEACON LLP
     819 N. Upper Broadway
     Corpus Christi, TX 78401
     Phone: (361) 452-1279
     Fax: (361) 452-1284
     E-mail: calexander@phippsandersondeacon.com
             aanderson@phippsandersondeacon.com
             lbraddy@phippsandersondeacon.com


R&P LUCAS: Faces Suit for Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
MUHARAM MUSLIMANI, JAMES BROWN, HENRY HART, III, and MARK HOLLOWAY
v. R&P LUCAS UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, INC., RONNIE L. LUCAS, and
PATRICIA A. LUCAS, Case 2:16-cv-00096-HCM-DEM (E.D. Va., March 1,
2016), seeks redress under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

R&P LUCAS UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, INC. provides utility contracting
services such as directional drilling, fiber optics, excavation
and grading to customers throughout Virginia, and around the mid-
Atlantic region of the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Muharam Muslimani, et. al
     James H. Shoemaker, Jr., Esq.
     Jason E. Messersmith, Esq.
     Andrew J. Dean, Esq.
     PATTEN, WORNOM, HATTEN& DIAMONSTEIN, L.C
     12350 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 300
     Newport News, VA 23602
     Phone: (757) 223-4580
     Fax: (757) 223-4518
     E-mail: Jshoemaker@pwhd.com
             jmessersmith@pwhd.com
             adean@pwhd.com

        - and -

     Cindra Dowd, Esq.
     Richard J. Serpe, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD J. SERPE, P.C.
     Crown Center, Suite 310
     580 East Main Street
     Norfolk, VA 23510-2322
     Phone: (757) 233-0009
     Fax: (757) 233-0455
     E-mail: rserpe@serpefirm.com
             cdowd@serpefirm.com


RAMI LEVY: Faces Class Action Over Employee Rights Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ela Levy-Weinrib, writing for Globes, reports that there is no
rest for Rami Levy.  At the height of a criminal investigation
against his company, Rami Levy Chain Stores Hashikma Marketing
2006 Ltd., for violating the privacy of its employees, and when
allegations of failure to deal with complaints of sexual
harassment in the chain are being examined, a petition has been
filed a class action suit against the company for alleged
systematic violation of employee rights.

A cleaning workers and cashier who worked at the Netivot branch of
the Rami Levy chain on March 3 filed a request for approval of a
NIS127.5 million class action.  The petition alleges that Rami
Levy Chain Stores violated their rights and the rights of all the
employees at the chain, among other things by denying the
employees holiday payments and opening a pension fund for the
employees only seven months after they began working at the chain,
instead of from the first month. This was allegedly in violation
of the collective agreements applying to the food marketing chains
sector.

The employees filing the petition allege that they worked six days
a week at the Rami Levy branch in the Noam Park industrial zone,
near Netivot: one as a cleaning worker for 16 months, and the
other as a cashier for eight months.  The petition says that they
resigned their positions in January 2016.

The petition states that even though a number of holidays fell
during their work at the chain, including Rosh Hashanah, Sukkot,
and Shavuot, they did not receive holiday payments, as required
under the expansion order applying to the marking chains sector.
According to this order, it is alleged, the Rami Levy chain should
make holiday payments to its employees, in addition to vacation
pay, as if they had worked on Rosh Hashanah (two days), Yom Kippur
(one day), Sukkot and Shmini Atzeret (two days), Passover (two
days) Shavuot (one day), and Independence Day (one day).

The class action petition indicates that in response to their
employees queries in this this matter, the chain's personnel
manager answered that the chain was paying its employees according
to the general order applying in Israel, not the order applying to
food marketing chains.

The petition requesting approval for a class action also alleges
that the chain does not check whether the new employees beginning
to work have pension insurance, and does not given them a
notification form in accordance with the Notice to Employee Law
(through which the employee notifies the employer of his previous
pension insurance), thereby in effect denying them their right to
pension accumulation from the first day of their employment.

In 2008, an expansion order for compulsory pension in Israel went
into effect, imposing on all employers in Israel the duty to make
provisions for their employees pensions (men over 21 and women
over 20) until they reach compulsory pension age.  Among other
things, the order states that a new employee with some kind of
pension insurance is entitled to provision for his pension from
the first month of his work. An employee who was not insured is
entitled to pension accumulation starting from his sixth month of
employment.

According to the petition, however, the Rami Levy chain does not
check whether its new employees already have pension insurance,
and begins making provisions for their pension fund only after
seven months, without enabling them to inform it that they already
have pension insurance.


RELIASOURCE INC: "Jackson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andre Jackson, and all others similarly-situated v. ReliaSource,
Inc., Joseph S. Zuramski III and Julie A. Zuramski, Case No. 1:16-
cv-00358 (D. Md., February 8, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs  pursuant to the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and
Maryland Wage and Hour Law.

ReliaSource, Inc., is a private organization that provides various
technological services, including Data Center and Technology
relocation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Spicer, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
      36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
      Baltimore, MD 21201
      Tel: (410) 244-7005
      Fax: (410) 244-8454
      E-mail: jspicer@nicholllaw.com


RICELAND FOODS: 8th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Counterclaim
----------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Booby E. Shepherd of the United States Court of
Appeals, Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of
the counter-claim in the appealed case Don M. Downing; Adam J.
Levitt; Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLC on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated; Looper Reed & McGraw,
P.C. on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated; Gray
Ritter & Graham, PC on behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Riceland Foods, Inc., Defendant, Riceland
Foods, Counter Claimant-Appellant, v. Don M. Downing; Adam J.
Levitt, Counter Defendants-Appellees, Riceland Foods, Inc.,
Counter Claimant-Appellant, v. Don M. Downing; Gray Ritter &
Graham; Adam J. Levitt, as Co-Trustee of the Common Benefit Trust
Fund; Looper Reed & McGraw, P.C. on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated; Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLC on
behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Counter
Defendants-Appellees, No. 14-3758 (8th Cir.)

In 2006, hundreds of long-grain rice farmers and rice mills filed
suit against Bayer CropScience (Bayer) following an announcement
by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) that LLRICE,
a genetically-modified rice which had not been approved for human
consumption, had tainted the United States commercial long-grain
rice supply. In more than two hundred LLRICE cases, Riceland
Foods, Inc. (Riceland) was named as a defendant with Bayer. The
cases were originally filed in multiple states, but were
consolidated into a multi-district litigation (MDL) case in the
Eastern District of Missouri.

The district court appointed plaintiffs Don Downing and Adam
Levitt as co-lead counsel for the MDL plaintiffs and created a
Plaintiffs' Executive Committee consisting of six other attorneys.
Collectively, the eight attorneys constituted the MDL Leadership
Group. The district court also ordered that a common benefit trust
fund, with Downing and Levitt as co-trustees, be established to
compensate attorneys for services performed for the benefit of all
plaintiffs. The order required a portion of any recovery obtained
by the plaintiff farmers in federal court to be contributed to the
fund to pay fees and expenses of attorneys who performed work
benefitting all of the plaintiff farmers.

Following trial or settlement in the LLRICE cases, Bayer, the
negotiating claimants' counsel, and each enrolled claimant and
eligible claimant entered into a settlement agreement. The
settlement agreement included a General Release of All Claims, in
which each farmer and each farmer's attorney released their claims
against Bayer. In the release, Riceland was listed as an
additional released party.

In February 2013, plaintiffs, consisting of the fund established
by the district court and law firms whose attorneys were part of
the MDL Leadership Group, filed a class action case against
Riceland asserting claims for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit
individually and on behalf of all persons and entities that
provided or paid for common benefit services, materials, and/or
related expense items in the MDL. Plaintiffs alleged that Riceland
refused to contribute to the common-benefit fund despite being
awarded a large recovery against Bayer in state court.

Riceland counterclaimed, asserting that plaintiffs' filing of the
lawsuit constitutes breach of contract and tortious interference
with the release. Riceland also raised the terms of the release as
an affirmative defense.

Plaintiffs moved to dismiss Riceland's counterclaim, to which the
district court granted. Riceland then sued the law-firm plaintiffs
and additional law firms in Arkansas state court, asserting the
same legal theories and facts presented in its counterclaim.
Riceland sought an expedited trial schedule in the Arkansas state
case, prompting plaintiffs to request an order from the district
court certifying the dismissal of Riceland's counterclaim as a
final judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 54(b). The district court
certified the dismissal as a final judgment under Rule 54(b).

Riceland appeals both the Rule 54(b) certification and the
dismissal of its counterclaims and argues that the present court
lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal and the district court erred
in holding that plaintiffs did not release their claims against
Riceland.

Circuit Judge Shepherd, writing for the panel, affirmed the
district court's dismissal of Riceland's counterclaims as well as
the certification of such dismissal as final under Rule 54(b).  A
copy of Judge Shepherd's opinion dated January 14, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/Tqkji6from Leagle.com.

The United States Court of Appeals, Eight Circuit panel consists
of Circuit Judges Booby E. Shepherd, James B. Loken and Duane
Benton.


ROCKWELL MEDICAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on March 4
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers Rockwell Medical, Inc. securities from September 9,
2015 through February 29, 2016, both dates inclusive.  The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Rockwell Medical investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Rockwell Medical class action, go to the firm's
website at http://rosenlegal.com/cases-847.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for more information
on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants
issued false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) the primary product offering for Triferic
will be in a powder packet packaging, which the FDA has not yet
approved; (2) Rockwell Medical is seeking to obtain transitional
add-on payment reimbursement for Triferic with the Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services instead of bundled reimbursement; and
(3) as a result, defendants' statements about Rockwell Medical's
business, operations and prospects were materially 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.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May
3, 2016.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  If you
wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's website at
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-847.htmlfor more information.  You
may also contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen
Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


SAFEWAY INC: Stipulation on Bill of Costs Approved
--------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the Northern District of California
granted the parties' joint stipulation in the case MICHAEL RODMAN,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. SAFEWAY INC., Defendant, Case No. 11-03003 JST (JCS) (N.D.
Cal.)

This is a consumer class action about Safeway's online grocery
delivery business, which operates through the Safeway.com website.
The case concerns Safeway's online grocery delivery business,
which operates through the Safeway.com website. Plaintiff alleges
in his complaint that Safeway promised Safeway.com customers that
they would pay the same prices online that Safeway charged in its
physical stores, but that in fact Safeway marked up its online
prices without telling its online customers.

The Court previously certified the following class, solely for the
purpose of bringing a breach of contract claim: "All persons in
the United States who registered to purchase groceries through
Safeway.com at any time prior to November 15, 2011, and made one
or more purchases subject to the price markup implemented on or
about April 12, 2010 (the Class)."

In an Order dated September 11, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/WdM0Qbfrom Leagle.com, Judge Tigar granted Safeway's
motion in limine to exclude the testimony of witness Eric Falsken.
The Court held that Plaintiff's failure timely to disclose Falsken
was neither substantially justified nor harmless. The Court said
there will be "prejudice or surprise" to Safeway if Felsken is
allowed to testify.  The Court held that discovery has closed; the
parties' pretrial disclosures have all been filed; and trial was
to begin in a few weeks.

In an Order dated November 19, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/rLNgXYfrom Leagle.com, Judge Tigar granted a joint
stipulation executed by the parties, which provides that Customers
who registered with safeway.com before January 1, 2006 entered
into a contract with Safeway at the time of registration
containing the following language: "Product Pricing and Service
Charges: The prices quoted on our Web site at the time of your
order are estimated prices only. You will be charged the prices
quoted for Products you have selected for purchase at the time
your order is processed at checkout. The actual order value catmot
be determined until the day of delivery because the prices quoted
on the Web site are likely to vary either above or below the
prices in the store on the date your order is filled and
delivered."

The Court continued the trial in the case from October 7, 2015 to
December 7, 2015, and permitted additional discovery.

On November 30, 2015, the court entered final judgment in favor of
the plaintiff.  The Defendant then filed a notice of appeal, and
execution of the judgment has been stayed and the deadline for
plaintiff to file a bill of costs was held in abeyance.

The parties have met and conferred with respect to the amount of
taxable costs incurred through the entry of the final judgment,
and agreed that the amount of those costs properly included in
plaintiff's bill of costs is $95,000.

The parties stipulated and agreed that the taxable costs incurred
by plaintiff through the entry of the final judgment shall be
assessed against defendant Safeway in the amount of $95,000.
Plaintiff will defer any execution of the $95,000 taxable costs
until after final resolution of Safeway's pending appeal. The
determination of whether any costs incurred after entry of the
judgment, including costs incurred in connection with the proposed
interim notice, and any costs incurred in connection with
Safeway's appeal, are properly deemed taxable costs, shall also be
deferred pending final resolution of Safeway's Appeal and in the
event that the judgment is reversed, in whole or in part, on
appeal, the parties agreed that the stipulation will be set aside
and the parties will meet and confer to address the timing and
procedure for the determination of any award of pre-judgment
costs.

Judge Tigar granted the parties' stipulation.

A copy of Judge Tigar's order dated February 18, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/XvqN0afrom Leagle.com.

Michael Rodman, Plaintiff, represented by James C. Shah --
jshah@sfmslaw.com -- Kolin Tang -- ktang@sfmslaw.com -- Rosemary
Farrales Luzon -- rluzon@sfmslaw.com -- Scott Rhead Shepherd -- at
Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP; Steven Alan Schwartz --
SteveSchwartz@chimicles.com -- Timothy Newlyn Mathews --
TimothyMathews@chimicles.com -- at Chimicles & Tikellis LLP
Safeway Inc., Defendant, represented by Scott D. Baker --
sbaker@reedsmith.com -- Adaline J. Hilgard --
ahilgard@reedsmith.com -- Christine Marie Morgan --
cmorgan@reedsmith.com -- James A Daire -- jdaire@reedsmith.com --
Jonah Dylan Mitchell -- jmitchell@reedsmith.com -- at Reed Smith
LLP


SCOUT INDUSTRIES: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Robocalls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbie Hargett, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
New Mexico woman is suing a search engine optimization and
marketing company, along with its CEO, over claims the company
made unsolicited robocalls to consumers' cellphones.

Kelly Sweetser, individually and for all others similarly
situated, filed a class-action lawsuit on Feb. 24 in U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California Southern Division
against Scout Industries and Chad Ingram, alleging violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and California public
utilities codes and business codes.

The suit alleges the defendants conducted a large telemarketing
campaign by making repeated unsolicited prerecorded calls to
consumers' cellphones, including to numbers that appear on the
National Do Not Call Registry, without prior consent.

As a result, Ms. Sweetser and other class members suffered
aggravation and nuisance, invasion of privacy, and costs to
wireless carriers for the receipt of the robocalls.

Ms. Sweetser and others in the class seek injunctive relief,
declaratory judgment, actual and statutory damages, attorney fees,
and other costs.  They are represented by attorneys
Richard T. Drury -- richard@lozeaudrury.com -- and Rebecca Davis -
- rebecca@lozeaudrury.com -- of Lozeau Drury in Oakland,
California; attorney Stefan Coleman of the Law Offices of Stefan
Coleman in Miami; and attorneys Steven L. Woodrow and Patrick H.
Peluso of Woodrow & Peluso in Denver.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Southern Division Case number 8:16-CV-00326-JFW-PLA


SEAWORLD: Plaintiffs Revive Fraud Claims
----------------------------------------
Caitlin Dineen and Sandra Pedicini, writing for Orlando Sentinel,
report that several plaintiffs suing SeaWorld over fraud claims
have revived their federal lawsuit.

Late last year, a judge dismissed the lawsuit that claimed
SeaWorld should refund customers' money because it mistreats
whales.  However, only some of the lawsuit -- generally the part
dealing with California law -- was dismissed with prejudice, which
means claims cannot be filed again.  Five plaintiffs represented
by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro have filed an amended complaint for
the parts that were dismissed without prejudice. The basic
allegations of the lawsuit remain the same.

Several fraud claims against SeaWorld filed last year had been
rolled into the original lawsuit in the Southern District of
California. The five plaintiffs contended that SeaWorld defrauded
them by portraying its whales as thriving.  That's a topic that
has been fiercely debated since the 2013 anti-captivity
documentary "Blackfish," which paints an unflattering picture of
the theme park.  The lawsuit seeks class-action status.

SeaWorld has filed a motion to dismiss the second lawsuit.


SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Court Rejects Member's Bid to Reopen Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. of the Eastern
District of California denied class member's request to reopen the
settled case, JARRID J. WHITLEY, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SIEMENS INDUSTRY, INC., also doing
business as and referred to as SIEMENS USA, SIEMENS CORPORATION,
and SIEMENS, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, No. 14-cv-
00099-MCE-DAD (E.D. Cal.)

The complaint asserts several causes of action, including failure
to provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation of the
California Labor Code.

In the Final Judgment dated October 5, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/fTW3i0from Leagle.com, Judge England granted final
approval of the settlement in the class action and certified as
class definition "All current and former non-exempt California
employees of Siemens who were employed by Siemens, in the State of
California with responsibility related to production at the
Siemens Rail System Plant located at 7464 French Road, Sacramento,
California at any time during the Class Period."

The Court appointed Jarrid Whitley as class representative,
Anthony M. Perez, Jr. as counsel for the class and CPT Group, Inc.
as claims administrator. The Court granted $7,500.00 to Whitley as
Class Representative Enhancement award, $277,200 as Plaintiff's
Attorney's Fees and $54,746 as CPT Class Administration costs.

Subsequently, the Court has received and reviewed the filing from
class member Gary Schaffer in which the first page is a letter
that explains Schaffer received a distribution check from the
claims administrator and was shocked to see how little he had
received. Schaffer contends that although he worked 135 eligible
shifts, his distribution check was based on having worked only
forty-five eligible shifts.

Schaffer suggests that the claims administrator's use of
inaccurate eSlic records is the cause of the discrepancy. He
requests that the court re-open the case and subpoena the computer
clocking system records, which are more accurate than the eSlic
records.


Chief District England denied Schaffer's request as his relief
lies with the claims administrator, not with the court. The case
still remains closed.

A copy of Chief District Judge England's order dated February 16,
2016, is available at http://goo.gl/nsMjYafrom Leagle.com.

Jarrid J. Whitley, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Anthony M Perez, Jr., Esq.
     PEREZ LAW OFFICES
     455 Capitol Mall, Suite 225
     Sacramento, CA  95814
     Telephone: 916-441-0500
     Facsimile: 916-441-0555

          - and -

     David Harmik Yeremian, Esq.
     DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
     535 N. Brand Blvd #705
     Glendale, CA 91203
     Telephone: 818-230-8380

Siemens Industry, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory G.
Iskander -- giskander@littler.com -- Alexa L. Woerner --
awoerner@littler.com -- at Littler Mendelson, P.C.


SKINDER-STRAUSS: Appellate Court Affirms Magistrate Judge Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
Landsman & Funk, P.C. filed a putative class action in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey against
Skinder-Strauss Associates under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.  Landsman alleged that Skinder-Strauss violated the statute
by sending out thousands of unsolicited fax advertisements.

After mediation session with retired Magistrate Judge John J.
Hughes, Landsman and Skinder-Strauss reached a settlement. The
Magistrate Judge preliminarily certified the class for settlement
purposes and preliminarily approved the settlement. Landsman filed
a motion for final approval of the class settlement, award of
attorneys' fees, and incentive award

While Lightman & Associates, P.C., d/b/a Lightman & Manochi and
Glenn A. Manochi, Esq., were notified of the class action
settlement and submitted a claim form, they refused to declare
under the penalty of perjury that they had actually received a
fax.  Instead, Manochi indicated that, to best of his knowledge, a
fax advertisement had been received during the class period. The
claim was rejected.  Lightman et al. were also the only putative
class members to file an objection.

After conducting a fairness hearing, the Magistrate Judge granted
Landsman's motion for final approval and in her May 19, 2015
opinion, the Magistrate Judge indicated that the objectors lack
standing to object because they are not members of the class. The
court rejected the objectors' arguments that certification and
acceptance of the settlement are inappropriate. The Magistrate
Judge then determined that the case met the requirements for class
certification, that the settlement agreement as well as the award
of attorneys' fees were fair and reasonable, and that Landsman's
incentive award was appropriate.

Lightman et al. appealed and argued that the Magistrate Judge
committed reversible error by approving the class action
settlement and the award of attorneys' fees. According to them,
the Magistrate Judge did not properly apply the factors in Girsh
v. Jepson, 521 F.2d 153 (3d Cir. 1975), and failed to use the
class claims data to address the level of direct benefit to the
class analysis required in In re Baby Prods. Antitrust Litig., 708
F.3d 163, 170, 174 (3d Cir. 2013), before approving the settlement
agreement.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the
Magistrate Judge's order granting final approval of the class
settlement, the attorneys' fees, and the incentive award.  A copy
of the Third Circuit's opinion dated February 16, 2016 is
available at http://goo.gl/yWS9Nzfrom Leagle.com.

The appellate case is, LANDSMAN & FUNK, P.C., on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, v. SKINDER-STRAUSS ASSOCIATES,
a New Jersey partnership*Lightman & Associates, P.C., d/b/a
Lightman & Manochi; Glenn A. Manochi, Esquire, Appellants
*(Pursuant to Rule 12(a) Fed. R. App. P.), No. 15-2485 (3d Cir.)

The Third Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Robert E.
Cowen, D. Michael Fisher and Michael A. Chagares.


SOUTH CAROLINA: Inmate's Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard Mark Gergel of the United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina adopted in part the
Report and Recommendation in the case captioned, Michael E. Hamm,
a/k/a Michael Eugene Hamm; Jimmy E. Blessing; Steve Miller; Robert
Ferguson; David Morris; Kenneth Campbell, Plaintiffs, v. Ms. Holly
Scaturo, Director; Ms. Poholchck, BMC; Ms. Helff, BMC; Capt.
Abney, Dept. Of Public Safety; Lt. Jacobs, Dept. Of Public Safety;
Dr. Gothard, Psychologist; Ms. Jones, Case Manager/CC; Wheeler,
Case Manager; Ms. Goodwin, Case Manager; Mr. Jones, Case Manager;
Ms. Nance, Case Manager; Ms. Sutton, Case Manager; Ms. Fredricks,
Case Manager; Mr. Morton, Activity Therapy Supervisor; Ms. Gamer,
Paralegal, Defendants, Case No. 9:15-4079-RMG (D.S.C.).

Plaintiffs, eight inmates of the South Carolina Department of
Mental Health's Sexually Violent Predator Treatment Program,
originally filed the action in the South Carolina Court of Common
Pleas. The Complaint asserts 21 separate causes of action against
fifteen Defendants. In sum, the allegations are inadequate access
to legal resources, failure to perform mental examinations
required by State statute, First Amendment violations,
unconstitutional confinement, equal protection claims, and various
conditions of confinement claims.

Defendants answered the complaint on October 8, 2015.

Plaintiff Michael Hamm moved for a default judgment, motion for
class certification and appointment of class counsel. On January
20, 2016, a magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation
that Mr. Hamm's motion for a default judgment, motion for class
certification, and motion for appointment of class counsel be
denied; that certain of Mr. Hamm's claims be dismissed without
prejudice; that certain of Mr. Hamm's claims from the action be
severed; and that all purported Plaintiffs in the action be
allowed to proceed together with certain other claims.

