CAR_Public/160506.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, May 6, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 91



                            Headlines


3001 CASTOR: Seeks Decertification of FLSA Class in "Verma" Suit
ABC CAPITAL: Faces "Robinson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ADJ PRODUCTS: Faces "Silva" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ALLIANCE FIBER: Faces "Luck" Suit Over Proposed Corning Merger
ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: "Dibb" Class Opt-Out Period Extended

ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Must Face "Chen" TCPA Suit, 9th Cir. Says
AMERICAN EAGLE: Has Sent Unsolicited Messages, "Bricco" Suit Says
ASHLEY FURNITURE: Faces "Razo" Class Suit in C. Dist. California
ASTRAZENECA: Del. High Court Affirms Dismissal of Nexium Action
BAKERY EXPRESS: Recalls 7-Eleven Fresh Cookies Due to Peanuts

BASIC RESEARCH: Court Won't Amend March 31 Order in "Brady" Suit
BELK INC: Certification of Sales Team Managers Class Sought
BIMBO BAKERIES: Ninth Circuit Stays Mislabeling Class Action
BRSB&G: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Jurado" Action Claims
BULLFRONG PEST: Faces "Guzman" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

CALLSMART INC: Dolemba Seeks Certification of TCPA & ICFA Classes
CASCADE DESIGNS: Recalls Avalanche Rescue Probes
CASHLESS PAYMENTS: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid Continued to May 17
CAVIAR INC: Court Tosses "Levin" Wage and Hour Suit
CAYAN LLC: Must Defend Against South Orange Chiropractic Action

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Conn. Court Tosses TCPA Class Action
CHICAGO: Faces "Badillo" Class Suit in N. Dist. Illinois
CHURCH & DWIGHT: Sued in N.Y. Over Truth-In-Lending Act Violation
CODILIS & ASSOC: "Gierke" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation Dismissed
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: "Dean" Plaintiff Seeks Class Certification

COOK MEDICAL: Recalls Catheters with Beacon(R) Tip Technology
CORNERSTONE HOME: Bingham Seeks Conditional Class Certification
COSTCO: Faces Class Action Over Organic Berry Cherry Blend
CRACKER BARREL: Persons w/ Mobility Disabilities Class Certified
CRAVE RESTAURANT: Tipped Employees Seek Class Certification

CSM BAKERY: Recalls Cinnabon Stix Products Due to Peanut
CSM BAKERY: Recalls Red Velvet Cake & Chocolate Chip Cookies
D'ARCY PLACE: Former Residents to Receive Compensation
DEFFENBAUGH INDUSTRIES: Court Wants More Evidence to Support Deal
DL BUILDERS: "Valdovinos" Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification

DOLLAR THRIFTY: June 21 Hearing on McKinnon's 2nd Class Cert. Bid
EARTH CARE: Court Preliminary Approves "Hernandez" Settlement
EDGAR ADULT: Former Residents to Receive Compensation
EGS FINANCIAL: Court Grants Joint Bid to Stay "Burns" Proceedings
EUROCHOC AMERICAS: Glen Ellyn Seeks Certification of 3 Classes

FEDEX FREIGHT: Motion to Approve Settlement Unsealed
FENTON & MCGARVEY: "Tetik" Seeks Certification of FDCPA Class
FLOWERS FOODS: Faces "Medrano" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
FOWLER PACKING: Courts Denies Bid for Submission of Trial Plan
FRONTERA FOODS: Recalls Taco Skillet Sauce Due to Soy

GENERAL MOTORS: Sued in N.J. Over Communications Act Violation
GIANT EAGLE: Recalls Walnut Delight and Pecan Tassie Cookies
GLEN GALEMMO: Final Settlement Order Entered in "Capannari" Suit
H&R BLOCK: Bid to Certify Calif. Class in "Perras" Suit Denied
HCA HOLDINGS: Appeals Court Revives Overcharge Class Action

HOME DEPOT: Court Certifies California Class in "Henry" Suit
HONEST COMPANY: Faces Various Class Actions Over Product Claims
HOUSTON, TX: Summary Judgment in "Fontenot" Affirmed
HOUSTON CASUALTY: 3rd Cir. Says $102MM Excluded from PNC Coverage
INTERNATIONAL CRUISE: Bid to Certify "Burnside" Class Withdrawn

INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT: "Patrick" Class Suit Settlement Approved
INVESTMENT PROFESSIONALS: Fin'l Advisors Seek Class Certification
JP SPORTS: Certification of Assistant Managers' Class Sought
KODAK: Settles Stock Ownership Plan Class Action for $9.7MM
KOVITZ SHIFRIN: Plaintiffs Seek Approval of Class Settlement