In his Order dated February 12, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/2BhqAEfrom Leagle.com, Judge Gergel declined to
adopt the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that all Plaintiffs be
allowed to proceed together with certain claims. The Court
dismissed all claims attributed to Plaintiffs Jimmy Blessing,
William Brinson, Steve Miller, Robert Ferguson, and Kenneth
Campbell without prejudice, leaving Mr. Hamm as the sole Plaintiff
in this action and making severance of his individual claims
unnecessary. Mr. Hamm's motion for appointment of class counsel is
denied because he cannot be a class representative, and because
the case presents no "exceptional" circumstances warranting
appointment of counsel for an indigent Plaintiff in a civil
action.

Defendants are represented by:

     Andrew F. Lindemann, Esq.
     David Allan DeMasters, Esq.
     DAVIDSON AND LINDEMANN
     1611 Devonshire Dr # 200
     Columbia, SC 29204
     Tel: (803)806-8222


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: Faces "Lee" Suit Over Natural Gas Leak
---------------------------------------------------------------
Young Lee and Grace Lee v. Southern California Gas Company, Sempra
Energy and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC 612185 (Cal.
Super., March 1, 2016), alleges negligence, trespass, nuisance,
inverse condemnation, and strict liability-ultrahazardous activity
arising from a natural gas leak near the city of Porter Ranch in
the City of Los Angeles.  The leak has allegedly caused economic
harm to its residents, including to the rental market for rental
homes in the city and the property value of homes for sale.

Defendant Southern California Gas Company is a California
Corporation doing business in California. SoCalGas is a natural
gas distribution utility that stores, sells, and transmits natural
gas in California. SoCalGas's principal place of business is in
Los Angeles, California.  Sempra Energy is the parent company of
SoCalGas.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael K. Suh, Esq.
     Edward W. Suh, Esq.
     SUH LAW GROUP, APC
     3810 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1212
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Phone: (213) 385-7347
     Fax: (213) 383-3323


STANFORD: Appeals of 2 Former Execs in Ponzi Scheme Suit Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the Supreme Court has rejected
appeals from two defendants convicted of helping disgraced
financier R. Allen Stanford cheat investors out of more than $7
billion in one of the largest Ponzi schemes in U.S. history.

The justices on March 7 let stand the convictions of Gilbert Lopez
Jr. and Mark Kuhrt.  Both were found guilty in 2012 of wire fraud
and conspiracy charges.

Prosecutors said Messrs. Lopez and Kuhrt helped hide Stanford's
misuse of investor funds.  Mr. Lopez is a former chief accounting
officer of Stanford Financial Group Co.  Mr. Kuhrt is a former
global controller of Stanford Financial Group Global Management.

The men claimed there was not enough evidence to convict them and
that certain expert testimony was improperly excluded.

They each were sentenced to 20 years in prison.


STARK FISH: "Stathakis" Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty
-------------------------------------------------------------
Emmanouil Stathakis, and all others similarly-situated v. Stark
Fish Inc., Omiros Giouroukos, Stark Seafood Inc., and Sounio
Trucking, Inc., Case No. 701505/2016 (N.Y. Sup., February 8,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary
duty.

The Corporation was formed to engage in the importation and
wholesale sale of fish and seafood.

Omiros Giouroukos is the owner of the 50% authorized and issued
shares of the corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Harris, Esq.
      JOHN HARRIS P.C.
      521 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
      New York, NY 10175
      Tel: (212) 880-2300
      E-mail: jharris@attorneyharris.com


STATE FARM: Pa. High Court Interprets 31 Pa. Code Sec. 69.43(c)
---------------------------------------------------------------
From 2010 to 2012, Freedom Medical Supply, Inc. provided
electrical muscle stimulators (EMSs) and portable whirlpools to
automobile accident victims covered by A State Farm Fire and
Casualty Company and/or State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company. Although Freedom purchased the items for relatively
little cost, it applied significant markups. Because neither the
EMSs nor portable whirlpools have a federally determined Medicare
fee, Freedom sought reimbursement from State Farm for 80% of the
charges.

State Farm, viewing Freedom's charges as excessive, conducted its
own review of the usual and customary charges for the products and
used its findings therein to calculate reimbursements.

Freedom filed a class action on behalf of itself and similarly
situated providers in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County, arguing, that State Farm had violated the Motor Vehicle
Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL) and 31 Pa. Code Section 69.43
because its calculation of Freedom's reimbursements was not
predicated on either of the two bases provided for in the
regulation: (1) Freedom's requested payment amount on its bill for
services; or (2) data collected by the carrier or intermediaries.

State Farm removed the case to United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where it argued that Section
69.43(c) merely permitted it to make a calculation predicated on
the bases provided for therein, but did not require it to do so,
so long as its calculation was consistent with the MVFRL's other
provisions and Section 69.43's definition of the "usual and
customary charge" for a product.

The district court agreed with State Farm, and granted State
Farm's motion for summary judgment.

Freedom appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit.  The Third Circuit noted that no Pennsylvania court
or agency has addressed the question, and sent the matter to the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District.

In a decision dated February 16, 2016, available at
http://goo.gl/D8b7cJfrom Leagle.com, Madame Justice Debra
McCloskey Todd held that Section 69.43(c) permits, but does not
require, that reimbursements be calculated predicated on the
provider's bill for services or the data collected by the carrier.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District panel consists
of Chief Justice Thomas G. Saylor and Justices J. Michael Eakin,
Max Baer, Todd, Christine Donohue and David N. Wecht.

The case is, FREEDOM MEDICAL SUPPLY, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellant, v. STATE FARM
FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Appellees, No. 8 EAP 2015 (Pa.).


SUBURBAN FORD: "Fernandez" Suit Moved From Illinois to Michigan
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Fernandez v. Suburban Ford of
Sterling Heights, Case No. 1:15-cv-10717, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
(Detroit).  The Michigan District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:16-cv-10578-GAD-EAS to the proceeding.

Suburban Ford of Sterling Heights, LLC, is a Michigan limited
liability company based in Sterling Heights, Michigan.  The
Company is a dealer of Ford vehicles.  The Company also carries a
wide range of used cars from Ford, along with many other top auto
makes.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Courtney E. Torres, Esq.
          Nicole C. Mueller, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          70 West Madison Street, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 807-4432
          Facsimile: (312) 827-1259
          E-mail: courtney.torres@klgates.com
                  nicole.Mueller@klgates.com


SUGAR TRANSPORT: "Guinn" Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Guinn v. Sugar Transport of the
Northwest, Inc., Case No. 2017432, was removed from the Stanislaus
County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California (Sacramento).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-00325-WBS-EFB to the proceeding.

Sugar Transport of the Northwest, Inc., was founded in 1987 and is
based in Stockton, California.  The Company's line of business
includes providing trucking or transfer services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ian A. Kass, Esq.
          James L. Pagano, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES L. PAGANO
          96 North Third Street, Suite 620
          San Jose, CA 95112
          Telephone: (408) 999-5678
          Facsimile: (408) 999-5678
          E-mail: paganolaw@aol.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alan Sam Levins, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          650 California Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108-2693
          Telephone: (415) 677-3156
          Facsimile: (415) 399-8490
          E-mail: alevins@littler.com

               - and -

          John H. Adams, Jr., Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2000
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 830-7244
          Facsimile: (916) 561-0828
          E-mail: jhadams@littler.com


SYNTHES USA: Judge Won't Decertify Classes in "Lindell"
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill of the Eastern District of
California denied defendants' motion to decertify the classes in
the case TROY M. LINDELL, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. SYNTHES USA, SYNTHES USA SALES
LLC, SYNTHES SPINE COMPANY, LP, Defendant, No. 1:11-cv-02053 LJO
BAM (E.D. Cal.)

Plaintiff Troy M. Lindell filed a class action lawsuit on December
13, 2011 and amended his complaint on February 27, 2012. Plaintiff
argues that defendants Synthes USA, Synthes USA Sales, and Synthes
Spine Company (collectively Synthes Companies)  do not reimburse
certain employees for business expenses as required by Cal. Labor
Code Section 2802, took unlawful deductions in violation of Cal.
Labor Code Sections 221, 223 & 300, willfully failed to pay
employees upon discharge in violation of Cal. Labor Code Sections
201-203, and engaged in unfair competition in violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
Sections 17200-210. Plaintiff also seeks to recover under
California's Private Attorney General Act (PAGA), Cal. Labor Code
Sections 2698-2699.5, for violations of Labor Code Sections 201-
203, 221, 223, 300 and 2804.

On September 20, 2013, plaintiff moved to certify two classes. One
class, the "Expense Class" includes employee sales consultants
from defendants' Trauma and Spine Divisions who were subject to a
straight commission policy, as well as employee sales consultants
in its Craniomaxillofacial division, who received a higher level
of commission. The other class, the "Deduction Class" includes all
former, current, and future sales consultants employed by
defendants for the time period beginning December 13, 2007 through
the date of the final disposition of this lawsuit.

On March 4, 2014, Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe issued
Findings and Recommendations ("F & R's"), Doc. 139, recommending
that the court grant plaintiff's motion, which the court adopted.

Defendant applied to Ninth Circuit for permission to appeal the
order but was denied. Defendants filed a motion to decertify the
two classes.

Judge O'Neill denied defendants' motion to decertify.

A copy of Judge O'Neill's memorandum decision and order dated
January 6, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/zFGMgVfrom
Leagle.com.

Troy M. Lindell is represented by:

     Catha Worthman, Esq.
     Sacha C. Steinberger, Esq.
     LEWIS FEINBERG LEE RENAKER & JACKSON, PC
     476 9th Street
     Oakland, CA 94607-4048
     Tel: 510-839-6824

Synthes USA et al. are represented by:

     Frederick G. Sandstrom, Esq.
     Anthony Barrett Haller, Esq.
     Blank Rome LLP
     130 North 18th Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103-6998
     Tel: 215-569-5500
          215-569-5679

          - and -

     Howard M. Knee, Esq.
     Blank Rome LLP
     1925 Century Park East, 19th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Tel: 424-239-3439


TEEKAY CORP: "Stein" Suit Alleges Violation of Securities Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD E. STEIN and JACQUILYN S. STEIN, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. TEEKAY CORP., PETER EVENSEN,
and VINCENT LOK, Case 3:16-cv-00345 (D. Conn., March 1, 2016), was
filed on behalf of all purchasers of Teekay common stock between
June 30, 2015 and December 17, 2015, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Defendant Teekay was founded in 1973 as a regional shipping
company and tanker operator.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
     Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
     Donald A. Broggi, Esq.
     Thomas L. Laughlin, Esq.
     SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
     The Chrysler Building
     405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
     New York, NY 10174
     Phone: 212-223-6444
     Fax: 212-223-6334
     E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
             dbroggi@scott-scott.com
             tlaughlin@scott-scott.com

        - and -

     David R. Scott, Esq.
     Stephen J. Teti, Esq.
     SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
     156 South Main Street
     P.O. Box 192
     Colchester, CT 06415
     Phone: (860) 537-5537
     Fax: (860) 537-4432
     E-mail: david.scott@scott-scott.com
             steti@scott-scott.com


THOMAS JEFFERSON: Suit Over Law School Job Data Goes to Trial
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Olson, writing for The New York Times, reports that
nearly a decade has passed since an aspiring young lawyer in
California, Anna Alaburda, graduated in the top tier of her class,
passed the state bar exam and set out to use the law degree she
had spent about $150,000 to acquire.

But on March 7, in a San Diego courtroom, she will tell a story
that has become all too familiar among law students in the United
States: Since graduating from the Thomas Jefferson School of Law
in 2008, she has yet to find a full-time salaried job as a lawyer.

From there, though, her story has taken an unusual twist:
Ms. Alaburda, 37, is the first former law student whose case
against a law school, charging that it inflated the employment
data for its graduates as a way to lure students to enroll, will
go to trial.

Other disgruntled students have tried to do the same.  In the last
several years, 15 lawsuits have sought to hold various law schools
accountable for publicly listing information critics say was used
to pump up alumni job numbers by counting part-time waitress and
other similar, full-time jobs as employment. Only one suit besides
Ms. Alaburda's remains active.

None of the other cases reached trial because judges in Illinois,
Michigan and New York, where several cases were filed, generally
concluded that law students had opted for legal education at their
own peril, and were sophisticated enough to have known that
employment as a lawyer was not guaranteed.

But a California judge let Ms. Alaburda's suit proceed, brushing
aside efforts by the law school to derail her claims.

"It has taken five years," said her lawyer, Brian A. Procel of Los
Angeles.  "But this will be the first time a law school will be on
trial to defend its public employment figures."

Ms. Alaburda's day in court will take on added meaning: These will
be her first public words after years of silence while she pursued
a remedy for a legal education gone wrong.

She now has student debt of $170,000, with loan interest around 8
percent.  Her law degree was not a ticket to a stable, well-paying
career, but an expensive detour before she went on to work in a
series of part-time positions, mostly temporary jobs reviewing
documents for law firms.

As her debt mounted and her job prospects faltered, she filed a
lawsuit in 2011, arguing that she would not have enrolled at
Thomas Jefferson if she had known the law school's statistics were
misleading.

Thomas Jefferson's average student indebtedness, then about
$137,000 -- higher than that at Stanford Law School the same year
-- was among the highest in the nation.  She also pointed to her
school's bar passage rate as consistently lower than 50 percent,
which was below the average in California.

Thomas Jefferson, like other accused law schools, maintained that
it filed only the data that the American Bar Association's
accrediting body required.

And judges largely agreed.  Students would have to be "wearing
blinders" not to see that a "goodly number of law school graduates
toil (perhaps part time) in drudgery or have less than hugely
successful careers," Justice Melvin L. Schweitzer of
New York Supreme Court wrote in 2012, dismissing a lawsuit by nine
former students against New York Law School.

The nine had asked for $225 million in damages, on grounds that
they had been misled by the school's stated employment figures to
believe they had rosier employment prospects than the job market
actually offered.

The one lawsuit still pending, other than Ms. Alaburda's, accuses
Widener University School of Law, in Delaware, of posting
employment data that included "any kind of job, no matter how
unrelated to law."  A Federal District Court judge denied the case
class-action status, and that decision is on appeal.

Judges in California, which has strong consumer protection laws,
have offered more solace to the generation of lawyers who lost out
in the legal market, allowing Ms. Alaburda and other plaintiffs
there to go forward with claims.

However, in two cases -- one against Golden Gate University School
of Law and the other against the University of San Francisco
School of Law -- judges did not grant law graduates suing the
schools class-action certification, which could have led to higher
damages awards.  The students later dropped their lawsuits.

In San Diego, Judge Joel M. Pressman restricted Ms. Alaburda's
claims to her own situation.  But he ruled against the law
school's efforts to get her suit tossed out, on grounds that
denying transparent and accurate information to students making
decisions about their education can be harmful.

Thomas Jefferson, which was fully accredited by the A.B.A. in
2001, says its employment data is accurate and Ms. Alaburda's
claims are "meritless."  The school has 434 full-time students at
its eight-story building in downtown San Diego.

Thomas F. Guernsey, the dean, said he could not comment on
continuing litigation but noted in a statement that the school had
"a strong track record of producing successful graduates, with
7,000 alumni working nationally and internationally."

In recent years, the A.B.A., prodded by widespread attention to
questionable school data, sagging numbers of law school applicants
and skyrocketing law school debt, has revamped its reporting
requirements so that law schools must reveal more precise
information about their graduates.

"Transparency has substantially increased in the last few years.
Students can now easily compare law school outcomes," said
Brian Z. Tamanaha, a law professor at Washington University in St.
Louis and the author of "Failing Law Schools."

Even so, he noted that "it's still a little harder for them to
determine that the size of the law firm where graduates are
employed also reflects the level of income that they can expect."

Law schools labor to keep their employment data at the highest
percentage level because it is a major factor in national law
school rankings, which in turn give schools the credibility to
charge six figures for a three-year legal education.

Fudging the numbers, as Mr. Procel plans to argue in the case
against Thomas Jefferson, entices students to choose an education
that can result in lifelong debt that cannot be easily discharged
even in bankruptcy.

Even as legal hiring dropped in 2011, according to Mr. Procel,
Thomas Jefferson stated that 92.1 percent of its graduates were
working at full-time jobs.  That was a major increase from the 83
percent graduate employment the school claimed during the
prosperous years of 2006 and 2007.  But even in 2006, according to
testimony expected at trial, a former school employee says she was
pressured into inflating graduate employment data.

Thomas Jefferson's lawyers will argue that Ms. Alaburda never
incurred any actual injury, because she was offered -- and turned
down -- a law firm job with a $60,000 salary shortly after she
graduated.

Ms. Alaburda said, in legal papers, that she received "only one
job offer -- one which was less favorable than non-law-related
jobs that were available" -- after she sent her resume to more
than 150 law firms and practicing lawyers.  She is asking $125,000
in damages.


THROCKMORTON ROOFING: Sued for Not Paying Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Perez, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Jesus Garcia, Reynaldo Vasquez and William "Dub"
Throckmorton, d/b/a Throckmorton Roofing and Siding Co., Case No.
4:16-cv-00081-KGB (E.D. Ark., February 16, 2016) arises from
alleged denial of overtime compensation.

Throckmorton Roofing and Siding Co. provides commercial and home
improvement services in Arkansas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Maryna O. Jackson, Esq.
          63 Springwood Court
          Cabot, AR 72023
          Telephone: (501) 606-0864
          E-mail: maryna@sanfordlawfirm.com


TRIAD MEDIA: Judge Rules on Plaintiff's Bid to Strike Defenses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge William H. Walls of the District of New
Jersey granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's motion to
strike the defendant's answer and affirmative defenses in the case
NORMA VAZQUEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. TRIAD MEDIA SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant,
Civ. No. 15-cv-07220 (WHW)(CLW)(D.N.J.)

TriAd Media Solutions, Inc. is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the state of New Jersey with its
principal place of business in Hoboken, New Jersey. It is an
online marketing company that specializes in designing and
implementing uniquely successful lead generation campaigns for
educational institutions.

Vazquez is an individual domiciled in Braselton, Georgia. Vasquez
alleges that on or around June 7, 2015, Triad sent an unsolicited
text message to her wireless phone promoting a drawing for a
scholarship. Vazquez did not consent in writing to receive the
message. At the time it was sent, the text message contained a
hyperlink to the website http://comparetopschools.com,a website
owned by Triad that includes advertising banners for educational
institutions and a tool to help visitors find and compare programs
from over 7,000 schools. Vazquez alleges that Triad used the
scholarship contest as a pretext to gather leads and advertise
educational institutions, from which Triad received advertising
revenue.

Vazquez brought an action against Triad on behalf of herself and a
class action against Triad. Vazquez alleges that Triad violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section
227(b)(1)(A)(iii), by sending unsolicited, non-emergency
commercial text messages through the use of an automatic dialing
system without receiving prior express written consent from
recipients. Vazquez seeks, on behalf of herself and the class, (a)
an award of actual and statutory damages, including minimum of
$500.00 in statutory damages for each violation of the TCPA under
47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(3)(B); (b) an injunction requiring Triad
to cease all text message activities initiated without the prior
express written consent of recipients; (c) an award of reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs; and (d) any other relief the court
deems reasonable and just.

On November 24, 2015, Triad filed an answer and affirmative
defenses to the complaint. Vasquez filed a motion under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(f) to strike several of the affirmative defenses.
Vasquez argued that three of the affirmative defenses -- the
Seventh, Eighth, and Twelfth -- must be stricken because they fail
to provide her with fair notice of the defenses, that six of the
affirmative defenses -- the Third, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth,
and Twelfth -- must be stricken because they are legally
insufficient, and that two -- the Eighth and Ninth -- must be
stricken because they raise constitutional issues in violation of
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.1. Finally, Vasquez argued that Triad may not
reserve the right to add additional affirmative defenses, but
later on Vasquez withdrew the request to strike the Twelfth and
Sixth Affirmative Defenses.

In ruling on the plaintiff's request, Senior District Judge Walls
struck the defendant's ninth affirmative defense and the
established business relationship portion of the third affirmative
defense with prejudice and strikes the seventh and eighth
affirmative defenses without prejudice. The court also struck the
defendant's reservation of any automatic right to assert
additional affirmative defenses. The defendant may seek leave to
amend to reassert the seventh and eighth affirmative defenses, and
it must provide notice of a constitutional question under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 5.1(a) if it reasserts the eighth affirmative defense.

A copy of Judge Senior District Judge Walls's opinion dated
January 13, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/SnlkwAfrom
Leagle.com.

NORMA VAZQUEZ, Plaintiff, represented by JOSEPH J. DEPALMA --
jdepalma@litedepalma.com -- at LITE, DEPALMA, GREENBERG, LLC

TRIAD MEDIA SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, represented by KENNETH J.
CESTA -- kcesta@bressler.com -- MARK M. TALLMADGE --
mtallmadge@bressler.com -- MICHAEL DAVID MARGULIES --
mmargulies@bressler.com -- at BRESSLER, AMERY & ROSS, P.C.


TRICORP MANAGEMENT: Hearing Held on Class Cert. Bid in "Volz"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Illinois
held a hearing on February 11, 2016, on the motion to certify
Conditional FLSA Collective Action in the case, Jania Volz,
Plaintiff. v. Tricorp Management Company et al., Defendants, Case
No. 15-cv-0627-DRH-PMF, (S.D. Ill.)

Jania Volz brought a putative collective and class action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et
seq.,and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL), 820 Ill. Comp.
Stat. 105/1, et seq., to recover unpaid minimum wages and other
damages owed to herself and to all others similarly situated.

Volz amended the complaint and alleges violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq.), violation of the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law, breach of contract and unjust
enrichment.

On September 8, 2015, the Non-Illinois defendants filed a motion
to dismiss that sought dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2).
Additionally, all defendants sought dismissal pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.

On November 2, 2015, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for
leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery and denied the
defendants' motion to stay discovery. On November 11, 2015, the
non-Illinois defendants filed a motion to withdraw their objection
to personal jurisdiction, which was granted.
All that remains is the portion pertaining to failure to state a
claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Also
pending are plaintiff's motion for class certification and the
plaintiff's motion for oral argument on the same.

In January 2016, District Judge David R. Hendorn granted in part
and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss.  The Court
denied the motion to dismiss as to Counts I, II, and IV and
granted the motion to dismiss as to Count III, with leave to
amend. The plaintiff had until January 27, 2016 to file an amended
complaint.

The court granted plaintiff's motion for oral argument on the
pending motion for conditional certification and set the hearing
on February 11, 2016.

A copy of Judge Herndon's order dated January 13, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/1gtBXZfrom Leagle.com.

Jania Volz, Plaintiff, represented by Brandon Michael Wise --
brandon.wise@thewisefirm.com -- at Wise Firm LLC
Defendants, represented by Daniel G. Fritz --
fritz@mcmahonberger.com -- Brian M. O'Neal --
oneal@mcmahonberger.com -- at McMahon, Berger


UNITED COLLECTION: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lioudmila Schnell, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., Case No.
1:16-cv-00780 (E.D.N.Y., February 16, 2016) accuses the Defendant
of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

United Collection Bureau, Inc., develops customized and flexible
services tailored to the needs of its clients.  UCB was founded to
provide industry-specific solutions.  UCB was founded in 1959 and
is headquartered in Toledo, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Cal. App. Affirms Class Certification Denial
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LOUISE FRADENBURG, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v. UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Defendants and
Respondents, 2d Civil No. B258404 (Cal. App.), the Court of
Appeals of California affirmed the trial court's denial of Louise
Fradenburg's motion for class certification.

On behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Fradenburg
sought an injunction, restitution, and statutory damages for
unfair business practices and violation of the Unruh Civil Rights
Act against United Health Insurance Company because of its
practice of reviewing a member's treatment after such member
claims more than 20 psychotherapy sessions in six months and then
limiting further coverage to that which it determines is medically
necessary.  Fradenburg contended that this practice is unlawful
and discriminates against those with severe mental illnesses who
require long-term treatment.

Fradenburg moved for class certification, defining the class as
members "whose benefits for mental health care were insured or
administered by [United], who sought benefits for outpatient
mental health treatments, whose requests for benefits were
subjected to concurrent reviews, and whose benefits for outpatient
mental health treatments were subjected to prospective limits of
any kind."  The trial court denied class certification.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals of California found that the trial
court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that
individual issues of medical necessity predominate and may not be
effectively managed in a class action.  The appellate court
explained that whether United Healthcare violated the plan's terms
and California's parity law depends upon whether each member was
entitled to claim medically necessary benefits.  As such, each
member will be required to litigate the necessity of their
individual treatment in light of their diagnosis and unique
clinical circumstances.  The appellate court thus concluded that
class action is not appropriate.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals of California's March 3,
2016 opinion is available at http://is.gd/xj2V2afrom Leagle.com.

Cohen McKeon LLP, Michael L. Cohen, Heather M. McKeon; Psych-
Appeal, Inc., Meiram Bendat; Law Office of Lara M. Krieger, Lara
M. Krieger -- lkrieger@larakriegerlaw.com -- for Plaintiff and
Appellant.

Crowell & Moring LLP, J. Daniel Sharp -- dsharp@crowell.com --
Jennifer Salzman Romano -- jromano@crowell.com -- for Defendants
and Respondents.

Disability Rights California, Danieal Brzovi --
dan.brzovic@disabilityrightsca.org -- Laura Reich --
lreich@tenzer.com; Mental Health Advocacy Services, Inc., Jim
Preis, Nancy Shea for California Psychiatric Association; Project
Return Peer Support Network; Mental Health Advocacy Services,
Inc.; and Disability Rights California as Amici Curiae on behalf
of Plaintiff and Appellant.


UNITED STATES: Judge Testifies in Immigration Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Cathaleen Chen, writing for The Christian Science Monitor, reports
that in a lawsuit filed by the ACLU, a judge from Virginia
testifies as a key witness for the federal government that 3- or
4-year-old child migrants can make a case for themselves in
immigration court without counsel.

At age 3, most toddlers know how to play make-believe, turn the
pages of a book, and spontaneously show affection for their
friends.  But can 3-year-olds possibly grasp the fundamentals of
the American justice system and defend themselves in court?

Judge Jack Weil believes so.  The Virginia-based judge is a key
witness supporting the US government's position that unaccompanied
migrant youths don't need attorneys in immigration court, while
immigration advocates argue otherwise.

"I've taught immigration law literally to 3-year-olds and 4-year-
olds.  It takes a lot of time. It takes a lot of patience," Judge
Weil said.  "They get it.  It's not the most efficient, but it can
be done."

As the number of unaccompanied and undocumented children
attempting to cross the southern American border has skyrocketed
in recent years, advocates say that they should not be sent back
their home countries, where gang violence and poverty are the
reasons for their departure.

According to Thomas Homan, the head of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement's removal operations, 7,643 child immigrants were
deported between 2012 and 2015.  But in that same period,
Mr. Homan told the Senate Judiciary Committee, more than 171,000
children were apprehended at the border.  Most of them came from
Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala.

The biggest migration spike took place in 2014.  When they arrive
at the border, the majority of unaccompanied children are
immediately apprehended, processed, and initially detained by
Customs and Border Patrol.  If they come from countries such as El
Salvador, Guatemala, or Honduras, the youths are placed into
standard removal proceedings in immigration court.

And after being screened by a CBP officer to determine of they are
victims of trafficking or persecution back home, these children
are transferred into the custody of the Office of Refugee
Resettlement under Health and Human Services within three days.

But in the standard removal proceedings, undocumented children and
families have no guarantee of counsel in court -- not even for 3-
year-olds.

Democrats in Congress introduced a bill that would grant attorneys
for children in immigration court who came to the border alone or
were victims of abuse, torture, and violence.

The legislation comes at the heels of a 2014 class-action lawsuit
filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and several other
groups, pursuing in a Seattle federal court the right of
unaccompanied youths to have court-appointed counsel.

The plaintiffs claim that the Justice Department, including the
immigration courts and other federal immigration agencies,
violated due process and the children's right to a fair trial
under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The deposition in which Judge Weil says toddlers can defend
themselves in court was submitted to the court by the federal
government in January.  The ACLU posted the transcript on
March 4.

"Are you aware of any experts in child psychology or comparable
experts who agree with the assessment that 3- and 4-year-olds can
be taught immigration law?" Ahilan Arulanantham, the deputy legal
director of the ACLU of Southern California, asked Weil in the
transcript.

"I haven't read any studies one way or another," Judge Weil
answered.  "I have trained 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds in
immigration law," he later maintained.  "You can do a fair
hearing."

But even the federal government has questioned the credibility of
Judge Weil's stance.  Although the Justice Department is currently
in the throes of the lawsuit, spokeswoman Lauren Alder Reid told
the Los Angeles Times in a statement that the administration is
actually in support of the Congressional legislation providing
representation for youth migrants.

"The assistant chief immigration judge was speaking in a personal
capacity when he made that statement," Ms. Reid said.  "The
Department of Justice recognizes that immigration court
proceedings are more effective and efficient when individuals are
represented."

The next court hearing is set for March 24, Mr. Arulanantham says.
Meanwhile, the influx of immigrant children into the US is
expected to break records yet again in 2016.


UNIVERSAL MEDICAL: Faces Suit for Violating FLSA, Md. Wage Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRE PETERSON, JOHN GRANT and MICHELLE JONES v. UNIVERSAL MEDICAL
EQUIPMENT & RESOURCES, INC., and EYIBIO ADAH, Case 1:16-cv-00596-
RDB (D. Md., March 1, 2016), seeks damages stemming from
Defendants' alleged willful failure to pay Plaintiffs their
minimum and overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the Maryland
Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Universal Medical contracts with state and local departments of
health to provide Marylanders with a variety of healthcare-related
goods and services, including non-emergency medical transportation
services.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Hiba Hafiz, Esq.
     Christine Webber, Esq.
     COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
     1100 New York Avenue NW, Suite 500
     Washington, DC 20005
     Phone: (202) 408-4600
     Fax: (202) 408-4669
     E-mail: hhafiz@cohenmilstein.com
             cwebber@cohenmilstein.com

        - and -

     Sally Dworak-Fisher, Esq.
     Monisha Cherayil, Esq.
     THE PUBLIC JUSTICE CENTER
     One North Charles Street, Suite 200
     Baltimore, MD 21201
     Phone: (410) 625-9409
     Fax: (410) 625-9423
     E-mail: cherayilm@publicjustice.org
             dworakfishers@publicjustice.org


USM INC: Settlement in "Vasquez" Suit Has Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
Federico Vilchiz Vasquez, Jesus Vilchez Vasquez, Ada CaNez,
Emigdio Mendez, Candelaria Hurtado and Evelia Martinez are
janitorial employees who worked in Ross Dress for Less and "dd's
DISCOUNTS" stores in California from 2009 onward.  Since 2008, a
Ross contractor, USM, Inc. had lead responsibility for janitorial
services and delegated the work to smaller subcontractors.
Plaintiffs allege that Ross and USM knowingly underfunded the
janitorial subcontracts, resulting in a host of minimum wage,
overtime, and other labor law and unfair competition violations.

After the class certification motion was fully briefed but before
the District Court for the Northern District of California had
ruled, the parties reached a settlement in principle.

Under the settlement agreement, defendants will pay $1,000,000
into a non-reversionary Settlement Fund, which will serve as the
source for payments to Class Members, notice and administration
costs of up to $125,000, and a Private Attorney General Act (PAGA)
payment of $5,000 to the State of California.  Class members will
receive an automatic payment of between $50 and $250 (representing
up to 20% of the net settlement fund), with additional funds
distributed to Class Members who submit a timely and valid Claim
Form (an additional 30% of the net settlement fund, up to an
additional $575 per Class Member) and tax reporting and employment
information substantiating their claim (the remainder of the net
settlement fund). The maximum amount receivable by any Class
Member will be $16,500. Any uncashed proceeds from the Settlement
Fund will be distributed to several local nonprofits that
specialize in assisting low-income immigrant workers.

In February 2015, the parties moved for preliminary approval of
the settlement and the same was approved on April 13, 2015. The
parties moved for final approval and attorneys' fees and costs in
September 2015, and were heard by the court on October 7, 2015. At
the final approval hearing, the court requested, and the
plaintiffs have submitted, supplemental briefing and declarations
on the proposed incentive awards.

Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for final settlement approval
and certification of a settlement class and attorneys' fees,
costs, and class representative service awards. Plaintiffs also
seek payment of $1,102,000 in fees to class counsel, as well as
reimbursement of actual and expected litigation costs of $198,000
and an incentive award for the named plaintiffs.

District Judge James Donato grants final approval of the proposed
settlement, certifies the injunctive and monetary relief
settlement classes as proposed, and appoints Federico Vilchiz
Vasquez, Jesus Vilchez Vasquez, Ada CaNez, Emigdio Mendez,
Candelaria Hurtado, and Evelia Martinez as class representatives,
and Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, Chavez & Gertler LLP, Legal
Aid of Marin, and the Stanford Community Law Clinic as class
counsel.

The court approves the payment of $1,102,000 in fees to class
counsel as well as the cost of $198,000.

The court also grants the plaintiffs' supplemental request that
the claimed hours be compensated at a rate of $9 per hour. The
court awards payment, from the Settlement Fund, of $540 to
Federico Vilchiz Vasquez; $405 to Jesus Vilchez Vasquez; $540 to
Ada CaNez; $270 to Emigdio Mendez; $225 to Candelaria Hurtado; and
$108 to Evelia Martinez.

The case is FEDERICO VILCHIZ VASQUEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. USM
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:13-cv-05449-JD (N.D. Cal.)

A copy of Judge Donato's order dated February 16, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/SmT9dsfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Christian Schreiber --
christian@chavezgertler.com -- Jonathan E. Gertler --
jon@chavezgertler.com -- at Chavez & Gertler LLP; Katrina Leigh
Eiland -- Laura L. Ho -- lho@gbdhlegal.com -- Megan Elizabeth Ryan
-- mryan@gbdhlegal.com -- at Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & Ho;
Daniel Ross Weltin -- at Weltin Law Office, P.C.; Juliet M. Brodie
-- jmbrodie@law.stanford.edu -- at Stanford Community Law Clinic;
Joanna Shalleck-Klein -- at Legal Aid of Marin

Defendants, represented by Cheryl D. Orr -- Cheryl.Orr@dbr.com --
Gerald S. Hartman -- Jerry.Hartman@dbr.com -- Michael Patrick Daly
-- Michael.Daly@dbr.com -- Gregory W. Homer --
Gregory.Homer@dbr.com -- Philippe Alexandre Lebel --
Philippe.Lebel@dbr.com -- Ryan Scott Fife -- Ryan.Fife@dbr.com --
at Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP


VANTIV INC: "Daniel" Suit Alleges Credit Reporting Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Daniel v. Vantiv, Inc. and National Park Service, CASE
#: 1:16-cv-00018-SPW (D. Mont., March 2, 2016), arises out of
alleged violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Vantiv, Inc. is a holding company that conducts its operations
through its majority-owned subsidiary, Vantiv Holding, LLC. The
Company operates in two segments: Merchant Services and Financial
Institution Services. The Merchant Services segment provides
merchant acquiring and payment processing services to national
merchants, regional and small-to-mid sized businesses.

The case is assigned to Judge Susan P. Watters.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Timothy M. Bechtold, Esq.
     BECHTOLD LAW FIRM
     PO Box 7051
     Missoula, MT 59807-7051
     Phone: (406) 721-1435
     E-mail: tim@bechtoldlaw.net


VERMONT: Fails to Abide by Medicare Settlement, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dan Colton, writing for Times Argus, reports that a Bristol woman
whose case was expected to expand Medicare for thousands of people
across the nation said the government broke its promise.

Now, she's going back to court again, saying the federal
government failed to abide by the settlement of a 2013 lawsuit
that said she could not lose Medicare coverage just because her
health was not expected to improve.

Glenda Jimmo, 79, of Bristol, is blind and diabetic and had her
right leg amputated below the knee.  She is the lead plaintiff in
the federal class-action lawsuit, though her lawyers said her
health has deteriorated and she isn't as involved anymore.
Medicare dropped Ms. Jimmo's therapeutic care because the
condition of her health was not expected to get better.
Ms. Jimmo had failed the "improvement standard" -- which limits
Medicare coverage for therapeutic care to patients whose chronic
conditions are expected to improve.

This standard was supposed to have been abandoned under the
settlement in favor of a "maintenance standard," in which care is
also extended to patients whose conditions are expected to stay
the same or even deteriorate.

On March 1, Ms. Jimmo's lawyers filed paperwork detailing the
government's alleged noncompliance with the agreement details,
including health-care industry education measures and alterations
to the Medicare Benefit Policy Manual.

Michael Benvenuto, an attorney with Vermont Legal Aid Inc.'s
Medicare Advocacy Project said it was not coincidence that a
Vermont plaintiff took the lead role in the federal case.

"We brought this national case in Vermont because we thought our
judges would be good in this case," Mr. Benvenuto said, adding
that the same judge as before is expected to preside.

People are still being refused coverage, he said.  The lawsuit
could affect thousands -- even hundreds of thousands -- of people,
but Mr. Benvenuto did not have an official count.

"Our case is, Medicare should cover people who have chronic
conditions and need nurses or therapy to maintain their
condition," Mr. Benvenuto said.  "They were supposed to change
their manual, they were supposed to do an education campaign . . .
. Now three years later, we're going back to ask the Vermont judge
to really order them to do that, that we think what they've done
has been really inadequate."

Secretary of Health and Human Services Syliva Mathews Burwell said
HHS can't be blamed if some providers, contractors, adjudicators
and suppliers didn't get the word, according to court documents;
lawyers for Ms. Jimmo said Burwell didn't try hard enough.

Reached by phone, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Justice
-- whose lawyers represent Health and Human Services -- declined
to comment.

The recent court filing -- a memorandum in support of a motion for
resolution of noncompliance with settlement agreement -- details
the government's alleged noncompliance with the agreed-upon
"maintenance standard" and includes testimony from medical and
advocacy organizations.

According to the agreement, the Health and Human Services
department was supposed to update the Medicare Benefit Policy
Manual, to reflect the change in standards.  Additionally, the
medical industry was to be informed and educated on the changes.
That way, care providers would know about the new insurance
guidelines.

But Ms. Jimmo's lawyers argue the manual update didn't stick to
the agreement, in part because it imposed time limitations.

The new standard called for a three-week observation period of
Medicare patients with chronic conditions. If, in that time, no
"acute episodes" are observed, the service is dropped from
coverage, the Medicare Benefit Policy Manual says.

Ms. Jimmo's lawyers said the three-week rule undercuts the
agreement by establishing a rule of thumb which states coverage is
only appropriate for a certain amount of time.

"The Secretary was not acting in good faith when she declined to
make the reasonable changes requested by the plaintiffs' counsel,"
according to the recent memorandum.  "The Court should therefore
determine that the Secretary violated the Agreement with respect
to this manual provision."

Another agreement provision largely ignored by the government,
said Ms. Jimmo's lawyers, has to do with educating the health
industry.

Multiple health policy advocates agree with Ms. Jimmo's lawyers
and said new information was scant, according to the memorandum.

The General Counsel of the Paralyzed Veterans of America released
a statement saying, "To the best of my knowledge, (the Paralyzed
Veterans of America) has not received any information about the
Jimmo Settlemen -- written or otherwise -- from the Center for
Medicare & Medicaid Services . . . ."

Sharon Dunn, president of the American Physical Therapy
Association, said her organization received one inadequate
document.  That document, Dunn said, were introductory in nature
and insufficient as educational material, according to court
papers.

More than two years after the educational campaign, Ms. Dunn said
her organization still receives inquiries from physical therapists
regarding the Medicare-coverage rule.

"We have found many providers have not received any information
regarding the settlement ... or remain confused about the proper
application of the skilled maintenance therapy benefit."

In response to the alleged noncompliance, Ms. Jimmo's lawyers are
asking for a revision of the manual and additional education
services.

Ms. Benvenuto said the government will file a response on
April 26.

"And then, presumably, it would get scheduled for a hearing in
front of the judge," he said.


VIRGINIA: Faces Class Action Over "Habitual Drunkard" Laws
----------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Kleiner, writing for Richmond Times-Dispatch, reports that a
group of homeless alcoholic Virginians has sued the state over
laws that make it illegal for them to drink or possess alcohol,
regardless of whether they're intoxicated.

More than 1,220 people have been labeled "habitual drunkards" by
courts in the past nine years, according to the Charlottesville-
based Legal Aid Justice Center, which filed a class-action suit on
behalf of homeless people.

They collectively have been arrested and jailed thousands of times
for possessing alcohol, smelling of booze or being found near
empty beer cans and bottles, according to the suit, which was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Virginia in Roanoke.

Three of the six plaintiffs named in the suit as representatives
of the class are from Richmond.  The two defendants, Michael N.
Herring of Richmond and Donald Caldwell of Roanoke, are
commonwealth's attorneys representing themselves and their
counterparts across the state.

The homeless plaintiffs claim they are harassed under "habitual
drunkard" laws, which subject them to more severe punishment than
public intoxication charges. Those typically result in a fine and
no jail time.

The plaintiffs also say they are denied due process because they
do not have the right to an attorney and do not have to be present
when courts deem them habitual drunkards.

The Legal Aid Justice Center says the laws criminalize an illness
-- alcohol addiction -- simply because their homeless clients have
nowhere to drink privately.

"This is a civil rights violation, plain and simple,"
Mary Frances Charlton, an attorney with the Legal Aid Justice
Center, said in a news release.

The laws "create a crime where none exists, and place criminal
sanctions on individuals who are guilty of nothing more than being
homeless and addicted to alcohol -- ultimately placing even more
obstacles between them and the help that they severely need," Ms.
Charlton said.

Mr. Caldwell said he does not believe the laws constitute cruel
and unusual punishment, because the people deemed habitual
drunkards typically have been found to be drunk in public numerous
times in a calendar year.

The laws are meant to keep drunken people off the streets.  The
criminal justice system long has been in charge of addressing the
problem, but perhaps a better system can be developed,
Mr. Caldwell said.

Bryan Manning, a plaintiff in the case who has been jailed more
than 30 times under the statute, said in a news release from the
justice center that he has spent the majority of the past five
years in the Roanoke City Jail because of his status as a habitual
drunkard.

"I'm tired of being harassed by the police because I've been
labeled a 'habitual drunkard,'" Mr. Manning said.  "Since I don't
have a home, every time I go to jail I lose what little
possessions I have."

The frequent incarcerations have had a negative impact on
Manning's mental health problems, he said, adding that "my
psychiatric medications and treatment stop when I get locked up."


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Park" Suit Consolidated in Clean Diesel MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Peter Park, et al. v.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00072,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco).  The Northern District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-00769-CRB to the proceeding.

The transfer is pursuant to the Transfer Order entered in In re:
Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products
Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2672, on Dec. 8, 2015.  The Hon.
Charles R. Breyer oversees In re: Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" MDL,
Case No. 3:15-md-02672-CRB (JSC) (N.D. Calif.), and at
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/crb/vwmdlthe Court Clerk is making
additional information about this proceeding available to
practitioners and the public.

The cases in the litigation primarily concern certain 2.0 and 3.0
liter diesel engines sold by Defendants Volkswagen Group of
America, Volkswagen AG and affiliated companies, which allegedly
contain software designed to engage emissions controls only when
the vehicles undergo official testing, while at other times the
engines emit nitrous oxide well in excess of legal limits.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          A. Barry Cappello, Esq.
          Leila J. Noel, Esq.
          CAPPELLO & NOEL LLP
          831 State Street
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 564-2444
          Facsimile: (805) 965-5950
          E-mail: ptremblay@cappellonoel.com
                  lnoel@cappellonoel.com

Defendants Volkswagen Group of America Inc., SB-Val, Solazyme,
Inc., Volkswagen Credit and Hysen-Johnson Ford, Inc., are
represented by:

          Andrew Zachary Edelstein, Esq.
          John Nadolenco, Esq.
          Neil Michael Soltman, Esq.
          Matthew Henry Marmolejo, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 229-9500
          Facsimile: (213) 625-0248
          E-mail: AEdelstein@mayerbrown.com
                  jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com
                  nsoltman@mayerbrown.com
                  mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com


WASHINGTON: HCA Faces Class Suit Over Civil Rights Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
B. E., on her own behalf and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals, and A. R., on his own behalf and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals v. Dorothy F. Teeter, in her
official capacity as Director of the Washington State Health Care
Authority, Case No. 2:16-cv-00227, (W.D. Wash., February 16,
2016), alleges violations of the Civil Rights Act.

Dorothy F. Teeter is the director of the Health Care Authority of
the state of Washington.  She was appointed to lead the agency by
Governor Jay Inslee in March 2013.  The HCA is the state's top
health care purchaser that covers more than two million public
employees and Apple Health (Medicaid) clients.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Amy Louise Crewdson, Esq.
          COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES
          711 Capitol Way S, Suite 304
          Olympia, WA 98501
          Telephone: (360) 943-6585
          E-mail: amy.crewdson@columbialegal.org

               - and -

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


WEST FELICIANA, LA: Exception of Preemption Sustained
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge William J. Crain of the Court of Appeals of Louisiana, First
Circuit affirmed the judgment of the trial court in the case MIKE
AND LINDA BABIN, v. THE PARISH OF WEST FELICIANA, THE WEST
FELICIANA POLICE JURY, AND CONSOLIDATED WATER WORKS DISTRICT NO.
13, No. 2015 CA 0480 (La. Ct. App.)

The West Feliciana Parish Fire Marshal determined that there was
an insufficient water supply in the area of the Bluffs that
affected the issuance of building permits and further development
within the Bluffs. Bluffs Management Company then entered into an
agreement with the West Feliciana Parish Police Jury for the
management company to construct an eight-inch water-line loop
along Freeland Road that would then be purchased by the Police
Jury. To fund the purchase, the Police Jury issued certain Series
2007, Certificates of Indebtedness pursuant to resolutions that
were published in September, October, and November 2007. To pay
off the bonds, the Police Jury established a $12.75 monthly fee to
be assessed to the water customers who directly benefitted from
construction of the water loop. Beginning October 22, 2007, the
$12.75 fee was added to the monthly water bills of residents of
the Bluffs.

Mike and Linda Babin own a lot in the Bluffs on Thompsons Creek
subdivision in West Feliciana Parish. They instituted a suit to
challenge the fee of $12.75 added to the monthly water bill of
residents of the Bluffs. The Babins sought a judgment declaring
that the monthly fee was absolutely null and void because no
ordinance or resolution was adopted, no public hearings were held,
no notices were published, because it is unclear how the fee
amount was calculated, and because the fee was levied pursuant to
an agreement with a private party and entered into during private
discussions in closed meetings, in violation of law.

The defendants urged several exceptions to the claims set forth in
the petition, including an exception of preemption. Specifically,
the defendants claimed that the suit challenged their compliance
with Louisiana law on the bond financing for the purchase of the
water loop, and since it was filed more than thirty days after
publication of the resolutions authorizing issuance of the bonds
and providing for the security and payment of the bonds, the suit
was preempted.

The trial court agreed, sustained the exception of preemption, and
dismissed the suit. The Babins appeal.