LANNETT COMPANY: Faces "Fraternal" Suit Over Generic Digoxin
LIBERTY MUTUAL: LaFollettes Seek Class Certification
LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: 8th Cir. Upholds Summary Judgment in "Brown"
LTD FINANCIAL: Court Postpones Class Certification Adjudication
MAGAN FOOD: Faces "Munoz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

MAKING IT A LIFESTYLE: Recalls Dietary Supplements
MDL 2575: Class Certification Sought in Water Connector Case
MERCK: Sex Discrimination Collective Action Gets Prelim. Court OK
METAL TECHNOLOGIES: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Action Says
MICHIGAN: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Against UIA

MODESTO, CA: Irrigation District Faces Class Actions Over Subsidy
MOTOROLA: Faces Class Action Over Poor Customer Support
MOTRICITY INC: Dismissal of "Mosco" Securities Suit Affirmed
MTD PRODUCTS: Recalls Utility Vehicles Due to Crash Hazard
MURRAY GOULBURN: Class Action Mulled Over Profit Downgrade

MYDATT SERVICES: "Levin" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Penalties
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Approval of Concussion Deal Affirmed
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Ahmed Hassan Seeks Class Certification
NEBRASKA: Court Approves Fees and Costs in "Leiting-Hall" Case
NGOZI IGBINOSA: Court Dismisses Inmate's Suit v. Prison Doctor

NORCOLD INC: September 16 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
OHIO GAMING: "Betts" Plaintiffs Ask Court to Certify FLSA Class
OSF HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Underfunded Benefit Pension Plans
PASILADES COLLECTION: Court Denies DQ Bid Against Plaintiff Atty
PARKMERCED INVESTORS: Faces "Stewart" Suit In California

PEARLS AGROTECH: Piper Alder Mulls Class Action Over Ponzi Scheme
PEGGYBANK.COM: "Miller" Class Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio
PENNSYLVANIA: SEPTA Faces Class Action Over Background Checks
PFIZER INC: 2nd Circuit Revives shareholder Class Action
PORSCHE CARS: W.Va. High Court Affirms "Harrison" Case Dismissal

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Settles TCPA Class Action for $18 Million
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Deodorant Products
QVC INC: "Robinson" Class Suit Removed to S. Dist. Florida
RBS CITIZENS: Court Certifies Class of Mortgage Loan Officers
REPUBLIC OF TEA: Recalls Organic Turmeric Ginger Green Tea

RUBI ROSE: Faces "Neuss" Class Suit in New Jersey Court
SCHNUCK MARKETS: Court Drops Non-Settling Plaintiffs from Suit
SMALLS ELECTRICAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Project Balance Due
SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Zachariah Pinkney Seeks Class Certification
SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Faces "Hicks" Suit Over Royalty Underpayment

STAACK & SIMMS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Forte" Suit Claims
STARBUCKS CORPORATION: Faces "Pincus" Suit in N. Dist. Illinois
SUNRUN INC: "Cohen" Files Securities Class Action in Calif.
SUNRUN INC: "Mancy" Sues over Artificially Inflated IPOs
SWANSON GROUP: Certification of Technicians Class Sought

SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Says
SYSTEMS4PT LLC: Byer Clinic Seeks Class Certification
TD BANK: Sued in N.J. Over Penny Arcade Machine Shortchanging
TEL-DRUG: "Skinner" Class Suit Removed to Arizona Dist. Ct.
TGI FRIDAY'S: Bid to Dismiss Count I of "Williams" Suit Denied

THINGS REMEMBERED: Class Certification of 7 Subclasses Sought
TIME WARNER: 9th Cir. Upholds Summary Judgment in "Corbin" Suit
TRIUNE INFOMATICS: Faces "Behera" Class Action in Calif.
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Lawyers Want to Prevent Trump From Facing Trial
TYSON FOODS: Statistical Evidence Can Be Used in Class Action

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers Criticizes Class Action Settlement
UNITED KINGDOM: Hillsborough Disaster Victims File Class Action
UNITED STATES: Groups Against PACER Fees Seek Class Certification
VARITRONICS LLC: Order Denying Bid to Deposit Funds Affirmed
VENGROFF WILLIAMS: Maranda Woodward Seeks Class Certification

VERENGO INC: Settlement Deal in "Lushe" Has Final Okay
VITALICIOUS ACQUISITION: Recalls Apple Crumb VitaTops Due to Milk
WAL-MART STORES: Recalls Rival Brand Electric Water Kettles
WELLS FARGO: "Hogan" Seeks Certification of Foreclosure Class
XPAT XTREME: "Rechterman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

YEXT INC: Courts Grants In Part Motion to Seal Exhibits
YTS TRADING: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Lopez" Suit Says


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6th Cir. Affirms Ruling in "Upton"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bath Iron Dropped as Defendant in "Thorne"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bids to Dismiss "Hovsepian" Granted
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling on Improper Venue Exceptions Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GATX Had 79 Asbestos Cases at Jan. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: IPALCO Still Faces Asbestos Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selective Insurance Has $23.2MM A&E Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dayton Power Continues to Defend Asbestos Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: OfficeMax Retains Asbestos Proceedings
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Berkley Has $33MM A&E Reserves at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. Va. Court Remands Asbestos Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Confirms Asbestos at Glory Days Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Naval Ship Asbestos Removal to Cost EUR500K
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Teacher's Death Linked to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Husband's Clothes Exposed Woman to Asbestos

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractors Target Homeless People
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Michigan Didn't Issue Fines in Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Starts Proceedings Over Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former William Press Worker Dies of Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Optical Hit with $16-Mil. Verdict

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Woman Claims Exposure Led to Husband's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Justices Deny Rehearing Statute of Repose Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WVU Coliseum Closed Due to Potential Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Little Hulton Man Dies of Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: New York Judge Trims $25-Mil. Award

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baton Rogue Man Arrested for Filing False Docs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nearly 100 Cos. in Bankruptcy Due to Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sunderland Father Dies of Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Missouri Court Bars Illinois Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Seeks Workers' Heirs for Payouts

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pittsburgh Corning Emerges from Ch. 11


                            *********


3001 CASTOR: Seeks Decertification of FLSA Class in "Verma" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
3001 Castor, Inc., asks the Court to decertify the conditionally
certified Fair Labor Standards Act collective action titled PRIYA
VERMA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v.
3001 CASTOR, INC., d/b/a/THE PENTHOUSE CLUB and/or THE PENTHOUSE
CLUB PHILLY; ABCDE PENNSYLVANIA MANAGEMENT, LLC and DOE DEFENDANTS
1-10, Case No. 2:13-cv-03034-AB (E.D. Pa.).

3001 Castor also asks the Court to deny with prejudice the
Plaintiff's corresponding motion for Rule 23 Class Certification
of her state law claims.

The essential element of the Plaintiff's claim is that of damages
for her and other dancers.  The Plaintiff's Minimum Wage Act
claims will require a determination of the hours worked by each
dancer.

John F. Innelli, Esq., at John F. Innelli, LLC, in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania -- jinnelli@innellilaw.com -- contends that the
individual nature of the documentary evidence against the
Plaintiff's claims is overwhelming.  He notes that as set forth in
the Defendant 3001 Castor, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment,
during the relevant time period, the dancers earned, in the
aggregate, $3,322,032 directly from their patrons.  He asserts
that the aggregate earnings exceeded the amount of minimum wages
by $2,663,907, or 3.8 times the hourly minimum wage.

The primary dispute -- whether the dancers performing at 3001
Castor were not earning compensation in accordance with the
applicable statutory regulations -- is not capable of resolution
by class-wide proof, Mr. Innelli tells the Court.

Given the significant number of dollars above the hourly minimum
wage earned by the dancers performing at 3001 Castor, it is not
surprising that only 4% of the dancers opted-in, Mr. Innelli
asserts.  He argues that the extremely low number of opt-ins
relative to the number of potential class members weighs against
certification.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BrwlXJ3V

3001 Castor is represented by:

          John F. Innelli, Esq.
          JOHN F. INNELLI, LLC
          1818 Market St., Suite 3740
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 238-9884
          E-mail: jinnelli@innellilaw.com


ABC CAPITAL: Faces "Robinson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Winston Robinson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ABC Capital Investments, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-02008-
MSG (E.D. Penn., April 27, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

ABC Capital Investments, LLC operates a real estate company
located at 1218 N Marshall St, Philadelphia, PA 19122.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Patrick Murphy Jr., Esq.
      MURPHY LAW GROUP LLC
      Eight Penn Center Suite 1803
      1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 375-0961
      E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com


ADJ PRODUCTS: Faces "Silva" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Silva, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. ADJ Products, LLC, and Does 1 through 100,
Case No. BC618581 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 27, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the California Labor Code.