Judge Crain affirmed the judgment of the trial court sustaining
the exception of preemption and dismisses the suit.

A copy of Judge Crain's judgment dated February 17, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/zMrb9xfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs/Appellants, represented by:

     Lea Anne Batson, Esq.
     222 Saint Louis St., Room 902
     Baton Rouge, LA 70821
     Telephone: 225-3893114

Defendants/Appellees, represented by:

     John David Ziober, Esq.
     320 Somerulos St.
     Baton Rouge, LA 70802-6129
     Telephone: 225-387-6966

The Court of Appeals of Louisiana, First Circuit panel consists of
Judges William J. Crain, John T. Pettigrew and Toni M.
Higginbotham.


WILSHIRE CONSUMER: Court Denies Class Certification in "Banarji"
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Roger T. Benitez of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California denied Defendant's
motion to strike and granted its motion to deny class
certification in the case captioned, ALU BANARJI, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WILSHIRE
CONSUMER CAPITAL, LLC d/b/a WILSHIRE CONSUMER CREDIT, Defendant,
Case No. 14-CV-2967-BEN (KSC) (S.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff initiated the putative class action on December 17,
2014, alleging a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA). She also brought a claim under the Rosenthal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act on behalf of herself only. Plaintiff
filed the operative First Amended Complaint on February 23, 2015.

Ms. Banarji attests that she is the primary caregiver for her
father, Sami Banarji. On December 2, 2013, Mr. Banarji took out a
loan with WCC. On the loan application, Mr. Banarji listed his
cell phone number as ending in 0861 and his email address as
"alubanarji@gmail.com."  He also listed his daughter, Plaintiff,
as a reference and provided a different phone number for her. Mr.
Banarji failed to make a payment to WCC, and WCC began calling the
0861 number to inquire about the debt. During the relevant time
period, the 0861 phone was on a prepaid cell phone plan paid for
by Plaintiff. As it turns out, the 0861 cell phone number and the
alubanarji @gmail.com address were not Mr. Banarji's; they
belonged to Plaintiff.  Plaintiff asserts she has had that phone
number since 2012.

Wilshire filed a motion to strike Plaintiff as a class
representative from the First Amended Complaint or alternatively
deny class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23, arguing that Plaintiff's claims are not typical of
those of the class.

In his Order dated February 12, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/6FhYpffrom Leagle.com, Judge Benitez denied the
motion to strike as untimely because the Defendant filed an Answer
on March 11, 2015, which is improper to bring a motion to strike
after the Defendant has already responded to the First Amended
Complaint. The Court, however, agreed that Plaintiff's claim is
not typical of the proposed class's claims.

Alu Banajari is represented by Joshua Swigart, Esq. --
josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- HYDE & SWIGART Abbas Kazerounian,
Esq. -- ak@kazlg.com -- Mohammad Kazerouni, Esq. - mk@kazl.com --
& Mona Amini, Esq. -- ma@kazl.com -- KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC &

          - and -

Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
8730 Wilshire Blvd #310,
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Tel: (323)285-3255

Wilshire Consumer Capital, LLC is represented by Anthony Angelo
Molino, Esq. -- molino@molinolawfirm.com -- Benjamin John Carter,
Esq. -- carter@molinolawfirm.com -- Steve Reed Berardino, Esq. --
berardino@molinolawfirm.com -- & Michelle Gail Cooper, Esq. --
cooper@molinolawfirm.com -- MOLINO & BERARDINO, APLC


WORLD VOLKSWAGEN: "Villapiano" Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, removed the class action
lawsuit styled Villapiano v. World Volkswagen, et al., Case No.
MON-L-16-00044, from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth
County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Trenton).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-
00809-FLW-LHG to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from insurance-related issues.

World Volkswagen is a New Jersey Volkswagen Dealership.  JPMorgan
Chase Bank, N.A., doing business as Chase, is a national bank that
constitutes the consumer and commercial banking subsidiary of the
multinational banking corporation JPMorgan Chase.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald Lewis Lueddeke, Esq.
          LUEDDEKE LAW FIRM
          215 Morris Avenue
          Spring Lake, NJ 07762
          Telephone: (732) 449-2884
          E-mail: ron@lueddekelaw.com

Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, is represented by:

          Michael R. McDonald, Esq.
          GIBBONS, PC
          One Gateway Center
          Newark, NJ 07102-5310
          Telephone: (973) 596-4500
          E-mail: mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com


ZEP INC: Fails to Pay Sales Commission, "Benharris" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Benharris, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Zep, Inc. and Acuity Specialty Products,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 16-0619 (Mass. Super., March 3, 2016),
alleges that the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff the full
amount of commissions he earned in connection with certain sales,
pursuant to Massachusetts Wage and Hour Laws.

ZEP, Inc., is a producer and marketer of a wide range of high-
efficacy maintenance and cleaning solutions for commercial,
industrial, institutional and consumer end-markets.

Acuity Specialty Products, Inc. is a subsidiary of ZEP, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Philip J. Gordon, Esq.
     Kristen M. Hurley, Esq.
     GORDON LAW GROUP LLP
     585 Boyston Street
     Boston, MA 02116
     Tel: (617) 536-1800


* Republicans, Democrats Introduce Bills on LSC Funding for UAMs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dale Wilcox, writing for FrontPage Mag, reports that Republicans
and Democrats introduced clashing bills related to the provision
of taxpayer-funded legal services for Unaccompanied Alien Minors.
Fortunately for Republicans they already have similar laws in
place that deny such funding. Fortunately for Democrats, it's
riddled with loopholes.

Coinciding with the March 1 Senate Homeland Security hearing on
the continuing Unaccompanied Minors-surge, Chairman Ron Johnson
and committee member Jeff Sessions introduced the Protection of
Children Act (S. 2561), a bill that, among other things, promises
to "ensure[] that taxpayer dollars do not pay for attorneys for
these individuals, consistent with decades of precedent."
Meanwhile, House Democrats, led by Rep. Zoe Lofgren, introduced a
bill on March 4 that seeks to "protect children and other
vulnerable groups in immigration proceedings by ensuring access to
counsel, legal orientation programs, and case management
services."  Lofgren's bill tracks closely with a similar bill
introduced by Sen. Harry Reid a fortnight ago.

Perhaps unknown to either side is that open-borders legal
advocates representing Unaccompanied Alien Minors (UAMs) and
illegal immigrants in general have been receiving taxpayer dollars
for years although the practice is indeed a prohibited one.  The
Legal Services Corporation (LSC), a government entity created in
1974 that distributes federal grants to non-profit law firms, has
been blocked since the eighties from providing funds for the use
of representing illegal aliens.  Congressional appropriations law
as it relates to LSC is clear: "LSC funds cannot be used to engage
in litigation and related activities with respect to a variety of
matters including . . . representation of illegal aliens."  Due to
gaping loopholes, however, taxpayer dollars continue to flow to
these groups.

The legislative effort to block this use of taxpayer funds was
written specifically for the National Immigration Law Center
(NILC), the first open-borders law firm in the country.  The
group, which also receives funding from George Soros and the Ford
Foundation, has several class-action lawsuits going each
challenging the Obama Administration on the issue of detaining
illegal alien-minors (including one which alleges detainees were
treated inhumanely by being given cold bean burritos).  The firm
grew out of the National Lawyers Guild, an association of public
interest law firms whose parent organization the CIA once
described as a Soviet front.  According to its early newsletters,
NILC's primary duty is to "protect, defend, and extend the rights
of documented and undocumented immigrants in the United States."
Little's changed since.

When NILC's precursor, the National Immigrants' Rights Council
(NIRC), was barred from receiving LSC funds in the eighties it
simply shifted its illegal alien program to a "mirror
corporation."  NIRC, Inc., the new "separate" organization, was
allowed to share staff and office space with its grant-receiving
vessel and with the help of its large foundation-backers it went
on rack up several successful challenges against illegal alien
detainment, including the landmark settlement in Flores v. Reno
(1995).  Today, the group still receives LSC funding.

One of the Immigration Reform Law Institute's current cases
involves an attempt to strike down a citizens' ballot initiative
in Oregon that denied driving privileges to illegal aliens in that
state.  The illegal aliens' counsel there, the Oregon Law Center,
receives numerous grants from the federal government, including
from the LSC. But without having proof that their private and
public-funds are being commingled, there's little we or anyone
else can do.

The Congressional Research Service has recognized this problem. On
the subject of lobbying, which LSC also prohibits, they've pointed
out that "the restrictions on lobbying with federal funds
generally follow only the funds themselves" and don't apply to
advocacy activities paid for by "one's own, private resources."
Groups like OLC, in other words, are allowed to spend on
prohibited activities, such as illegal alien representation, if
they use "private funds" instead of federal funds.  This abstract
separation should give taxpayers pause. Whether it be funds
sourced from the government or a private entity, like the Ford
Foundation, that money is fungible and interchangeable between one
source and another.  Following a recent policy change in the UK
which prohibited grant-funded lobbying, commentators there rightly
pointed out that with regards to separating private and public
funds "it would be difficult to draw a distinction between the
two."  But even if non-profit law firms like OLC are properly
segregating LSC funds from private funds, at the very least, the
taxpayers' support allows them to free up private funds to be used
for lobbying, which of course has the same basic effect.

If the Johnson-Sessions bill doesn't close up the existing
loopholes in LSC-funding it will simply copy what's already on the
books: taxpayer dollars being used to facilitate open-borders.


* EB-5 and JOBS Act Sectors Face Close SEC Regulatory Scrutiny
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Andersen, writing for Crowdfund Insider, reports that the
recent economic downturn is not the only challenge for
entrepreneurs in the EB-5 and JOBS Act industries.  Rather, the
challenges include close regulatory scrutiny by the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) Division of
Enforcement.  While both EB-5 and the JOBS Act were designed by
Congress to generate capital, jobs and ultimately growth, both
industries face identical scrutiny by the SEC on two key issues.
The first is whether there is proper disclosure of all material
facts in a securities offering, and second, when are these
businesses pursuing opportunities provided by Congressional
legislation operating illegally as unregistered broker-dealers.

EB-5 has been around for many years, whereas much of the JOBS Act
rules including Reg A and Reg CF were finalized in 2015.  Thus, a
review of SEC enforcement actions taken in EB-5 serves as a useful
roadmap as to what one can expect from the SEC in the JOBS Act
space.

While this article focuses on SEC action, the EB-5 and JOBS Act
industries should well understand FINRA and the state regulators
are also in a deep dive to learn and identify abuses in these
industries.  These regulators will also bring enforcement actions
to protect investors who are harmed or defrauded by unlawful
conduct.  Entrepreneurs beware:  errors of judgment may result in
allegations of fraud or other wrongdoing.  Regulatory action to
remedy perceived wrongs may be in the form of a criminal, civil or
administrative actions.  Regardless, all of it is serious, and so
it is helpful to have a roadmap.

In his recent testimony to the United States Senate Committee on
the Judiciary on February 2, 2016, Stephen Cohen, Associate
Director of the SEC Division of Enforcement, summarized SEC action
involving the EB-5 industry.  He also acknowledged EB-5 actions
are a growing part of the SEC docket.  Between February 2013 and
December 2015, the SEC filed nineteen cases relating to EB-5
offerings, with almost half involving fraud allegations.  Eleven
of these matters reportedly involved unregistered broker-dealer
activity.

The JOBS Act enforcement history is much less developed, with only
one reported SEC enforcement action (discussed below).  SEC
Chairman Mary Jo White, however, made clear during her keynote
address at the 47th Annual Securities Regulation Institute on
October 28, 2015, that enforcement investigations open in the JOBS
Act space concern potential fraud and unregistered broker-dealer
activity, amongst other things.  In essence, Chairman White's
comments made clear that the SEC has the same enforcement
priorities for the JOBS Act industry as it does for EB-5.

As Mr. Cohen testified on February 2, 2016, the first EB-5 case
was brought in February 2013 to stop a fraudulent EB-5 investment
offering involving over 250 investors.  In SEC v. A Chicago
Convention Center, LLC, et al., 13CV982 (Feb. 6, 2013), the SEC
alleged fraud concerning the efforts to build the "World's First
Zero Carbon Emission Platinum LEED certified" hotel and conference
center.  The defendants purportedly raised over $145 million plus
another 11 million in administrative fees through false
representations including that all necessary permits and approvals
were obtained to construct the project, that several major hotel
projects had signed on to the project, and that defendants would
contribute land to the project worth $177 million.  The SEC
obtained emergency relief and a court order led to the return of
$145 million to injured investors, and the perpetrator was
criminally indicted in an action prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney,
Northern District of Illinois.

Later, on June 23, 2015, the SEC settled its first stand-alone (no
fraud) unregistered broker-dealer case charging two firms involved
in handling investments for more than 150 EB-5 investors.    In
the Matter of Ireeco, LLC and Ireeco Limited, Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 Release No. 75268, Administrative Proceeding File No.
3-16647 (June 23, 2015), the defendants reportedly used their
website to solicit EB-5 investors promising to help investors
choose the right regional center to invest their funds.  Rather,
the defendants allegedly directed most EB-5 investors to the same
handful of regional centers, and ones that paid them a commission
of approximately $35,000 per investor once a conditional green
card was approved.  Notably, neither firm was registered as a
broker-dealer although their activities clearly required same.

Later, at the end of 2015, the SEC instituted ten settled
administrative proceedings against seven individuals (six of whom
were lawyers) and three law firms, and also announced a litigated
district court action against a lawyer and his law firm alleging
fraud.  These cases were the first to bring charges against
lawyers and law firms for acting as unregistered brokers in the
EB-5 space.  In addition to charging legal fees, the lawyers
purportedly received commissions for selling EB-5 securities when
they successfully sold securities to their clients.  Commissions
are transaction-based compensation, which has always been a clear
cut indication of unregistered broker-dealer activity.  In
addition, the attorneys were allegedly recommending securities to
their clients, acting as liaison between the investment offeror
and their client (investor), and facilitating the transfer of
investment funds, all without broker-dealer registration.

On the JOBS Act side, in late October 2015, the SEC announced as
action, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ascenergy, LLC, et
al, Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-01974 (D. Nev., October 13, 2015)
pursued an issuer, Las Vegas-based Ascenergy. LLC, and its CEO
Joseph Gabaldon, for fraudulently raising approximately $5 million
under Rule 506(c).  They purportedly sold securities on their own
website and on the websites of several funding platforms.
Ascenergy and Gabaldon allegedly were diverting investor funds.
This includes for such things like foreign travel, fast food
restaurants, Apple stores and iTunes, dietary supplements and
personal care products, all clearly unrelated to their oil and gas
business.  Also, the SEC alleged that the defendants made
multiple, material misrepresentations about the company and the
nature of the offering, including that Ascenergy described the
offering as having "exceptionally low risk," and an "extremely low
risk profile" when, in fact, it was a high-risk investment in
undeveloped and unproven wells.

For those not familiar with the securities laws, the
misrepresentation or omission to state all material facts may
constitute fraud, and fraud allegations may be brought by criminal
prosecutors, securities regulators, or plaintiff or class action
attorneys.  So all offerors of securities, whether under EB-5 or a
JOBS Act internet offerings, must make sure their offering
documents and marketing materials comport to the requirements of
law.  As is obvious, this means that the issuer cannot make
misrepresentations of material fact, or omit to disclose a
material fact that an investor would reasonably want to know in
advance of making their investment.

If you have been in this business for a while, you already know
what constitutes fraud largely depends on the facts and
circumstances.  The critical question is whether there is a
substantial likelihood a reasonable investor would consider the
fact important in deciding whether to invest their money.  If so,
it is a material fact that must be disclosed, and the failure to
disclose it may be fraud.  It is hard for entrepreneurs lacking
familiarity with the securities laws to understand that not
disclosing something can and will be construed to fraud in the
securities industry.  What makes matters worse is the significant
remedies available to the government. Government may pursue
criminal prosecutions or seek bars from the securities industry
that prevent someone from ever selling securities again.

Similarly, whether someone is acting as an unregistered broker-
dealer requires a review of an assortment of factors that need to
be assessed and evaluated to determine whether registration is
required. Section 3(a)(4)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 generally defines a broker broadly as any person engaged in
effecting transactions in securities for the accounts of others.
Individuals or entities who participate in important parts of a
securities transaction, including solicitation, negotiation, or
execution of the transaction, or who are otherwise engaged in the
business of effecting or facilitating securities transactions, may
be required to register as a broker-dealer.  Receiving
transaction-based compensation, or compensation that is related to
the outcome or size of a securities offering, is clear cut indicia
of broker-dealer activity.  SEC guidance here is not always clear,
however, as the factors only indicate that you "may" need to be
registered as a broker-dealer.  Many entrepreneurs wrongly
conclude that if you do not receive transaction-based compensation
(basically, commissions), that this alone eliminates the broker-
dealer conundrum.  It does not.  Even when you do not receive
transaction-based compensation, if your acts are important parts
of effecting a securities transaction for others, your activities
still may be considered to be those of an unregistered broker-
dealer and you are potentially subject to an enforcement action.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Seeks Interpretation of AWI Trust Protocol
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joanne Lipson, individually and as personal representative of the
estate of James Turner, filed a lawsuit asking the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware to interpret the Plans of
Reorganization filed and confirmed in the Chapter 11 cases of
Armstrong World Industries, Inc., et al., and the corresponding
Trust Distribution Procedures pursuant to which the Armstrong
World Industries Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust
operates.

Specifically, Ms. Lipson, widow of James Turner who died of
mesothelioma on December 10, 2013, and the personal representative
of his estate, seeks an injunction barring the AWI Trust from
using a claimant's law firm and jurisdiction as the predominate
factors in the valuation of Individual Review Claims, to the
diminishment of other factors affecting the severity of damages to
individual claimants like the victim's age, number of dependents,
lost wages, and medical expenses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Jamie L. Edmonson, Esq.
         Daniel A. O'Brien, Esq.
         VENABLE LLP
         1201 North Market Street, Suite 1400
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Tel: (302) 298-3535
         Fax: (302) 298-3550
         Email: jledmonson@venable.com
                dao'brien@venable.com

            -- and --

         Matthew P. Bergman, Esq.
         BERGMAN DRAPER LADENBURG, PLLC
         821 2nd Avenue, Suite 2100
         Seattle, WA 98104
         Tel: (206) 957-9510
         Telefax: (206) 957-9549
         Email: matt@bergmanlegal.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Sues in Delaware Over Take-Home Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johanna Abney and her husband, Robert Abney, residing in
Louisiana, filed with the Superior Court of the State of Delaware
a lawsuit against 15 companies alleging that Ms. Abney was wrongly
exposed to asbestos fibers adhered to her husband as a result of
his work as a welder with American Marine Corporation and Southern
Shipbuilding.

According to the complaint, Mr. Adbney worked with asbestos-
containing materials.  Dust containing asbestos fibers from that
use adhered to Mr. Abney and was carried off the premises.  The
asbestos fibers, the complaint related, contaminated the family
home and vehicles, where they became airborne, causing Ms. Abney
to be exposed to, inhale, ingest, and otherwise absorb the fibers.

The Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter judgment against the
Defendants and to award: compensatory damages in an amount to be
proven at trial, but believed to exceed $100,000; and punitive
damages in an amount sufficient to punish the Defendants for their
misconduct and to deter similarly situated parties from committing
like acts of misconduct in the future; and other and further
relief that the Court deems appropriate.

The case is JOHANNA ABNEY, and ROBERT ABNEY, her husband,
Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, individually and
as wholly-owned subsidiary of AMPCO-PITTSBURGH CORPORATION,
individually and as successor in interest to BUFFALO PUMPS; AURORA
PUMP COMPANY; BW/IP INC., as successor to BYRON JACKSON PUMPS; CBS
CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, f/k/a VIACOM, INC., successor
by merger to CBS CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania Corporation, f/k/a
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, as successor in interest to THE
BRYANT ELECTRIC COMPANY; EATON CORPORATION, individually as
successor in interest to CUTLER-HAMMER, INC.; FLOWSERVE U.S.,
INC., individually and solely as successor to DURCO, DURIRON,
ANCHOR DARLING, SUPERIOR GROUP, EDWARD VOGT, VOGT VALVES,
NORDSTROM VALVES, EDWARD VALVE, INC., and ROCKWELL MANUFACTURING
COMPANY; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC; GOULDS
PUMPS, INCORPORATED; GRINNELL LLC; ITT CORPORATION; SCHNEIDER
ELECTRIC USA, INC., individually and as successor in interest to
SQUARE D COMPANY; SPIRAX SARCO, INC., individually and as
successor to SARCO COMPANY; THE FAIRBANKS COMPANY; WARREN PUMPS
LLC, Defendants, Case No. N16C-03-010-ASB (Del. Sup.).

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         A. Dale Bowers, Esq.
         Kenneth L. Wan, Esq.
         William J. P. Mulgrew, III, Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF A. DALE BOWERS, P.A.
         203 North Maryland Avenue
         Wilmington, DE 19804
         Tel: (302) 691-3786
         Fax: (302) 691-3790
         Email: dale@bowerslegal.com

            -- and --

         Michael Fanelli, Esq.
         WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
         700 Broadway
         New York, NY 10003
         Tel: (212) 558-5500
         Fax: (212) 344-5461



ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Juni" Directed to Perfect Appeal for June Term
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION
relating to JUNI, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO. -- ESTATE OF
JUNI, 2016 NY Slip Op 64965(U), Motion No. M-6412 (N.Y. App.
Div.), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York,
First Department, in a decision dated February 23, 2016, directed
the Plaintiff to perfect for the June 2016 Term the appeal from
the order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered April 13,
2015 subsumed in the appeal from the judgment of said Court
entered June 3, 2015.  A full-text copy of the Decision is
available at http://is.gd/Hl7jD1from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kelsey-Hayes Dropped as Defendant in "Bell"
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles R. Breyer of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, in a decision dated February
19, 2016, approved the stipulation between counsels for Plaintiffs
Donald Bell and Sumiko Bell and counsel for Defendant Kelsey-Hayes
Company agreeing that the Complaint of the Plaintiffs, bearing the
Civil Action No. NDC C 12-00131 CRB, is dismissed with prejudice
as to Kelsey-Hayes only.

The case is IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS) LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO.
VI) THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: DONALD BELL and SUMIKO BELL,
Plaintiffs, v. ARVIN MERITOR, INC., et al. Defendants, Case No.
12-CV-00131 CRB (N.D. Calif.).

Donald Bell, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Lee Keller, Keller,
Fishback & Jackson LLP, Stephen Michael Fishback, Keller, Fishback
& Jackson LLP & Seth Andrew Curtis, Keller, Fishback, Jackson LLP.

Sumiko Bell, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Lee Keller, Keller,
Fishback & Jackson LLP, Stephen Michael Fishback, Keller, Fishback
& Jackson LLP & Seth Andrew Curtis, Keller, Fishback, Jackson LLP.

Carlisle Corporation, Defendant, represented by Don Willenburg,
Esq. -- dwillenburg@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP, Jennifer
Mary Walker, Esq. -- jennifer.walker@sedgwicklaw.com -- Brown
Eassa McLeod LLP, Kathryn Jean LaFevers, Esq. --
klafevers@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP & Michael J.
Pietrykowski, Esq. -- mpietrykowski@gordonrees.com -- Gordon &
Rees.

McCord Corporation, Defendant, represented by Lillian C. Ma,
Tucker Ellis LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of Ill. Suit vs. Insurers Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs -- numerous individuals who were diagnosed with
mesothelioma and lung cancer -- filed a complaint for declaratory
judgment against numerous defendants, including Employers
Insurance Company of Wausaw, Travelers Casualty and Surety
Company, and TIG Insurance Company.

The Defendant Insurers filed motions to dismiss.  The circuit
court of Peoria County granted the dismissal, finding that the
action was barred by section 12.80 of the Business Corporation Act
of 1983 and the prohibition on direct actions against insurers.
On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that the circuit court erred when
it dismissed the complaint.

In this case, the plaintiffs have acknowledged that their causes
of action did not accrue until after the expiration of Old
Sprinkmann's five-year wind-up period and they concede that they
cannot sue Old Sprinkmann to obtain a liability judgment against
it.  The plaintiffs deny, however, that this prohibition is fatal
to their cause of action.

In an Opinion dated February 18, 2016, which is available at
http://is.gd/dvrTQqfrom Leagle.com, the Appellate Court of
Illinois, Third District, affirmed the judgment of the circuit
court granting dismissal of the complaint.

The Appellate Court ruled that without a determination of the
liability of Old Sprinkman, the plaintiffs' action could only be
construed either as an action against Arthur Kremers and Rhonda
Kremers or as a direct action against the Defendant Insureds, all
of whom the plaintiffs seek to have declared "nominal defendants."

The case is MARCIA ADAMS, RICH CLAY, DONALD STEWART, BOB WHEELIS,
ROMEO FULZ, CHARLES VanHESSEN, HARLIE WARREN, DORVIN BEVER, THOMAS
HEDRICK, RONALD THACKER, PATRICK O'NEAL, WILLIAM EOFF, LAWRENCE
BELCHER, DONOVAN LATHROP, DOUG MARTIN, RUSSELL WOLLAND, DAVID
COLLINS, LAWRENCE ROSS, MERVIN BOYER, MARIA KREILEIN, ROBERT
McDONALD, RALPH WOEPKE, WILLIAM OSWALD, JOHN CHANDLER SMITH, MARY
ZERKLE, KENNETH GARRARD, STEPHEN L. AHLRICH, ROGER WARREN MARTIN,
CLARANCE ALTON AMBROSE, MICHAEL ENOCH CARVER, JOHN W. MOREY SR.,
J.T. SMITHERS, ALMA SLIVINSKI, MAURICE MILFORD LOGAN, RICHARD
HENRY VEATH, CLYDE ALLEN AHLFIELD, WILLIAM MOORE, JAMES FOWLER,
GILBERT GILLIS, ELROY ARNOLD CHRISTIANSEN, RICHARD DORMAN BLOSS,
CHARLES LEO JOPLIN, LARRY DON McVEY, JOSEPH HENRY WILKINSON,
PATRICK LEE STAFFORD, HASKEL SHOOK, JOHN HANLIN, BOBBY WALLACE,
DAVID CREWS, CARL DUNCAN, CAROL KITCHENS, EUGENE MANN, AND KELLY
FRYMIRE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF
WAUSAU, TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY
COMPANY f/k/a AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, Defendants-
Appellees, (Sprinkmann Insulation, Inc., Arthur Kremers and Rhonda
Kremers, Defendants), No. 3-15-0418, 2016 IL App (3d) 150418.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weyerhaeuser Wins Summary Judgment in 5 PI Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The eight cases all involve nuisance claims brought by or on
behalf of the estates of now deceased, former workers of defendant
Weyerhaeuser Company and their spouses for asbestos-related
injuries based on alleged, non-occupational exposure.

In each case, Weyerhaeuser has moved to strike Milton Boyer and
Kathy Boyer's experts and for summary judgment, arguing that the
plaintiffs are unable to prove injuries beyond those resulting
from asbestos exposure on the job, for which they, their estates
and spouses may only recover under worker's compensation laws.
While the motions for summary judgment raise other bases for
dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims, most of the issues raised in
the summary judgment motions overlap with those raised in the
defendant's Daubert motion, which challenges the admissibility of
expert testimony that non-occupational exposures constituted a
substantial contributing factor in the plaintiffs' development of
asbestos-related diseases.

In an Opinion and Order dated February 19, 2016, which is
available at http://is.gd/c6gjr2from Leagle.com, Judge William M.
Conley of the United States District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin granted the defendant's Daubert and summary
judgment motions with respect to plaintiffs Masephol, Prust,
Seehafer, Heckel and Treutel, based on their failure to offer
reliable evidence of significant, non-occupational exposure to
asbestos.

The court, however, denied the defendant's same motions with
respect to plaintiffs Boyer, Pecher and Sydow, finding that the
latter three plaintiffs have produced sufficient evidence for a
reasonable jury to find: (1) they not only worked, but lived for
at least one year within a 1.25 mile radius of the plant that
scientific studies suggest may meaningfully increase their risk of
development mesothelioma; and (2) a qualified expert can testify
reliably that this exposure constituted a significant, non-
occupational asbestos exposure, which in turn substantially
contributed to their respective mesothelioma diagnoses.

The court also granted defendant's motion for summary judgment on
plaintiff's private nuisance claims, finding: (1) plaintiffs
failed to put forth any evidence of a possessory interest; and (2)
the discovery rule under Wis. Stat. Section 893.52 does not apply.

In all other respects, the defendant's motions are denied.

The cases are:

   * MILTON BOYER and KATHY BOYER, Plaintiffs, v. WEYERHAEUSER
COMPANY, and METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, No.
14-cv-286-wmc (W.D. Wis.).

   * BRIAN HECKEL, Individually and as Special Administrator on
behalf of the Estate of Sharon Heckel, Plaintiff, v. CBS CORP.,
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, Defendants, No. 13-cv-459-wmc (W.D. Wis.).

   * DIANNE JACOBS, Individually and as Special Administrator on
behalf of the Estate of Rita Treutel, Plaintiff, v. RAPID AMERICAN
CORPORATION, and WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, Defendants, RAPID AMERICAN
CORPORATION, Cross-claimant, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, Cross-
defendant, No. 12-cv-899-wmc (W.D. Wis.).

   * KATRINA MASEPHOL, Individually and as Special Administrator
on behalf of the Estate of Richard Masephol, Plaintiff, v.
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, and METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants, No. 14-cv-186-wmc (W.D. Wis.).

   * JANET PECHER, Individually and as Special Administrator on
behalf of the Estate of Urban Pecher, Plaintiff, v. WEYERHAEUSER
COMPANY, and METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, No.
14-cv-147-wmc (W.D. Wis.).

   * VIRGINIA PRUST, Individually and as Special Administrator on
behalf of the Estate of Valmore Prust, Plaintiff, v. WEYERHAEUSER
COMPANY, and METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, No.
14-cv-143-wmc (W.D. Wis.).

   * JANICE SEEHAFER, Individually and as Special Administrator on
behalf of the Estate of Roger Seehafer, Plaintiff, v. WEYERHAEUSER
COMPANY, Defendant, No. 14-cv-161-wmc (W.D. Wis.).

   * THERESA SYDOW, Individually and as Special Administrator on
behalf of the Estate of Wesley Sydow, Plaintiff, v. WEYERHAEUSER
COMPANY, and METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, No.
14-cv-219-wmc (W.D. Wis.).

Janice Seehafer, Plaintiff, is represented by Michael P. Cascino,
Esq. -- Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., James Nicholas Hoey,
Esq. -- Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., John Eugene Herrick,
Esq. -- jherrick@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Meredith Kay
Clark, Esq. -- mclark@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Robert G.
McCoy, Esq. -- Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd. &William C Swett,
Esq. -- wswett@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC.

Weyerhaeuser Company, Defendant, is represented by Tanya D. Ellis,
Esq. -- Tanya.Ellis@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz,
LLP, Joshua J. Metcalf, Esq. -- Joshua.Metcalf@formanwatkins.com -
- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP,Mark S. DesRochers, Esq. --
DesRochers Law Offices, LLC, Mitch McGuffey, Esq. --
Mitch.McGuffey@formanwatkins.com --  Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP,
Ruth F. Maron, Esq. -- Ruth.Maron@formanwatkins.com -- Forman
Watkins & Krutz, LLP &Thomas Benton York, Esq. --
Thomas.Benton@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP.

Marshfield DoorSystems, Inc., Interested Party, is represented by
Joshua Lee Johanningmeier, Esq. -- jjohanningmeier@gklaw.com --
Godfrey & Kahn S.C. & Sherry Dawn Coley, Esq. --
scoley@dkattorneys.com -- Davis & Kuelthau, S.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Brown"
------------------------------------------------------
As personal representative of her father's estate, Plaintiff-
Appellant Cindy S. Brown appeals from a final judgment of the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
dismissing for want of personal jurisdiction the tort claims that
Ms. Brown's late father asserts against Defendant-Appellee
Lockheed Martin Corporation.  Ms. Brown seeks to recover in tort
from Lockheed and others for injuries suffered by her father as a
result of asbestos exposure sustained by him during his work as an
Air Force airplane mechanic in locations in Europe and around the
United States, but not in Connecticut.

Lockheed, a major aerospace company with a worldwide presence, is
both incorporated and maintains its principal place of business in
Maryland. In 1995, it registered to do business in Connecticut and
appointed an agent for service, in compliance with Connecticut
law. Between 2008 and 2012, it leased space in four locations in
Connecticut, and employed between approximately 30 and 70 workers
in the state.

Conceding the absence of any basis for the exercise of specific
jurisdiction over Lockheed by Connecticut courts (and,
derivatively, by the federal district court in Connecticut), Brown
contends that Lockheed consented to having those courts in
Connecticut exercise general jurisdiction over it by registering -
- years earlier -- to do business in the state and appointing an
agent to receive service of process there. Brown also contends
that, even apart from its registration in the state, the Supreme
Court's recent decisions in Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S.Ct. 746
(2014), and Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131
S.Ct. 2846 (2011), support the demand for the District Court's
exercise of general jurisdiction over Lockheed in Connecticut
because the company's contacts with Connecticut were "continuous
and systematic" enough to place it "essentially at home" in the
state.

Lockheed resists and argues primarily that, although by
registering to do business it may have consented to the state's
exercise of specific jurisdiction over it, the company did not
consent to the exercise of general jurisdiction there. It further
stresses that, even if its registration and appointment of an
agent for service of process could be taken as some form of
consent, the exercise of general jurisdiction over it by
Connecticut state courts would offend the Fourteenth Amendment's
guarantee of due process, in light of the gross disproportion
between its few Connecticut contacts and its very substantial
activity worldwide.

The District Court dismissed the suit against Lockheed. Looking to
two Connecticut Appellate Court decisions, it ruled that, although
those decisions suggest that Lockheed's registration under the
Connecticut statutes might permit it to exercise general personal
jurisdiction over Lockheed, the registration statute's power is
bounded by federal due process principles developed in Daimler and
Goodyear. In the District Court's estimation, those principles
preclude the court's exercise of general jurisdiction over the
company when the company's contacts with the state are so limited.

In an Opinion dated February 18, 2016, which is available at
http://is.gd/PuvtwAfrom Leagle.com, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the
District Court dismissing Brown's claims for want of personal
jurisdiction.

The District Court did not have general jurisdiction over Lockheed
-- albeit by a somewhat different route. First, applying the due
process principles of Daimler and Goodyear, this court concluded
that Lockheed's contacts with Connecticut, while perhaps
"continuous and systematic," fall well below the high level needed
to place the corporation "essentially at home" in the state.
Second, upon examination of the applicable Connecticut law, by
registering to transact business and appointing an agent under the
Connecticut statutes which do not speak clearly on this point --
Lockheed did not consent to the state courts' exercise of general
jurisdiction over it.

The case is CINDY S. BROWN, as Personal Representative to the
Estate of
Walter E. Brown, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP.,
individually and as successor-in-interest to Martin-Marietta
Corp., Defendant-Appellee, No. 14-4083.

Dan Himmelfarb, Esq. -- dhimmelfarb@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown
LLP, Washington, DC (Guy P. Glazier, Esq. -- Esq. --
glazier@glazieryee.com, Brian T. Clark, Esq. -- Esq. --
Clark@Glazieryee.Com -- Glazier Yee LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Matthew
J. Zamaloff, Esq. -- mzamaloff@cetllp.com -- Cetrulo LLP, Boston,
MA, on the brief), for Lockheed Martin Corp.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Allowed to Arbitrate Wassau Unpaid Billings
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Employers Insurance of Wausau and defendant Continental
Casualty Company are parties to a series of reinsurance treaties,
each containing an arbitration clause.

The arbitration clause declares that the arbitration shall be
"final and binding on both parties."  In 2002, the parties
disputed whether the reinsurance treaties covered a 1998
settlement with Combustion Engineering, Inc., the originally
insured party.  Wausau and CNA arbitrated the dispute and received
a final order in 2004.  The 2004 Arbitration final order was
confirmed on September 10, 2004.

The parties' current dispute stems from the same reinsurance
treaties as the 2004 Arbitration. On February 13, 2015, CNA
demanded arbitration from Wausau for unpaid billings with respect
to an asbestos insurance claim by Combustion Engineering. On April
8, 2015, Wausau's attorneys responded with a letter stating that
the matters, for which CNA demanded arbitration, had been
arbitrated to a final order in the 2004 Arbitration.

On April 14, 2015, Wausau filed a civil action seeking a
declaration that CNA is precluded from attempting to re-arbitrate
the final decision of a previous arbitration, as well as an
injunction barring defendant from attempting to re-arbitrate in
the future. In opposition, CNA moves the court to dismiss the
claims against it under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be given, and
to compel arbitration.

In an Opinion and Order dated February 17, 2016, which is
available at http://is.gd/1OnebFfrom Leagle.com, Judge William M.
Conley of the United States District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin granted CNA's motion to dismiss and to
compel arbitration.

The case is EMPLOYERS INSURANCE OF WAUSAU, f/d/a EMPLOYERS
INSURANCE OF WAUSAU A MUTUAL COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. CONTINENTAL
CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant, No. 15-cv-226-wmc (W.D. Wis.).

Employers Insurance of Wausau, Plaintiff, is represented by Keith
A. Dotseth, Esq. -- kdotseth@larsonking.com -- Larson King LLP &
Melissa M. Mulloy, Esq. -- mmulloy@larsonking.com -- Larson King,
LLP.

Continental Casualty Company, Defendant, is represented by Justin
K. Fortescue, Esq. -- fortescuej@whiteandwilliams.com -- White and
Williams LLP, Michael Patrick Crooks, Esq. -- mcrooks@pjmlaw.com
-- Peterson, Johnson & Murray, S.C. & Michael Scott Olsan, Esq. --
olsanm@whiteandwilliams.com -- White and Williams LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Reverses Summary Judgment in "O'Leary"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Betty O'Leary has maintained an action for asbestos
exposure on behalf of her late husband, Michael O'Leary.  One of
the many defendants, Dillingham Construction N.A., Inc., moved for
summary judgment.  The pivotal issue was whether the insulation
swept into the air by Dillingham laborers in the early 1970's,
near where O'Leary was working, contained asbestos.

The Plaintiff's expert, Charles Ay, a certified asbestos
consultant, reviewed a physical description of the insulation and
employed his special knowledge of insulation materials use in and
around the early 1970's.  He had no doubt the insulation O'Leary
inhaled contained asbestos.  The trial court, however, ruled the
expert's opinion was too speculative and excluded it.  Without
this testimony, the plaintiff had no evidence the insulation
contained asbestos, and therefore no case.  The trial court
therefore granted summary judgment to Dillingham.

The Plaintiff appeals, challenging the trial court's rejection of
her expert's testimony.

In an Opinion dated February 18, 2016, which is available at
http://is.gd/EV7fwMfrom Leagle.com, the Court of Appeals of
California, First District, Division One, reversed the judgment of
the trial court.

The appellate court concluded that "Ay's experience provided an
adequate foundation for this opinion.  Nor was it speculative for
Ay to conclude that installation of the new machines involved the
removal of insulation, or that, in 1974, old insulation removed
from 'chalky' 'hot pipes used in industrial settings' more likely
than not contained asbestos."  Viewing the fact declaration and
the expert declaration most favorably for the plaintiff, the
appellate court concluded the trial court erred in granting
summary judgment on the plaintiff's exposure claim.

The case is BETTY O'LEARY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DILLINGHAM
CONSTRUCTION N.A., INC., Defendant and Respondent, No. A142848
(Cal. App.).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Disallows Excelsior's Unnamed Witnesses
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a Memorandum and Order dated February 12, 2016, which is
available at http://is.gd/OVGraifrom Leagle.com, Judge Staci M.
Yandle of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois ruled that Defendant Excelsior Inc. cannot
reserve to itself a right it does not have under Rule 26 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

That the vague and boilerplate identification of categories of
potential witnesses is insufficient and inconsistent with the
spirit and purpose of Rule 26, Judge Yandle held.  The Court
further ruled that Excelsior's failure to comply with Rule
26(a)(3) cannot be substantially justified and is not harmless.
Discovery in this matter is closed and the time to depose any
newly identified "may call" witness has long passed, Judge Yandle
noted.

Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 37(c), the Court has stricken that
portion of Excelsior's Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures designated as
"Documents or Other Exhibits" and Excelsior is prohibited from
presenting any witnesses live or by deposition testimony at trial
not specifically named and identified in compliance with Rule
26(a)(3).

The case is STEVEN WATTS, Plaintiff, v. 84 LUMBER COMPANY et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-327-SMY-DGW (S.D. Ill.).
Steven Watts, Plaintiff, is represented by Michael Cohan, Esq. --
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, Christopher Fonville, Esq. -- Napoli Bern et
al. & Kardon Stolzman,  Esq. -- Napoli Bern et al..

Borgwarner Morse Tec, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Donald W.
Ward, Esq. -- dww@herzogcrebs.com -- Herzog Crebs LLP, MO, Gary L.
Smith, Esq. -- gls@herzogcrebs.com -- Herzog Crebs LLP/AC, James
D. Maschhoff, Esq. -- jdm@herzogcrebs.com -- Herzog Crebs LLP,
Mary Ann Hatch, Esq. -- mahw@herzogcrebs.com -- Herzog, Crebs et
al. & Mordecai D. Boone, Esq. -- mordecai.boone@dentons.com --
Dentons US, LLP.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, is represented by Benjamin J.
Wilson, Esq. -- bwilson@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC, Carl
J. Geraci, Esq. -- cgeraci@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC,
Deborah St. Lawrence Thompson, Esq. --
dstlawrence@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles & Stockbridge PC,
Michael J Chessler, Esq. -- mchessler@heplerbroom.com --
HeplerBroom LLC & Robert H. Sands, Esq. -- rsands@heplerbroom.com
-- HeplerBroom LLC.

Asbestos Corporation LTD., Defendant, is represented by Anthony M.
Goldner, Esq. -- anthony.goldner@wilsonelser.com  -- Wilson Elser
et al. & Karen E. Bettcher, Esq. -- Karen.bettcher@wilsonelser.com
-- Wilson, Elser et al.

Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Erin Renee
Griebel, Esq. -- O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C. &
Meredith S Hudgens, Esq. -- O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns
L.L.C.

Georgia Pacific, LLC, Defendant, represented by Benjamin J.
Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael
J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Trane US, Inc., Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson,
HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J
Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Excelsior Packing & Gaskets, Defendant, is represented by Keith B.
Hill, Esq. -- khill@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al., Lisa
A. LaConte, Esq. -- llaconte@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et
al., James R. Grabowski, Esq. -- jgrabowski@heylroyster.com --
Heyl, Royster et al., Michael D. Schag, Esq. --
mschag@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al. & Patrick D. Cloud,
Esq. -- pcloud@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al..

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Luke
J. Mangan, Esq. -- lmangan@polsinelli.com  -- Polsinelli PC,
Allison K. Sonneveld, Esq. -- asonneveld@polsinelli.com  --
Polsinelli Shughart PC, Kathleen Ann Hardee, Esq. --
khardee@polsinelli.com  -- Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones, Esq. --
kjones@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by Kyler H.
Stevens, Esq. -- Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr.,
Esq. -- Kurowski Shultz LLC.

Metallo Gasket Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew J.
Morris, Esq. -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Justin S.
Zimmerman, Esq. --Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

Viking Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl,
Royster et al., James R. Grabowski, Heyl, Royster et al., Michael
D. Schag, Heyl, Royster et al. & Patrick D. Cloud, Heyl, Royster
et al.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, is represented by Keith B. Hill,
Esq. -- khill@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al..

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, is represented by James R. Grabowski
Esq. -- jgrabowski@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al.,
Michael D. Schag, Esq. -- mschag@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster
et al. & Patrick D. Cloud, Esq. -- pcloud@heylroyster.com -- Heyl,
Royster et al..

William Powell Company, Defendant, is represented by Michael R.
Dauphin, Esq. -- mdauphin@foleymansfield.com  -- Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP & Michael W. Newport, Esq. --
mnewport@foleymansfield.com  -- Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll Can't Present Unnamed Witnesses
----------------------------------------------------------
The Court has reviewed Defendant Ingersoll-Rand's Rule 26(a)(3)
Disclosures (Doc. 417). In its disclosures, under the designation,
"Documents or Other Exhibits," Ingersoll-Rand seeks to "reserve
the right" to call numerous un-named witnesses at trial.

In a Memorandum and Order dated February 12, 2016 which is
available at http://is.gd/Z8vNtYfrom Leagle.com, Judge Staci M.
Yandle of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois ruled that Ingersoll-Rand cannot reserve to
itself a right it does not have under Rule 26. That the vague and
boilerplate identification of categories of potential witnesses is
insufficient and inconsistent with the spirit and purpose of Rule
26. The Court further ruled that Ingersoll-Rand's failure to
comply with Rule 26(a)(3) cannot be substantially justified and is
not harmless. Discovery in this matter is closed and the time to
depose any newly identified "may call" witness has long passed.
Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 37(c), the Court has stricken that
portion of Ingersoll-Rand's Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures designated
as "Documents or Other Exhibits" and Ingersoll-Rand is prohibited
from presenting any witnesses live or by deposition testimony at
trial not specifically named and identified in compliance with
Rule 26(a)(3).

The case is STEVEN WATTS, Plaintiff, v. 84 LUMBER COMPANY et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-327-SMY-DGW (S.D. Ill.).
Steven Watts, Plaintiff, is represented by Michael Cohan, Esq. --
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, Christopher Fonville, Esq. -- Napoli Bern et
al. & Kardon Stolzman,  Esq. -- Napoli Bern et al..

Borgwarner Morse Tec, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Donald W.
Ward, Esq. -- dww@herzogcrebs.com -- Herzog Crebs LLP, MO, Gary L.
Smith, Esq. -- gls@herzogcrebs.com -- Herzog Crebs LLP/AC, James
D. Maschhoff, Esq. -- jdm@herzogcrebs.com -- Herzog Crebs LLP,
Mary Ann Hatch, Esq. -- mahw@herzogcrebs.com -- Herzog, Crebs et
al. & Mordecai D. Boone, Esq. -- mordecai.boone@dentons.com --
Dentons US, LLP.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, is represented by Benjamin J.
Wilson, Esq. -- bwilson@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC, Carl
J. Geraci, Esq. -- cgeraci@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC,
Deborah St. Lawrence Thompson, Esq. --
dstlawrence@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles & Stockbridge PC,
Michael J Chessler, Esq. -- mchessler@heplerbroom.com --
HeplerBroom LLC & Robert H. Sands, Esq. -- rsands@heplerbroom.com
-- HeplerBroom LLC.

Asbestos Corporation LTD., Defendant, is represented by Anthony M.
Goldner, Esq. -- anthony.goldner@wilsonelser.com  -- Wilson Elser
et al. & Karen E. Bettcher, Esq. -- Karen.bettcher@wilsonelser.com
-- Wilson, Elser et al.

Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Erin Renee
Griebel, Esq. -- O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C. &
Meredith S Hudgens, Esq. -- O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns
L.L.C.

Georgia Pacific, LLC, Defendant, represented by Benjamin J.
Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael
J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Trane US, Inc., Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson,
HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J
Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Excelsior Packing & Gaskets, Defendant, is represented by Keith B.
Hill, Esq. -- khill@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al., Lisa
A. LaConte, Esq. -- llaconte@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et
al., James R. Grabowski, Esq. -- jgrabowski@heylroyster.com --
Heyl, Royster et al., Michael D. Schag, Esq. --
mschag@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al. & Patrick D. Cloud,
Esq. -- pcloud@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al..

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Luke
J. Mangan, Esq. -- lmangan@polsinelli.com  -- Polsinelli PC,
Allison K. Sonneveld, Esq. -- asonneveld@polsinelli.com  --
Polsinelli Shughart PC, Kathleen Ann Hardee, Esq. --
khardee@polsinelli.com  -- Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones, Esq. --
kjones@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by Kyler H.
Stevens, Esq. -- Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr.,
Esq. -- Kurowski Shultz LLC.

Metallo Gasket Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew J.
Morris, Esq. -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Justin S.
Zimmerman, Esq. --Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

Viking Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl,
Royster et al., James R. Grabowski, Heyl, Royster et al., Michael
D. Schag, Heyl, Royster et al. & Patrick D. Cloud, Heyl, Royster
et al.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, is represented by Keith B. Hill,
Esq. -- khill@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al..

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, is represented by James R. Grabowski
Esq. -- jgrabowski@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al.,
Michael D. Schag, Esq. -- mschag@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster
et al. & Patrick D. Cloud, Esq. -- pcloud@heylroyster.com -- Heyl,
Royster et al..

William Powell Company, Defendant, is represented by Michael R.
Dauphin, Esq. -- mdauphin@foleymansfield.com  -- Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP & Michael W. Newport, Esq. --
mnewport@foleymansfield.com  -- Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Can't Present Unnamed Witnesses
----------------------------------------------------------
The Court has reviewed Defendant Honeywell International, Inc.'s
Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures (Doc. 417). In its disclosures, under
the designation, "Documents or Other Exhibits," Honeywell seeks to
"reserve the right" to call numerous un-named witnesses at trial.

In a Memorandum and Order dated February 12, 2016 which is
available at http://is.gd/O6JjR3from Leagle.com, Judge Staci M.
Yandle of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois ruled that Honeywell cannot reserve to itself
a right it does not have under Rule 26.
That the vague and boilerplate identification of categories of
potential witnesses is insufficient and inconsistent with the
spirit and purpose of Rule 26. The Court further ruled that
Honeywell's failure to comply with Rule 26(a)(3) cannot be
substantially justified and is not harmless. Discovery in this
matter is closed and the time to depose any newly identified "may
call" witness has long passed.
Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 37(c), the Court has stricken that
portion of Honeywell's Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures designated as
"Documents or Other Exhibits" and Honeywell is prohibited from
presenting any witnesses live or by deposition testimony at trial
not specifically named and identified in compliance with Rule
26(a)(3).

The case is STEVEN WATTS, Plaintiff, v. 84 LUMBER COMPANY et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-327-SMY-DGW (S.D. Ill.).
Steven Watts, Plaintiff, is represented by Michael Cohan, Esq. --
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, Christopher Fonville, Esq. -- Napoli Bern et
al. & Kardon Stolzman,  Esq. -- Napoli Bern et al..

Borgwarner Morse Tec, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Donald W.
Ward, Esq. -- dww@herzogcrebs.com -- Herzog Crebs LLP, MO, Gary L.
Smith, Esq. -- gls@herzogcrebs.com -- Herzog Crebs LLP/AC, James
D. Maschhoff, Esq. -- jdm@herzogcrebs.com -- Herzog Crebs LLP,
Mary Ann Hatch, Esq. -- mahw@herzogcrebs.com -- Herzog, Crebs et
al. & Mordecai D. Boone, Esq. -- mordecai.boone@dentons.com --
Dentons US, LLP.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, is represented by Benjamin J.
Wilson, Esq. -- bwilson@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC, Carl
J. Geraci, Esq. -- cgeraci@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC,
Deborah St. Lawrence Thompson, Esq. --
dstlawrence@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles & Stockbridge PC,
Michael J Chessler, Esq. -- mchessler@heplerbroom.com --
HeplerBroom LLC & Robert H. Sands, Esq. -- rsands@heplerbroom.com
-- HeplerBroom LLC.

Asbestos Corporation LTD., Defendant, is represented by Anthony M.
Goldner, Esq. -- anthony.goldner@wilsonelser.com  -- Wilson Elser
et al. & Karen E. Bettcher, Esq. -- Karen.bettcher@wilsonelser.com
-- Wilson, Elser et al.

Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Erin Renee
Griebel, Esq. -- O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C. &
Meredith S Hudgens, Esq. -- O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns
L.L.C.

Georgia Pacific, LLC, Defendant, represented by Benjamin J.
Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael
J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Trane US, Inc., Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson,
HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J
Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Excelsior Packing & Gaskets, Defendant, is represented by Keith B.
Hill, Esq. -- khill@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al., Lisa
A. LaConte, Esq. -- llaconte@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et
al., James R. Grabowski, Esq. -- jgrabowski@heylroyster.com --
Heyl, Royster et al., Michael D. Schag, Esq. --
mschag@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al. & Patrick D. Cloud,
Esq. -- pcloud@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al..

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Luke
J. Mangan, Esq. -- lmangan@polsinelli.com  -- Polsinelli PC,
Allison K. Sonneveld, Esq. -- asonneveld@polsinelli.com  --
Polsinelli Shughart PC, Kathleen Ann Hardee, Esq. --
khardee@polsinelli.com  -- Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones, Esq. --
kjones@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by Kyler H.
Stevens, Esq. -- Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr.,
Esq. -- Kurowski Shultz LLC.

Metallo Gasket Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew J.
Morris, Esq. -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Justin S.
Zimmerman, Esq. --Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

Viking Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl,
Royster et al., James R. Grabowski, Heyl, Royster et al., Michael
D. Schag, Heyl, Royster et al. & Patrick D. Cloud, Heyl, Royster
et al.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, is represented by Keith B. Hill,
Esq. -- khill@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al..

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, is represented by James R. Grabowski
Esq. -- jgrabowski@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al.,
Michael D. Schag, Esq. -- mschag@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster
et al. & Patrick D. Cloud, Esq. -- pcloud@heylroyster.com -- Heyl,
Royster et al..

William Powell Company, Defendant, is represented by Michael R.
Dauphin, Esq. -- mdauphin@foleymansfield.com  -- Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP & Michael W. Newport, Esq. --
mnewport@foleymansfield.com  -- Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Disallows Viking's Unnamed Witnesses
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Court has reviewed Defendant Viking Pumps, Inc.'s Rule
26(a)(3) Disclosures (Doc. 417). In its disclosures, under the
designation, "Documents or Other Exhibits," Viking seeks to
"reserve the right" to call numerous un-named witnesses at trial.

In a Memorandum and Order dated February 12, 2016 which is
available at http://is.gd/6qiXCcfrom Leagle.com, Judge Staci M.
Yandle of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois ruled that Viking cannot reserve to itself a
right it does not have under Rule 26. That the vague and
boilerplate identification of categories of potential witnesses is
insufficient and inconsistent with the spirit and purpose of Rule
26. The Court further ruled that Viking's failure to comply with
Rule 26(a)(3) cannot be substantially justified and is not
harmless. Discovery in this matter is closed and the time to
depose any newly identified "may call" witness has long passed.

Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 37(c), the Court has stricken that
portion of Viking's Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures designated as
"Documents or Other Exhibits" and Viking is prohibited from
presenting any witnesses live or by deposition testimony at trial
not specifically named and identified in compliance with Rule
26(a)(3).

The case is STEVEN WATTS, Plaintiff, v. 84 LUMBER COMPANY et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-327-SMY-DGW (S.D. Ill.).
Steven Watts, Plaintiff, is represented by Michael Cohan, Esq. --
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, Christopher Fonville, Esq. -- Napoli Bern et
al. & Kardon Stolzman,  Esq. -- Napoli Bern et al..

Borgwarner Morse Tec, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Donald W.
Ward, Esq. -- dww@herzogcrebs.com -- Herzog Crebs LLP, MO, Gary L.
Smith, Esq. -- gls@herzogcrebs.com -- Herzog Crebs LLP/AC, James
D. Maschhoff, Esq. -- jdm@herzogcrebs.com -- Herzog Crebs LLP,
Mary Ann Hatch, Esq. -- mahw@herzogcrebs.com -- Herzog, Crebs et
al. & Mordecai D. Boone, Esq. -- mordecai.boone@dentons.com --
Dentons US, LLP.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, is represented by Benjamin J.
Wilson, Esq. -- bwilson@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC, Carl
J. Geraci, Esq. -- cgeraci@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC,
Deborah St. Lawrence Thompson, Esq. --
dstlawrence@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles & Stockbridge PC,
Michael J Chessler, Esq. -- mchessler@heplerbroom.com --
HeplerBroom LLC & Robert H. Sands, Esq. -- rsands@heplerbroom.com
-- HeplerBroom LLC.

Asbestos Corporation LTD., Defendant, is represented by Anthony M.
Goldner, Esq. -- anthony.goldner@wilsonelser.com  -- Wilson Elser
et al. & Karen E. Bettcher, Esq. -- Karen.bettcher@wilsonelser.com
-- Wilson, Elser et al.

Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Erin Renee
Griebel, Esq. -- O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C. &
Meredith S Hudgens, Esq. -- O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns
L.L.C.

Georgia Pacific, LLC, Defendant, represented by Benjamin J.
Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael
J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Trane US, Inc., Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson,
HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J
Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Excelsior Packing & Gaskets, Defendant, is represented by Keith B.
Hill, Esq. -- khill@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al., Lisa
A. LaConte, Esq. -- llaconte@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et
al., James R. Grabowski, Esq. -- jgrabowski@heylroyster.com --
Heyl, Royster et al., Michael D. Schag, Esq. --
mschag@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al. & Patrick D. Cloud,
Esq. -- pcloud@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al..

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Luke
J. Mangan, Esq. -- lmangan@polsinelli.com  -- Polsinelli PC,
Allison K. Sonneveld, Esq. -- asonneveld@polsinelli.com  --
Polsinelli Shughart PC, Kathleen Ann Hardee, Esq. --
khardee@polsinelli.com  -- Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones, Esq. --
kjones@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by Kyler H.
Stevens, Esq. -- Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr.,
Esq. -- Kurowski Shultz LLC.

Metallo Gasket Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew J.
Morris, Esq. -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Justin S.
Zimmerman, Esq. --Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

Viking Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl,
Royster et al., James R. Grabowski, Heyl, Royster et al., Michael
D. Schag, Heyl, Royster et al. & Patrick D. Cloud, Heyl, Royster
et al.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, is represented by Keith B. Hill,
Esq. -- khill@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al..

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, is represented by James R. Grabowski
Esq. -- jgrabowski@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al.,
Michael D. Schag, Esq. -- mschag@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster
et al. & Patrick D. Cloud, Esq. -- pcloud@heylroyster.com -- Heyl,
Royster et al..

William Powell Company, Defendant, is represented by Michael R.
Dauphin, Esq. -- mdauphin@foleymansfield.com  -- Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP & Michael W. Newport, Esq. --
mnewport@foleymansfield.com  -- Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Honeywell's Bid to Dismiss "Watts"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Honeywell International Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction or, in the Alternative, Motion
for Summary Judgment filed on January 22, 2016.

Honeywell argues it is entitled to dismissal because Plaintiff
Steven Watts has failed to plead or prove facts sufficient to show
a prima facie basis for personal jurisdiction over it. Instead of
filing a timely motion to dismiss, Honeywell chose not to defend
the claims against it for over 22 months and waited until the eve
of trial and the expiration of the discovery and dispositive
motion deadlines to seek dismissal.

In a Memorandum and Order dated February 12, 2016, which is
available at http://is.gd/T9gO1tfrom Leagle.com, Judge Staci M.
Yandle of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois denied the motion.

The Court finds that although Honeywell may have literally
complied with Rule 12(h), it did not comply with the spirit of the
rule, which is "to expedite and simplify proceedings in the
Federal Courts."  Therefore, the Court finds that Honeywell waived
its affirmative defense and thus has submitted to this Court's
jurisdiction.

The case is STEVEN WATTS, Plaintiff, v. 84 LUMBER COMPANY et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-327-SMY-DGW (S.D. Ill.).

Steven Watts, Plaintiff, is represented by Michael Cohan, Esq. --
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, Christopher Fonville, Esq. -- Napoli Bern et
al. & Kardon Stolzman,  Esq. -- Napoli Bern et al..

Borgwarner Morse Tec, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Donald W.
Ward, Esq. -- dww@herzogcrebs.com -- Herzog Crebs LLP, MO, Gary L.
Smith, Esq. -- gls@herzogcrebs.com -- Herzog Crebs LLP/AC, James
D. Maschhoff, Esq. -- jdm@herzogcrebs.com -- Herzog Crebs LLP,
Mary Ann Hatch, Esq. -- mahw@herzogcrebs.com -- Herzog, Crebs et
al. & Mordecai D. Boone, Esq. -- mordecai.boone@dentons.com --
Dentons US, LLP.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, is represented by Benjamin J.
Wilson, Esq. -- bwilson@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC, Carl
J. Geraci, Esq. -- cgeraci@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC,
Deborah St. Lawrence Thompson, Esq. --
dstlawrence@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles & Stockbridge PC,
Michael J Chessler, Esq. -- mchessler@heplerbroom.com --
HeplerBroom LLC & Robert H. Sands, Esq. -- rsands@heplerbroom.com
-- HeplerBroom LLC.

Asbestos Corporation LTD., Defendant, is represented by Anthony M.
Goldner, Esq. -- anthony.goldner@wilsonelser.com  -- Wilson Elser
et al. & Karen E. Bettcher, Esq. -- Karen.bettcher@wilsonelser.com
-- Wilson, Elser et al.

Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Erin Renee
Griebel, Esq. -- O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C. &
Meredith S Hudgens, Esq. -- O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns
L.L.C.

Georgia Pacific, LLC, Defendant, represented by Benjamin J.
Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael
J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Trane US, Inc., Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson,
HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J
Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Excelsior Packing & Gaskets, Defendant, is represented by Keith B.
Hill, Esq. -- khill@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al., Lisa
A. LaConte, Esq. -- llaconte@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et
al., James R. Grabowski, Esq. -- jgrabowski@heylroyster.com --
Heyl, Royster et al., Michael D. Schag, Esq. --
mschag@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al. & Patrick D. Cloud,
Esq. -- pcloud@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al..

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Luke
J. Mangan, Esq. -- lmangan@polsinelli.com  -- Polsinelli PC,
Allison K. Sonneveld, Esq. -- asonneveld@polsinelli.com  --
Polsinelli Shughart PC, Kathleen Ann Hardee, Esq. --
khardee@polsinelli.com  -- Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones, Esq. --
kjones@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by Kyler H.
Stevens, Esq. -- Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr.,
Esq. -- Kurowski Shultz LLC.

Metallo Gasket Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew J.
Morris, Esq. -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Justin S.
Zimmerman, Esq. --Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

Viking Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl,
Royster et al., James R. Grabowski, Heyl, Royster et al., Michael
D. Schag, Heyl, Royster et al. & Patrick D. Cloud, Heyl, Royster
et al.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, is represented by Keith B. Hill,
Esq. -- khill@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al..

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, is represented by James R. Grabowski
Esq. -- jgrabowski@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al.,
Michael D. Schag, Esq. -- mschag@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster
et al. & Patrick D. Cloud, Esq. -- pcloud@heylroyster.com -- Heyl,
Royster et al..

William Powell Company, Defendant, is represented by Michael R.
Dauphin, Esq. -- mdauphin@foleymansfield.com  -- Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP & Michael W. Newport, Esq. --
mnewport@foleymansfield.com  -- Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Boyd"
---------------------------------------------------
Defendants Lockheed Martin Corporation and General Dynamics
Corporation filed two motions.  The first motion asks the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to rescind
its order permitting plaintiffs Patsy S. Boyd, et al., to amend
their complaint two months after the Court-mandated September 14,
2015 pleading amendment deadline.  The Court granted the
plaintiffs permission to amend their complaint in order to add
Lockheed and General Dynamics as defendants.

The second and corresponding motion requests that Lockheed and
General Dynamics be stricken from the plaintiffs' amended
complaint and dismissed from the lawsuit.  Both motions advance
substantially the same argument: that the Court erroneously
permitted the plaintiffs to amend their complaint without
demonstrating "good cause" for the need to modify the scheduling
order.  The Plaintiffs oppose the motions.

In an Order dated February 26, 2016, which is available at
http://is.gd/eQDjZDfrom Leagle.com, Judge Lance M. Africk of the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
denied the defendants' motions for reconsideration and to strike
the plaintiffs' first amended complaint.

The Court is not persuaded that Judge Zainey's order itself or
this Court's refusal to overturn Judge Zainey's order
substantially prejudices Lockheed and General Dynamics.  The Court
further finds that the factors identified by the Fifth Circuit in
S & W Enterprises, 315 F.3d at 536, overall support Judge Zainey's
decision to modify the scheduling order.  Accordingly, the Court
concludes that Judge Zainey's order did not constitute a "manifest
error of law," and so it declines to overturn it.

The case is PATSY S. BOYD ET AL. v. BOEING COMPANY ET AL., Section
I, Civil Action No. 15-25 (E.D. La.).

Patsy S. Boyd, Plaintiff, is represented by Mickey P. Landry, Esq.
-- Landry & Swarr, LLC, Amanda Jones Ballay, Esq. -- Landry &
Swarr, LLC, Frank J. Swarr, Esq. -- Landry & Swarr, LLC, Matthew
C. Clark, Esq. -- Landry, Swarr & Cannella, LLC & Philip C
Hoffman, Esq. -- Landry & Swarr, LLC.

Wheldon J. Boyd, Plaintiff, is  represented by Mickey P. Landry,
Landry & Swarr, LLC, Amanda Jones Ballay, Landry & Swarr, LLC,
Frank J. Swarr, Landry & Swarr, LLC, Matthew C. Clark, Landry,
Swarr & Cannella, LLC &Philip C Hoffman, Landry & Swarr, LLC.

Wayne P. Boyd, Plaintiff, is represented by Mickey P. Landry,
Landry & Swarr, LLC, Amanda Jones Ballay, Landry & Swarr, LLC,
Frank J. Swarr, Landry & Swarr, LLC, Matthew C. Clark, Landry,
Swarr & Cannella, LLC & Philip C Hoffman, Landry & Swarr, LLC.

Elizabeth Lagasse, Plaintiff, is represented by Mickey P. Landry,
Landry & Swarr, LLC, Amanda Jones Ballay, Landry & Swarr, LLC,
Frank J. Swarr, Landry & Swarr, LLC, Matthew C. Clark, Landry,
Swarr & Cannella, LLC &Philip C Hoffman, Landry & Swarr, LLC.

Boeing Company, Defendant, is represented by Glenn L.M. Swetman,
Esq. -- mswetman@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP,
Brandie Mendoza Thibodeaux, Esq. -- bthibodeaux@mgmlaw.com --
Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP, Christopher O. Massenburg, Esq. --
cmassenburg@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP, Freddy
Israel Fonseca, Esq. -- ffonseca@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor &
Manning, LLP & Kevin R. Sloan, Esq. -- ksloan@mgmlaw.com -- Manion
Gaynor & Manning, LLP.

United Technologies Corporation, Defendant, is represented by
Joseph M. Guillot, Esq. -- jmguillot@christovich.com --
Christovich & Kearney, LLP.

Parker-Hanifin Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Joseph
Benjamin Morton, III, Esq. -- JMorton@maronmarvel.com -- Maron
Marvel Bradley & Anderson, LLC, Ebony Shadae Morris, Esq. --
EMorris@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson, LLC &
Shelley K. Napolitano, Esq. -- SNapolitano@maronmarvel.com --
Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson, LLC.
Eaton Aeroquip, L.L.C., Defendant, is represented by Jane H.
Barney, Esq. -- J. H. Barney Law Firm, LLC & David Paul Strup,
Esq. -- dstrup@slk-law.com -- Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP.

IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Leigh Ann
Tschirn Schell, Esq. -- lschell@kuchlerpolk.com -- Kuchler Polk
Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Joseph Henry Hart, IV, Esq. --
jhart@kuchlerpolk.com -- Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson,
LLC, Lori Allen Waters, Esq. -- lwaters@kuchlerpolk.com -- Kuchler
Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Esq.
-- mpuente@kuchlerpolk.com -- Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner &
Richeson, LLC & Thomas A. Porteous, Esq. --
tporteous@kuchlerpolk.com -- Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner &
Richeson, LLC.
Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Christopher
Kelly Lightfoot, Esq. -- klightfoot@hmhlp.com -- Hailey, McNamara,
Hall, Larmann & Papale, Anne Elizabeth Medo, Esq. --
amedo@deutschkerrigan.com -- Deutsch Kerrigan LLP, Edward J.
Lassus, Jr., Esq. -- elassus@hmhlp.com -- Hailey, McNamara, Hall,
Larmann & Papale & Richard J. Garvey, Jr., Esq. --
rgarvey@hmhlp.com -- Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale.

Lockheed Martin Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Arthur
Wendel Stout, III, Esq. -- wstout@deutschkerrigan.com -- Deutsch,
Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Brian Thomas Clark, Esq. --
clark@glazieryee.com -- Glazier Yee LLP, David K. Groome, Jr.,
Esq. -- dgroome@deutschkerrigan.com -- Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles,
LLP, Guy Patrick Glazier, glazier@glazieryee.com -- Glazier Yee
LLP & Laura Patricia Yee, Esq. -- yee@glazieryee.com -- Glazier
Yee LLP.

General Dynamics Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Jeffrey
P. Hubbard, Esq. -- hubbard@hubbardmitchell.com -- Hubbard,
Mitchell, Williams & Strain, PLLC & Stacey Leigh Strain, Esq. --
strain@hubbardmitchell.com -- Hubbard, Mitchell, Williams &
Strain, PLLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Had $335MM Settlement Reserve at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc. placed $335 million into a renewable annual trust
restricted for the purpose of paying ongoing and future litigation
defense and claim settlement costs incurred in conjunction with
asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2015.

On January 13, 2015, Ashland and Hercules, a wholly owned
subsidiary of Ashland that was acquired in 2009, entered into a
comprehensive settlement agreement related to certain insurance
coverage for asbestos bodily injury claims with Underwriters at
Lloyd's, certain London Companies and Chartis (AIG) member
companies, along with National Indemnity Company and Resolute
Management, Inc., under which Ashland and Hercules received a
total of $398 million (the January 2015 asbestos insurance
settlement). During the March 2015 quarter, Ashland placed $335
million of the settlement funds into a renewable annual trust
restricted for the purpose of paying ongoing and future litigation
defense and claim settlement costs incurred in conjunction with
asbestos claims.

Ashland Inc. is a specialty chemical company that provides
products, services and solutions to industries. It operates
through three segments: Specialty Ingredients, Performance
Materials, and Valvoline. The company was founded in 1924 and is
headquartered in Covington, Kentucky.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Had 59,000 PI Claims at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------
Open claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to
asbestos asserted against Ashland Inc. for the three months ended
Dec. 31, 2015 was 59,000 claims, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015.

The claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos
asserted against Ashland result primarily from indemnification
obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with the sale of
Riley, a former subsidiary.  The amount and timing of settlements
and number of open claims can fluctuate from period to period.

A summary of Ashland asbestos claims activity, excluding Hercules
claims, follows:

   Three months ended Dec. 31, 2015
   (In thousands)

   Open claims - beginning of period         60
   New claims filed                           1
   Claims dismissed                          (2)
   Open claims - end of period               59

Ashland Inc. is a specialty chemical company that provides
products, services and solutions to industries. It operates
through three segments: Specialty Ingredients, Performance
Materials, and Valvoline. The company was founded in 1924 and is
headquartered in Covington, Kentucky.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Had $401MM Reserve for Claims at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc. had $401 million total reserve for asbestos,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
December 31, 2015.

From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it
believes to be the best estimate of future payments for litigation
defense and claim settlement costs, which generally approximates
the mid-point of the estimated range of exposure from model
results.  Ashland reviews this estimate and related assumptions
quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-inflated, non-
discounted approximate 50-year model developed with the assistance
of HR&A.  As a result of the most recent annual update of this
estimate, completed during the June 2015 quarter, it was
determined that the liability total for asbestos claims did not
need to be adjusted.  Total reserves for asbestos claims were $401
million at December 31, 2015 compared to $409 million at September
30, 2015.

Ashland Inc. is a specialty chemical company that provides
products, services and solutions to industries. It operates
through three segments: Specialty Ingredients, Performance
Materials, and Valvoline. The company was founded in 1924 and is
headquartered in Covington, Kentucky.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Had $145MM Receivables at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc. has $145 million receivable for recoveries of
litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers as of
December 31, 2015, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2015.

Ashland has insurance coverage for certain litigation defense and
claim settlement costs incurred in connection with its asbestos
claims, and coverage-in-place agreements exist with the insurance
companies that provide substantially all of the coverage that will
be accessed.

For the Ashland asbestos-related obligations, Ashland has
estimated the value of probable insurance recoveries associated
with its asbestos reserve based on management's interpretations
and estimates surrounding the available or applicable insurance
coverage, including an assumption that all solvent insurance
carriers remain solvent.  Substantially all of the estimated
receivables from insurance companies are expected to be due from
domestic insurers. Approximately 40% of the receivable is from
insurance companies rated by A. M. Best, all of which have a
credit rating of A- or higher as of December 31, 2015.

In October 2012, Ashland and Hercules initiated various
arbitration proceedings against Underwriters at Lloyd's, certain
London companies and/or Chartis (AIG) member companies seeking to
enforce these insurers' contractual obligations to provide
indemnity for asbestos liabilities and defense costs under
existing coverage-in-place agreements. In addition, Ashland and
Hercules initiated a lawsuit in Kentucky state court against
certain Berkshire Hathaway entities (National Indemnity Company
and Resolute Management, Inc.) on grounds that these Berkshire
Hathaway entities had wrongfully interfered with Underwriters' and
Chartis' performance of their respective contractual obligations
to provide asbestos coverage by directing the insurers to reduce
and delay certain claim payments.

On January 13, 2015, Ashland and Hercules entered into a
comprehensive settlement agreement related to certain insurance
coverage for asbestos bodily injury claims with Underwriters at
Lloyd's, certain London companies and Chartis (AIG) member
companies, along with National Indemnity Company and Resolute
Management, Inc., under which Ashland and Hercules received a
total of $398 million. In exchange, all claims were released
against these entities for past, present and future coverage
obligations arising out of the asbestos coverage-in-place
agreements that were the subject of the pending arbitration
proceedings. In addition, as part of this settlement, Ashland and
Hercules released all claims against National Indemnity Company
and Resolute Management, Inc. in the Kentucky state court action.
As a result, the arbitration proceedings and the Kentucky state
court action have been terminated.

As a result of this settlement, Ashland recorded an after-tax gain
of $120 million within the discontinued operations caption of the
Statements of Consolidated Comprehensive Income during the March
2015 quarter. The Ashland insurance receivable balance was also
reduced as a result of this settlement by $227 million within the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

In addition, during 2015, Ashland placed $335 million of the
settlement funds received into a renewable annual trust restricted
for the purpose of paying for ongoing and future litigation
defense and claim settlement costs incurred in conjunction with
asbestos claims.

At December 31, 2015, Ashland's receivable for recoveries of
litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers
amounted to $145 million, of which $9 million relates to costs
previously paid.  Receivables from insurers amounted to $150
million at September 30, 2015.  During the June 2015 quarter, the
annual update of the model used for purposes of valuing the
asbestos reserve and its impact on valuation of future recoveries
from insurers was completed.  This model update resulted in a $3
million decrease in the receivable for probable insurance
recoveries.

Ashland Inc. is a specialty chemical company that provides
products, services and solutions to industries. It operates
through three segments: Specialty Ingredients, Performance
Materials, and Valvoline. The company was founded in 1924 and is
headquartered in Covington, Kentucky.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: HB Fuller Co. Settles 10 Lawsuits for $858MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
HB Fuller Co. was able to settle 10 asbestos-related injury claims
and lawsuits for $858 million for its fiscal year ended November
28, 2015, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended November 28,
2015.

The Company states "We have been named as a defendant in lawsuits
in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products containing
asbestos manufactured more than 30 years ago. The plaintiffs
generally bring these lawsuits against multiple defendants and
seek damages (both actual and punitive) in very large amounts. In
many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have
suffered any compensable injuries or that the injuries suffered
were the result of exposure to products manufactured by us. We are
typically dismissed as a defendant in such cases without payment.
If the plaintiff presents evidence indicating that compensable
injury occurred as a result of exposure to our products, the case
is generally settled for an amount that reflects the seriousness
of the injury, the length, intensity and character of exposure to
products containing asbestos, the number and solvency of other
defendants in the case, and the jurisdiction in which the case has
been brought.

"A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in
asbestos-related litigation is paid by third parties, including
indemnification pursuant to the provisions of a 1976 agreement
under which we acquired a business from a third party. Currently,
this third party is defending and paying settlement amounts, under
a reservation of rights, in most of the asbestos cases tendered to
the third party.

"In addition to the indemnification arrangements with third
parties, we have insurance policies that generally provide
coverage for asbestos liabilities, including defense costs.
Historically, insurers have paid a significant portion of our
defense costs and settlements in asbestos-related litigation.
However, certain of our insurers are insolvent.  We have entered
into cost-sharing agreements with our insurers that provide for
the allocation of defense costs and settlements and judgments in
asbestos-related lawsuits.  These agreements require, among other
things, that we fund a share of settlements and judgments
allocable to years in which the responsible insurer is insolvent."

"A summary of the number of and settlement amounts for asbestos-
related lawsuits and claims is as follows:

   Year Ended  November 28,2015
   ($ in millions)

   Lawsuits and claims settled              10
   Settlement amounts                     $858
   Insurance payments received or
      expected to be received             $682

"We do not believe that it would be meaningful to disclose the
aggregate number of asbestos-related lawsuits filed against us
because relatively few of these lawsuits are known to involve
exposure to asbestos-containing products that we manufactured.
Rather, we believe it is more meaningful to disclose the number of
lawsuits that are settled and result in a payment to the
plaintiff. To the extent we can reasonably estimate the amount of
our probable liabilities for pending asbestos-related claims, we
establish a financial provision and a corresponding receivable for
insurance recoveries.

"Based on currently available information, we have concluded that
the resolution of any pending matter, including asbestos-related
litigation, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
condition or cash flow."

H.B. Fuller Company, together with its subsidiaries, formulates,
manufactures, and markets adhesives, sealants, and other specialty
chemical products worldwide. The company sells its products
through direct sales force, distributors, wholesalers, and
retailers. H.B. Fuller Company was founded in 1887 and is
headquartered in Saint Paul, Minnesota.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eagle Materials May Be Subject to Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Materials Inc. may incur significant costs and may be
subject to various future litigations and legal proceedings that
may occur from asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2015

The Company states "We are, or may become, party to various
lawsuits, claims, investigations and proceedings, including but
not limited to personal injury, environmental, antitrust, tax,
asbestos, property entitlements and land use, intellectual
property, commercial, contract, product liability, health and
safety, and employment matters. The outcome of pending or future
lawsuits, claims, investigations or proceedings is often difficult
to predict, but could be adverse and material in amount. In
addition, the defense of these lawsuits, claims, investigations
and proceedings may divert our management's attention and we may
incur significant costs in defending these matters."

Eagle Materials Inc. produces and sells construction products and
building materials used in residential, industrial, commercial,
and infrastructure construction; and products used in oil and
natural gas extraction in the United States. The company, formerly
known as Centex Construction Products, Inc., was founded in 1963
and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Developer Pleads Guilty to Exposing Workers
------------------------------------------------------------
WHEC.com reported that an Avon man pled guilty to violating the
Clean Air Act asbestos work practice standards.

U.S. Attorney William J. Hochul, Jr. announced that 32-year-old
Anastasios "Taso" Kolokouris of Avon, pleaded guilty to violating
the Clean Air Act asbestos work practice standards involving
asbestos removal and disturbance.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Craig R. Gestring, who is handling the
case, stated that Kolokouris was one of the owners of a warehouse
located at 920 Exchange Street in Rochester. Acting on a
complaint, an inspector from the New York State Department of
Labor, Asbestos Control Bureau visited the Exchange Street
warehouse on December 13, 2011.

According to a press release from the Department of Justice, the
inspector observed people upon arrival, including a 16-year-old,
working in a large dumpster next to a loading dock. The inspector
observed large quantities of white fibrous material, later
confirmed to be asbestos, in and around the dumpster. He also
noted that the people working in the dumpster did not have proper
personal protective equipment, and that there was no asbestos
warning signs on the dumpster.

The release goes on to state that when the Asbestos Control Bureau
inspector made contact with the workers, they called Kolokouris to
tell him about the inspection. However, the defendant told the
workers not to speak with the inspector, and instead directed them
to leave the area and lock the gate.

While on site, the inspector took samples of the white fibrous
material from in and around the dumpster. A lab later confirmed
these samples to contain high levels of friable asbestos.
Criminal investigators from the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the New York Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) were notified and responded to
secure the scene. A federal search warrant was obtained and
federal and state agents entered the property wearing full
containment suits. When agents entered the warehouse, they
discovered over 90 bags of dry, friable asbestos inside the
loading dock area.

Agents say they took multiple samples from in and around the
warehouse. These samples were analyzed by a lab, and they all
tested positive for high levels of asbestos. Additional evidence
located inside the warehouse connected Kolokouris to the illegal
asbestos activities.

During the investigation, workers reported that Kolokouris told
them that he would pay cash to remove asbestos from the dumpster
outside the warehouse because the container company would not
remove the dumpster while it was full of asbestos. None of the
workers that Kolokouris used were certified or trained to work
with asbestos. They also confirmed that one of the workers was
only 16 years old.

"Simply to save money, this defendant knowingly exposed untrained,
temporary workers to asbestos -- a highly dangerous substance long
known to cause cancer," said U.S. Attorney Hochul. "While all of
us welcome re-development in our community, it is critical to the
health and safety of employees, as well as to residents living in
nearby neighborhoods, that proper removal guidelines be strictly
followed."

The charge carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and
a $250,000 fine. Sentencing has been set for June 1, 2016.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Removal Firm Owner Sentenced
----------------------------------------------------
ItemLive.com reported that the former owner of a Lynnfield
asbestos removal company has been sentenced to 60 days in the
House of Correction for violating his probation by working for
another asbestos abatement company, according to Attorney General
Maura Healey.

Essex Superior Court Judge John Lu sentenced David Harder, 51, of
Lynnfield for probation violation, imposed as a result of a 2012
case in which he was found guilty of violating the state's
asbestos management laws.

Under the terms of his probation, Harder was barred from working
in the environmental remediation business.

"This individual blatantly disregarded the terms of his probation
after pleading guilty to improperly removing and disposing of
asbestos debris," Healey said in a statement. "Asbestos is a
hazardous and dangerous material that must be properly handled to
ensure public safety."

Last May, authorities with the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection (MassDEP) discovered that Harder had been
working on an asbestos abatement project in Dedham.

MassDEP Commissioner Martin Suuberg said the agency works to
ensure that the state's environmental laws are in place not only
to protect residents and the environment, but also to support
licensed environmental workers and businesses that do it right.

Harder pleaded guilty in 2012 and was sentenced to 30 days in the
House of Correction and three years of probation on charges of
violating the Massachusetts Clean Air Act and the Massachusetts
Solid Waste Act, according to the Attorney General's office.

The pleas stemmed from an investigation by the Massachusetts
Environmental Crimes Strike Force. The Strike Force investigates
and prosecutes crimes that harm the state's air, land or water or
that pose significant threat to human health.

In 2010, authorities received information that Harder, co-owner of
AEI Environmental was illegally storing bags of asbestos at a
self-storage facility in Lynnfield. Further investigation of the
facility found hundreds of bags containing asbestos debris from
work performed by the company.  Under the Solid Waste Act, the
storage units were not a permissible location for the storage of
asbestos debris.

The investigation also revealed that Harder and the other AEI co-
owner had engaged in the illegal and improper removal of asbestos
at numerous locations in Lynn, Beverly and Marblehead, as well as
other locations in Massachusetts, without properly notifying
MassDEP, as required by law.

Removal of asbestos must be performed by a licensed contractor
under state regulations. Harder was not licensed to perform
asbestos removal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Verifies Asbestos Presence at Jonhson Site
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Hernandez, writing for The Elkhart Truth, reported that the
former Johnson Controls site in Goshen will be fenced in and
covered from the public while the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency takes the first steps toward cleaning up the property.

The EPA will stabilize the site of the former factory at 1302 E.
Monroe St. after the agency visually verified the presence of
asbestos, EPA On-scene Coordinator Andrew Maguire said.

Maguire said the EPA was first notified about the issue by the
attorneys representing the families suing the owners of the site,
who hired an environmental consulting firm to test the debris for
asbestos.

EPA crews walked around the site and said the debris seemed to
have asbestos based on their observations. They also took samples,
which are still being tested, Maguire said.

The crews also found some sealed drums with unknown materials that
they will remove as part of the cleanup, Maguire added.

Once the site is stabilized  --  which involves putting up fences
around the site, covering it up with a tarp and putting up signs
--  the EPA will work to secure funding for the cleanup. In the
meantime, the agency will also contact anyone who still has an
ownership stake in the property to ask if they can do the cleanup
themselves.

"It doesn't slow our process," Maguire said. "We give them the
chance and we do give them deadlines. In the meantime, we are
making sure the wheels are in motion."

It could take a couple of months before the cleanup occurs,
Maguire said.

If the property owners or the company in charge of removing the
asbestos in the first place don't do the cleanup, the EPA will go
to Congress to obtain Superfund dollars.

The EPA's Superfund program was created to help clean contaminated
lands and respond to environmental emergencies and natural
disasters. The Superfund program helps move the cleanup at a
faster rate, but there is a provision that allows the EPA to
recover any costs incurred during the process.

While the EPA doesn't take possession of the sites it cleans,
Maguire said it will pursue whoever was responsible for the
contamination to cover costs of the cleanup. That could mean
placing a lien on the property.

But for now the EPA's priority is to clean the site.

"We are there strictly to reduce hazards," Maguire said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Battles Insurers Over Durez Judgment Money
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Fairbanks, writing for The Buffalo News, a a college kid
majoring in engineering, Joe Muir dreamed of working on nuclear
submarines. Even as a young man in the summer of 1976, working
alongside his father at the Durez Plastics Corp. plant in North
Tonawanda, Muir's sights were always set on something big.

He met his future wife, Nancy, in high school, and together they
set out on a life that would take Muir to General Dynamics'
Electric Boat project in Connecticut and a career on the cutting
edge of submarine technology.

And then, in 2014, at the age of 56, his career as a project
manager flourishing, Joseph L. Muir learned that he had
mesothelioma. He died a year later but lived long enough to see a
jury in Buffalo attribute his illness to asbestos exposure and his
two summers 40 years ago working at Durez.

The jury also awarded him $5.7 million.

His widow, Nancy Muir, is still trying to collect that money. So
are two other widows and a sister.

The four women are now going after a collection of insurance
companies that they believe negotiated secret "buyback agreements"
with Hedman Resources, the company that manufactured the raw
asbestos used at Durez.

Their lawsuits in federal court in Buffalo allege that the
agreements were designed to fend off future asbestos-related
claims by workers such as Joe Muir and were motivated by a desire
to escape multimillion-dollar judgments.

"Their hope is you'll give up," Nancy Muir said of her two-year
legal fight with Hedman and its insurers. "They just carry on and
snub their nose at you while you sit back and confront death."

Joe Muir died in mid-December, and his widow now finds herself
joining three others in a legal fight that focuses on an agreement
that her lawyers call a "rotten deal."

"We've never come across it in 30 years," Michael A. Ponterio, a
lawyer for the widows, said of the buyback agreements. "These were
secret confidential deals. And they don't pass the smell test."

Lawyers for the insurance companies declined to comment on the
suits or the buyback agreements but acknowledged in court papers
that the deals were made.

The insurers, who have filed third-party complaints against
Hedman, say the agreements are legal and valid and, in the end,
remove them from any liability in the Durez cases.

'Effort to hinder, delay and avoid'

The agreements, negotiated in 2012, allowed companies such as
Lamorak Insurance, Seaton Insurance and One Beacon America
Insurance to buy their way out of their liability for asbestos
claims against Hedman, the suits contend.

In return, Hedman, nearly insolvent at the time, received $6
million, court papers say.

At the core of the four suits is the allegation that the insurers
made the agreements after analyzing hundreds of pending asbestos
cases against Hedman and the potential for them to pay tens of
millions of dollars in claims.

"The agreements were entered into in an effort to hinder, delay
and avoid paying our clients," said John N. Lipsitz, a lawyer for
the widows.

Seaton Insurance, in court papers, rejected the suggestion that
its agreement was "secret" but acknowledged that it "extinguished
all of Hedman's purported rights under the Seaton policy." The
company also says Travelers Insurance, Hedman's primary insurer,
is still on the hook at Durez. Ponterio and Lipsitz say Travelers
exhausted its coverage five years ago.

Like the other insurers, Seaton says its buyback agreement was the
result of a dispute over the insurer's liability in the Hedman
lawsuits. The insurers contend that they never had any liability
but nevertheless settled with Hedman in an effort to avoid a
protracted legal battle.

"Seaton disputes that it adopted a 'cut and run' strategy," its
lawyers said in court papers. "To the contrary, Seaton and Hedman
entered into the buyback agreements at issue following hard-
fought, arm's-length negotiations."

The four lawsuits follow four separate State Supreme Court trials,
each one resulting in a verdict and judgment favorable to the
families of the workers. In each case, the court found that the
men -- Joe Muir, Hubert A. Peace, Arthur E. Neilson and Paul J.
Mineweaser -- became ill because of asbestos exposure at Durez.
The courts also awarded them judgments totaling $13 million, much
of it for medical expenses and lost income.

"It's just terrible what happened to the people who worked at
Durez," Lipsitz said.

Ponterio and Lipsitz have represented Durez workers for 30 years,
even before the plant shut down in 1995. Located on a 66-acre site
in North Tonawanda, the company employed 1,000 people at one point
and used raw asbestos in the manufacture of plastic molding
compound.

Hedman, which supplied the raw asbestos to Durez, ended its mining
operations years ago and, at the time that it closed, was largely
insolvent.

Unlike most of the Durez workers who became ill, Joe Muir was
there for just two summers -- 1976 and 1977. He was working his
way through college, on his way to a degree in engineering and
headed for a career at General Dynamics.

Over the years, he rose through the ranks. By the time he was 55,
he was a project manager on the Electric Boat submarine project
supervising hundreds of employees.

And then came the sudden decline in his health and a diagnosis of
mesothelioma two years ago. "It's tough to see a man at the top of
his life, at the top of his career, go downhill," Nancy Muir said.
"He was never sick a day in his life. He didn't want to die."

'I push forward for him,' widow says

Joe Muir died late last year but was still alive when the $5.7
million judgment came down from the courts. Even then, his wife
said, he felt that it was important to hold Hedman and the other
companies accountable for what happened at Durez. He also wanted
to ensure that his grandchildren, whom he wanted to put through
college, would have the means to do so after he was gone.

"I push forward for him," Nancy Muir said.

The Muirs' fight is now in federal court, where U.S. Magistrate
Judge H. Kenneth Schroeder Jr. is being asked to decide whether
the insurance companies behind Hedman are still liable for
asbestos claims.

Nancy Muir thinks they should be and can't understand why the
state court judgment that she and her husband fought for and won
is, at least for now, moot.

"I don't know how a judge can make a decision and not have it
carried out," she said.

The lawyers who represent her and the other families wonder, as
well, and say they have no intention of folding their cards now.

"We're in it for the long haul," said James J. Duggan, a lawyer
for the families.

Ponterio, a veteran of the legal wars involving asbestos, is
optimistic that what he believes to be the truth will in the end
win out.

"We think facts are a stubborn thing," he said. "We like to think,
at the end of the day, we will see justice."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ebb and Flow School Closed Due to Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reported that Ebb and Flow First Nation has shut down its
school and declared a state of emergency after asbestos was found
in the 34-year-old building.

Dust particles the school custodian found multiple times in the
school's art room were sent to Winnipeg for testing in February,
Ebb and Flow Chief Nelson Houle said.

Asbestos was found in the dust and identified as a hazard in a
letter from Health Canada that community officials received, Houle
said.

"It's a liability issue based on us as leadership and also our
membership. It becomes a safety issue and we acted on that to shut
it down," he said.

The school was closed and more than 700 students are at home until
the community, which is 185 kilometres northwest of Winnipeg, gets
results from another round of tests, Houle said.

Congestion, light-headed

Staff have said they feel unwell in the school, where dust is
still present, he said.

"They feel congestion, they feel light-headed, they feel like
there's something on their tongue that they can't get out, like a
taste," he said, adding some staff have also complained of
headaches and diarrhea.

Declaring a state of emergency allowed Houle and his council to
appoint Darcy Houle, the community's fire commissioner, to co-
ordinate the emergency response, including overseeing cleaning and
testing that's currently taking place.

Houle said he told Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada that
staff feared the building had asbestos problems.

INAC hired Pinchin, an environmental, engineering and health and
safety consulting firm, to investigate. Pinchin staff visited the
school twice, collected samples and cleaned up material in the
school. Pinchin tested levels immediately after a contractor
cleaned up the dust, Houle said. They recommended the school stay
open.

Winnipeg Air Testing is now conducting air quality tests and
cleaning up the dust.

Parents concerned

"We're probably going to be teaching elementary school out of the
arena for now," said Houle, adding there are empty houses for
older students if it's not safe to return to the school.

Several parents are concerned, and many wonder why it took so long
to shut the school down, after rumours of asbestos have been
rampant for several weeks.

"You kind of feel betrayed. Like, you expect to send your children
to school where it's safe and where you feel safe sending your
children to school," said Marley Baptiste, a community member with
two children at the school.

"It's a huge concern in our community right now," she said.

"Both of my kids have been doing really good in school and now
what if they fail because of all of this, or be moved to another
school and have to start curriculum over again. I don't know
what's going to happen."

School officials are working on a contingency plan for students'
education over the coming days.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cancer-Stricken Joiner Questions Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------
The Northern Echo reported that a retired joiner with an incurable
form of cancer caused by asbestos exposure is searching for former
workmates who could also be at risk.

Last May Richard Holland, from Sadberge, near Darlington, was
shocked to be diagnosed with mesothelioma, an incurable and
aggressive form of cancer which is almost always caused by
asbestos exposure.

Mr Holland, 70, believes he was exposed to the toxic substance
while working for the now defunct Browns Saw Mills on Darlington's
Yarm Road.

He said: "My mesothelioma diagnosis absolutely knocked me for six.

"To find out that it may be the result of breathing in asbestos at
work just added insult to injury."

Mr Holland was a joiner at the saw mill from 1972 to 1996 where he
said asbestos sheeting was used to make fireproof doors.

He suspected he and colleagues had freely inhaled asbestos dust
while working and said they were never warned about its dangers.

Mr Holland said he was speaking out as a warning to others who may
be at risk of mesothelioma.

He added: "It has had a huge impact on my day-to-day life already
and I'm extremely concerned about what the future holds for me as
my condition develops.

"My main focus now is to ensure this doesn't happen to anyone
else.

"That is why I'm appealing to my former colleagues to come forward
and help me get the answers I need about my exposure and hold
anyone responsible for failing to protect me to account."

From 1960 to 1966 Mr Holland served his apprenticeship with the
long-closed North of England School Furnishing Company where he
may also have been exposed to asbestos.

Asbestos is a naturally-occurring but toxic mineral used heavily
in manufacturing throughout the 1960s and 1970s.

Respiratory disease expert Dr Howell Clague said mesothelioma was
a malignant tumour that developed when asbestos fibres became
lodged in the lung.

He added: "Almost all cases of mesothelioma are associated with
asbestos.

"If a person has been exposed to asbestos that is almost certainly
the cause."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Atlanta Defense Lawyer Wins California Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Report's Greg Land wrote that after a four-week trial, a Los
Angeles jury returned a defense verdict in the case of a man who
said his exposure to asbestos included in Union Carbide products
had caused his mesothelioma.

Scott Masterson, Esq. -- Scott.Masterson@lewisbrisbois.com -- a
partner in Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith's Atlanta office who
led the defense, said this case was one of the most unusual of the
many asbestos trials he's tried -- in large part because he had to
conduct it on a knee scooter, his leg encased in a large black
boot as the result of a pre-Christmas tumble on a New York
sidewalk that required surgery.

"It was pretty comical. I'd say, 'May I approach the witness?' and
go rolling up with my papers," said Masterson, who offered opening
and closing statements and examined all the witnesses on one leg
and four wheels. "But it was also pretty painful."

Masterson and the rest of the defense team -- firm partner
Brantley Rowlen, Esq. -- Brantley.Rowlen@lewisbrisbois.com -- and
Matthew Ashby, Esq., and Farah Nicol, Esq. --
fnicol@polsinelli.com -- of Polsinelli's Los Angeles office --
staved off demands for more than $20 million in damages for
plaintiff Victor Jasniy.

Jasniy was represented by Stuart Purdy and Jonah King, Esq. --
jking@sgpblaw.com -- of Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett's
office in Long Beach, California. In a short email, Purdy said a
post-trial confidential settlement was hatched, ending any further
action in the case.

Masterson said the trial was among at least 50 asbestos trials for
which he's picked a jury, of which only seven or eight actually
made it to a verdict.

"Most of them that get that far settle mid-trial," he said. "It
takes getting to a point where negotiations are possible. Also, a
lot of times the value of the case doesn't match people's
expectations. Everybody needs to see a little evidence to match
their valuation. A lot settle within two or three days, and some
settle when everybody gets a look at the jury."

Mesothelioma is a fatal cancer primarily associated with asbestos
exposure, according to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.

According to Masterson and court filings, Jasniy, 61, was first
exposed to asbestos products as a teen, when his job at a service
station required him to handle brake drums, clutches and gaskets
containing the mineral. In later years, he worked as a welder and
aircraft mechanic and entered the construction field; he continues
to run a residential and commercial construction company,
Masterson said.

All of those occupations exposed Jasniy to asbestos-containing
products into the 1990s, Masterson said. He subsequently developed
pleural mesothelioma -- and, while a medical procedure "went
pretty well," Masterson said there was no dispute that Jasniy
continued to suffer from the disease.

"There was testimony from his treating physician that his life
expectancy is 18 to 24 months," said Masterson.
Jasniy and his wife sued dozens of companies blamed for exposing
him to the products that caused his illness in Los Angeles County
Superior Court. Among the defendants was Masterson's client, Union
Carbide, whose Calidria asbestos was used in several types of
products, including joint compound and floor tiles.

Several of the defendants settled or were dismissed as the
litigation advanced, said Masterson, and by the time the case came
to trial only two remained: Union Carbide and CertainTeed Corp.,
which settled a few days into trial.

The trial began on Jan. 11 before Judge John Kralick.

The Jasniys' experts included pathologist Arnold Brody, professor
emeritus at Tulane University School of Medicine, and Carl
Brodkin, an occupational health specialist with the University of
Washington's School of Public Health.

The defense called Victor Roggli, a member of the U.S.
Mesothelioma Panel and a professor with Duke University's
pathology department, and James Crapo, a pulmonary specialist with
National Jewish Health in Denver.

Crapo testified that the type of mesothelioma Jasniy had was not
caused by Calidria, the lawyer said. Roggli testified that
Calidria, in low doses, does not contribute to mesothelioma, and
that Jasniy's sickness was likely caused by a different, more
potent type of asbestos, he said.

In closing statements, Masterson said the Jasniys' lawyers asked
for $20 million for noneconomic damages and up to $1.5 million for
future medical expenses, and for nonspecific damages on Diane
Jasniy's loss of consortium claim.

On Feb. 8, after three to four hours of deliberations, the jury
returned a defense verdict.

In conversation with jurors afterward, Masterson said the panel
had split 11-to-1 on all counts; under California law, he
explained, a 12-member jury must have at least nine members in the
majority to win at trial. The foreman, a retired lawyer, had been
the lone opponent, Masterson said.

Masterson remained in California for a couple of days to take a
deposition in another case, and returned home Feb. 11 -- the same
day his wife, Lauryn, gave birth to his fourth child, Clara.
"We walked into the house, and 30 minutes later she was in labor,"
he said.

After Clara was born and while Lauryn was being transferred from
the delivery room, Masterson rolled over to his doctor's office
nearby and had the boot removed.

"I'm not on the scooter anymore," he said. But "I am still wearing
tennis shoes."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stakes "Huge" for B.C. Workers in Court Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Nagel, writing for Nanaimo News Bulletin, reported that
WorkSafeBC is appealing a B.C. Supreme Court ruling that has
thrown into question the workplace regulator's enforcement powers
against asbestos removal contractors that expose employees to
danger.

The court rejected WorkSafe's request for a contempt of court
finding against Seattle Environmental Consulting Ltd. and its
owners, Mike and Shawn Singh, who had received more than 230
workplace violation orders and more than $200,000 in fines dating
back to 2007.

Past asbestos handling violations were issued at homes across
Metro Vancouver, including Surrey.

Justice George Macintosh dismissed the application, citing concern
that a previous WorkSafe order was too broad and the underlying
safety regulations too complex and "voluminous."

Observers say the stakes are high if the appeal fails and leaves
bad actors in the free to ignore the laws designed to protect
workers.

"If this ruling were allowed to stand then the protection of
workers from the number one killer in British Columbia would be
null and void," SFU health sciences professor Tim Takaro.

"The judge is saying that the regulations aren't clear, he can't
follow them and you don't have to. So that's huge."

The decision was described as "ludicrous" by BC Insulators Union
spokesman Lee Loftus, who himself suffers from workplace asbestos
exposure.

"This is the 20th century, this is no longer the 18th century,"
said Loftus. "People have lost their lives. Those regulations and
those laws are literally written in blood. We don't make this
stuff up."

He said Seattle Environmental's owners were "arrogant as hell"
after the ruling, telling reporters they don't expose workers to
asbestos.

"Nobody who has 237 orders written against them is doing anything
right."

If the lower court ruling isn't overturned, Loftus said, senior
governments will be forced to amend their legislation.

Unions and industry groups have already urged the province to
impose mandatory licensing for all asbestos removal and testing
firms to allow faster action against violators.

Tough enforcement does work when WorkSafeBC brings its full weight
to bear, Loftus said.

In 2012, notorious Surrey-area asbestos removal contractor Arthur
Moore was sentenced to 60 days in jail for contempt of court after
repeated asbestos safety violations across the Lower Mainland.

His workers included teenage girls and recovering addicts wearing
improper protective gear as they removed asbestos-laden material
from homes that had been declared asbestos-free through forged
tests.

Loftus said Moore's jail term "straightened him out."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Indiana Exposure Repose Law Unconstitutional
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steven M.Sellers, writing for Bloomberg News, reported that a
provision of Indiana's product liability act that extinguishes
certain asbestos-related disease claims after 10 years is
unconstitutional because it treats similarly situated asbestos
exposure plaintiffs differently, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled
Mar. 2.

The repose law -- which permits suits against defendants who both
mined and sold raw asbestos, but sets a 10-year limit for claims
against those who didn't engage in both activities -- violates the
equal privileges and immunities clause of the Indiana
Constitution, the court said in a split decision involving three
consolidated appeals.

'Impending Flood' of Case Filings?

The ruling permits Larry Myers and the survivor of Raymond Geyman
to pursue tort claims against various companies -- including
Crouse-Hinds Division of Cooper Industries, Inc., General Electric
Co. and Owens-Illinois, Inc. -- for illnesses allegedly caused by
exposures that occurred decades ago.

"The decision brings the rights of those injured by asbestos in
Indiana in line with the rights available to asbestos victims
around the country," according to attorney Kathleen Farinas of
George & Farinas in Indianapolis, who represented Myers and
Geyman.

"Based on our reading, it would be logical to apply the holding to
other similar products that cause latent injuries and death based
on the court's analysis," Farinas said in a Mar. 3 e-mail.

Michael Martinez of Matushek, Nilles & Sinars in Chicago, who
represented Crouse-Hinds in the litigation, told Bloomberg BNA
Mar. 3, "the decision essentially reopens Indiana trial courts to
an impending flood of asbestos case filings."

But Christopher Wahl of Hill Fulwider's Indianapolis office, who
represented General Electric Co., said that while more cases were
possible, it "remains to be seen" how the decision will affect
asbestos litigation.

Differing Standards, Similar Claims

The cases involve the interrelation of two sections of Indiana's
product liability and asbestos product liability laws, each
specifying different time limits within which asbestos exposure
claims must be filed.

Section 1 of Indiana Code 34-20-3-1, the state's general product
liability statute, specifies a two-year discovery statute of
limitations and a statute of repose that limits claims to those
brought within 10 years of delivery of the product to a consumer.

Section 2 of the asbestos products liability law, Indiana Code 34-
20-3-2(a)(2), governs personal injury claims arising from asbestos
exposure, omits the 10-year repose limitation and "applies only to
product liability actions against persons who mined and sold
commercial asbestos."

Manufacturers in asbestos exposure actions have contended for
years that Section 2, the repose-free provision, didn't apply to
them because they sold products but didn't mine the asbestos
within them.

That argument was based on the Indiana Supreme Court's 2003
decision in AlliedSignal, Inc. v. Ott, 785 N.E.2d 1068 (Ind.
2003), that Section 2 applies to persons who both mine and sold
raw asbestos, while claims against product manufacturers are
protected by the 10-year repose limitation of Section 1.

Ott was questioned 11 years later -- setting up the appeals here -
- when the trial court in one of the consolidated cases adopted
the theme of Ott's two dissenters.

The dissenters' broader view, which would permit delayed asbestos
exposure claims against producers of asbestos-containing products,
better reflects the legislature's intent, the Indiana Superior
Court said in denying summary judgments to GE and Owens-Illinois.

Another superior court judge, however, took the opposite view in a
subsequent suit brought by Myers, citing its obligation to follow
Ott as a controlling precedent in granting a summary judgment to
Crouse-Hinds.

Constitutional Change of Course

The state's high court declined to alter its interpretation of the
product liability statute in Ott, but then went on to consider the
"new" issue raised here: whether the law's disparate treatment of
two types of asbestos victims was unconstitutional.

"Here, the two classes of asbestos victims are similarly situated
(both are victims of asbestos illness or disease), yet only one of
them (the class seeking damages from defendants who both mined and
sold raw asbestos) is completely excepted from the statute of
repose," the court said in striking down Section 2 of the act.

Chief Justice Loretta H. Rush dissented, arguing that the majority
opinion improperly disregarded as a binding precedent. Judge Mark
S. Matta agreed, adding that the decision "has the potential to
chip away at the rule of law and inflict more serious damage on
our Court and state."

Justice Brent E. Dickson wrote the majority opinion, joined by
Justices Robert D. Rucker and Steven H. David. Justices Loretta H.
Rush and Mark S. Massa dissented.

The law offices of George & Farinas represented Larry and Loa
Myers, as well as Mary Geyman.

Cantrell, Strenski & Mehringer represented Owens-Illinois, Inc.

Hill Fulwider represented General Electric Co.

Matushek, Nilles & Sinars and Johnson & Bell represented Crouse-
Hinds Division of Cooper Industries.

Hughes, Hubbard & Reed and Krieg DeVault represented R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co. and Hollingsworth & Vose Co.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sikorsky Targeted by Workers in Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christian Nolan, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune, reported
that in what plaintiffs lawyers are describing as the worst
workplace asbestos exposure case in Connecticut's recent history,
more than 40 workers involved in a Sikorsky Aircraft renovation
project have filed a class action lawsuit after being exposed to
the cancer-causing substance in 2010.

Lawyers said the Stratford-based helicopter manufacturer told
workers from several companies and contracting firms that the work
site was asbestos-free when it wasn't. Some workers grew
increasingly skeptical as fans blew the dustlike particles around
in the air. They finally walked off the job until testing was
done. Their fears were confirmed and asbestos was found, attorneys
said.

"A lot of people who worked there don't realize they were exposed
to asbestos during the three-month period," said plaintiffs lawyer
Keith Yagaloff, of South Windsor. "That's why my clients are doing
the lawsuit. They want documentation of what happened to them and
want other people to know what happened to them. They suspect a
percentage of them will come down with asbestos-related disease."
Respiratory diseases, including cancers such as mesothelioma, have
been scientifically linked to asbestos exposure. "When they start
coming down with a cough in 15 years, they can say this may be
related to what happened to me at Sikorsky rather than spending
six months treating what they think is a bronchitis or something,"
said Yagaloff.

This class action before Hartford Superior Court Judge Grant
Miller is unlike others in that the damages are essentially
unknown at this stage. Yagaloff is seeking medical monitoring for
his clients that would not preclude future lawsuits by individuals
who did, in fact, become ill as a result of inhaling asbestos.
Continued testing would result in the early detection of asbestos-
related cancer and asbestos-related nonmalignant diseases.

"This will be the first major case on medical monitoring of
damages for workers in Connecticut," said Yagaloff. "In the old
days, people didn't know how asbestos caused injury to people. You
could only show it once you have a clinical disease like
mesothelioma. The science has changed. We already have experts
that say upon inhalation of asbestos the injury occurs
immediately."

Yagaloff, however, said courts around the country have ruled both
ways on ordering companies to pay for long-term medical
monitoring. He said more courts have ordered medical monitoring
damages than have refused them. But many more, including
Connecticut, have yet to rule on the matter.

"Medical monitoring is more about getting money to put in a fund
and then [workers] get annual tests that money from the fund pays
for," Yagaloff explained. "These cases allow for future claims for
those diseases so [individuals] could sue later on again. That's
the tricky thing about this; it has to be done properly."

The defendants, Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., Carrier Corp. and URS
Corp., are defended by James Rotondo of Day Pitney in Hartford.
Rotondo declined to comment. Yagaloff expects the defendants to
file a motion against medical monitoring at some point during its
pretrial stages.

Rotondo is expected to present an expert doctor who will argue
that most people exposed to the asbestos will not develop an
asbestos-related illness and that regular medical monitoring based
solely on asbestos exposure is unnecessary.

Pipes and Duct Work

Around September 2009, Sikorsky began construction on a $30
million cogeneration plant at an existing power plant on Main
Street in Stratford. Cogeneration involves the on-site production
of electricity and heat from a single fuel source. The process
captures heat from a power plant and converts it into usable
energy.

Carrier was chosen as the general contractor for the project. URS
was the project coordinator. The existing plant had been built
around 1930, and was heated by a boiler house and heating units
located throughout the plant. The warm air was pumped through
insulated pipes, duct work and radiators. The boiler house
remained operational during the majority of the cogeneration
project.

The lawsuit alleges that Sikorsky knew before construction work
began that asbestos-containing materials were located in the
boiler house and in pipes and pipe fittings.

Three of the named plaintiffs -- Danny Dougan of Vernon; Philip
Badorek of Jewett City; and Michael Daly of Rocky Hill -- were
working for B-G Mechanical Contractors, a heating and cooling
business from Chicopee, Massachusetts. The company was one of many
subcontractors doing work at the plant from March to mid-July
2010. Their work included removing pipes and pipe fittings from
the boiler house.

The plaintiffs claim that they made inquiries into whether the
pipes and pipe fittings contained asbestos. They say they were
informed that testing had been done, that they were asbestos-free
and that it was safe for them to do the work there. Complaints
were also made about the air quality. Some workers complained of
sore throats. They were told the air quality was being checked
"but in fact it was not," the lawsuit stated.

Yagaloff said workers in their 20s, who were getting paid $15 an
hour, were carrying out the asbestos-contaminated materials and
throwing them in the regular garbage.

After repeated complaints from workers, asbestos testing was
performed. Asbestos was detected on the concrete floors in the
main building, in the basement (including on mechanical equipment)
and in an exterior dumpster. The test results from the boiler
house indicated that the entire basement was contaminated and that
the air samples "were overloaded," according to the lawsuit. Tests
also revealed asbestos in the dust on the boiler house's main
floor.

Even after the results were known, the plaintiffs claim that the
project continued for about two weeks. Then, for the next several
weeks, while asbestos was removed by a licensed contractor, some
Sikorsky boiler house workers continued to work in the building
using respirators to protect them from breathing asbestos fibers.
The lawsuit claims Sikorsky offered X-rays to the workers "even
though Sikorsky knew that X-rays soon after the asbestos exposure
would not show the effects of asbestos exposure." The class action
alleges negligence, recklessness and the intentional tort of
battery.

Judge Miller granted class certification in a written ruling in
February. He added that the Sikorsky and Carrier employees must
make their claims through the workers' compensation system.
Rotondo, in arguing against class certification, said that
different workers had different levels of exposure so they would
all have varying needs for medical monitoring. Rotondo has filed a
motion to reargue Miller's decision.

"Although this is hardly a textbook example of what a class action
lawsuit should look like, the court finds that plaintiffs have met
their burden on this issue," wrote Miller. "Counsel here are
extremely well-qualified to work with the court to devise a
framework for this litigation which will classify the individual
claims by the alleged injuries and unique facts which may exist,
in order to create subclasses or identify 'bellwether' cases which
are substantially similar to other cases."

Yagaloff said his clients are worried about their futures. He said
they and their families fear they could come down with an illness
and die at a young age. "Financial goals aren't at the top of the
minds of the plaintiffs right now," said Yagaloff. "They're young
people, in their 30s, worried that they will have a life-
threatening disease by their late 40s. They're looking mostly for
information to plan for themselves and their family."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cancer Sufferer Welcomes Victory in Campaign
-------------------------------------------------------------
Debbie White, writing for The Herts Advertiser, reported that Fred
Minall, who left St Helen's CE Primary School in Wheathampstead at
the age of 15 to join the Royal Navy in 1957, was diagnosed with
the cancer, mesothelioma, and is not expected to survive for more
than about a year.

The 74 year old discovered he had been left with the fatal legacy
after working in the forces, when exposed to dangerous asbestos
dust which he regularly breathed while employed as an engineer on
destroyers, removing and replacing pipe lagging -- a small amount
of that dust was retained in his lungs.

Despite the severity of his illness and undergoing treatment for
his cancer, feisty Fred and fellow former residents from this
district, Len Lambe and Peter Harbour, have spent months pushing
the government to overturn an unfair compensation scheme.

Fred has hailed an announcement that veterans with mesothelioma
caused by their service can choose to receive lump sum
compensation of GBP140,000, as eligibility rules have now been
extended.

The extension follows a decision on December 16 last year to allow
veterans diagnosed with the cancer on or after that date to have
the choice between a one-off tax-free lump sum or regular smaller
payments.

Before then, there was an absurd situation where personnel
diagnosed with the terminal lung cancer after being exposed to
asbestos while in the Forces prior to 1987 could not claim
compensation comparable to their civilian counterparts.

However the government's U-turn prior to Christmas meant that 60
veterans, including Fred, would miss out on the payment.

Minister for Defence Personnel and Veterans Mark Lancaster said:
"It is right that we do more to support veterans affected by this
condition; it's part of our commitment to our Armed Forces."

Chris Simpkins, director-general of the Royal British Legion,
which also campaigned for fairer compensation, said: "The
Government has done the right thing and we appreciate the effort
that has gone into accommodating the 60 people missing out. We are
grateful to the Ministry of Defence to consider offering lump sums
to correct the disadvantage faced by some veterans when compared
to their civilian counterparts."

Fred, suffering the after-effects of recent radiotherapy, urged
fellow veterans in St Albans to seek medical attention if, like
him, they were exposed to asbestos during their service.

Adding that he was very pleased with the extension of the scheme,
Fred went on, "The minister has done the right thing, and made
sure the loose ends are tied up".

Peter Harbour said it was "wonderful news. I think Fred should
receive a gong because the influence of his campaign has been
huge".


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honda Named in Man's Exposure Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Molly English-Bowers, writing for Madison Record, reported that a
man who spent his working life as a laborer is suing over his
alleged exposure to asbestos.

Warren Latshaw filed the suit on Jan. 25 in St. Clair County
Circuit Court against American Honda Motor Co., Borg-Warner Morse,
Eaton Corporation, Goulds Pumps LLC, Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc.
and Union Carbide, among other listed defendants. Metropolitan
Life Insurance Co. is singled out as a defendant.

From 1966 to now, the plaintiff worked various jobs, from tank
commander for the U.S. Marines to concrete laborer to car
assembler to mechanic. At various times, the lawsuit alleges, the
plaintiff was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise
absorbed large amounts of asbestos fibers emanating from products
he was working with. He also was allegedly exposed to asbestos-
containing products through his father, who also worked as a
mechanic.

The plaintiff was diagnosed with lung cancer on July 10, 2015. The
lawsuit alleges he became ill due to the  negligent and willful
and wanton acts by the defendants. Among the allegations in the
suit are that the companies: included asbestos in their products,
failed to provide any instructions concerning safe methods of
working with and around those products and failed to conduct tests
on those products to determine the hazards to which workers were
exposed.

The count against Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. is for alleged
conspiracy. According to the complaint, the life insurance company
was among a group of companies that conducted research about the
health risks of asbestos. The suit claims the results of the study
were altered and Metropolitan Life knew it. Further, the defendant
allegedly tried to discredit scientists working on the study and
also actively suppressed publication about the dangers of
asbestos, the suit claims.

In addition to becoming sick, the plaintiff alleges he is now
liable for large medical care costs and he has been hindered from
pursuing his normal course of work.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory, punitive and exemplary damages
in an amount in excess of $50,000 from each defendant. He is
represented by Randy L. Gori of Gori, Julian & Associates PC in
Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 16-L-42


                            *********

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  * * *