ADJ Products, LLC provides lighting, audio, and staging products
for nightclubs, discos, mobile entertainers, bands, concert tours,
theatre productions, TV shows, cruise ships, churches, trade
shows, and architectural applications.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul K. Haines, Esq.
      Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
      Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
      Andrew J. Rowbotham, Esq.
      HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
      2274 East Maple Ave., Suite A
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (424) 292-2350
      Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
      E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
              tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com
              fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
              arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com


ALLIANCE FIBER: Faces "Luck" Suit Over Proposed Corning Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rudy Luck, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Alliance Fiber Optic Products, Inc., Peter C. Chang,
Gwong-Yih Lee, James C. Yeh, Richard B. Black, Ray Sun, Corning
Incorporated, Apricot Merger Company, and Does 1-25, inclusive,
Case No. 16CV294413 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 27, 2016), is brought
on behalf of all public stockholders of Alliance Fiber Optic
Products, Inc., to enjoin the proposed merger of the Company with
Corning Incorporated, for an unfair price and inadequate
consideration.

Alliance Fiber Optic Products, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that
designs, manufactures and markets a broad range of high
performance fiber optic components and integrated modules for the
optical network equipment market.

Corning Incorporated is a New York corporation that manufactures
of glass, ceramics, and related materials, primarily for
industrial and scientific applications.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam C. McCall, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      445 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 985-7290
      Facsimile: (202) 333-2121

        - and -

      Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500
      Facsimile: (212) 363-7171


ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: "Dibb" Class Opt-Out Period Extended
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARGARET L. DIBB, SHAUNA OVIST, and WENDY
GONDOS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 14-5835 RJB  (W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert J.
Bryan granted the plaintiffs' motion for an extension of time to
send the class notices and to reset the expiration of the opt-out
period.

The amended deadline for Plaintiffs to send notice of this case to
class members was April 15, 2016. The amended deadline set for
expiration of the opt-out period was May 30, 2016.  When the
Plaintiffs mailed the notices to class members on April 15, 2016,
the notices inadvertently stated the opt-out date was April 15,
2016 -- the date set prior to the case amendment -- rather than
using the amended date of May 30, 2016. Plaintiffs discovered
their error on April 20.  Accordingly, they moved the Court for an
amended case schedule to ensure that class members have at least
45 days in which to exercise their right to optout of this
lawsuit.

The Court also denied Defendant's motion for appointment of a
third party administrator.  The Defendant had sought appointment
of a new class administrator (it suggests an entity called Class
Action Administration LLC).

A full-text copy of Judge Bryan's May 2, 2016 order is available
at http://is.gd/uqyKwYfrom Leagle.com.

Margaret Dibb, Shauna Ovist, Wendy Gondos, Plaintiffs, represented
by Beth E Terrell -- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL
MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC, David Arthur Leen, LEEN & O'SULLIVAN,
Erika L. Nusser -- enusser@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL
LAW GROUP PLLC, Kathleen Sophia Box, LEEN & O'SULLIVAN, Paul
Arons, LAW OFFICE OF PAUL ARONS & Samuel R Leonard, LEONARD LAW.

AllianceOne Receivables Management Inc, Defendant, represented by
Elizabeth K Morrison -- emorrison@gordonrees.com -- GORDON & REES
& Jeffrey Edward Bilanko -- jbilank@gordonrees.com -- GORDON &
REES.


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Must Face "Chen" TCPA Suit, 9th Cir. Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Raymond C. Fisher of the Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
affirmed the order denying Allstate's motion to dismiss for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction in the case captioned, RICHARD
CHEN; FLORENCIO PACLEB, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 13-16816 (9th Cir.).

In 2013, Richard Chen and Florencio Pacleb filed a class action
complaint against Allstate Insurance Company, alleging he received
unsolicited automated telephone calls to his cellular telephone,
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Chen
alleged he received eight calls from Allstate in violation of Sec.
227(b)(1)(A). Pacleb alleged he received five such calls. In
Pacleb's case, the automated calls asked for an individual named
Frank Arnold. Chen and Pacleb brought their claims "on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated," as members of a
proposed class defined as "All persons within the United States
who received any telephone calls from Defendant to said person's
cellular telephone made through the use of any automatic telephone
dialing system and such person had not previously consented to
receiving such calls within the four years prior to the filing of
this Complaint."

In their first cause of action, for negligent violations of the
TCPA, Chen and Pacleb sought for themselves and the members of the
proposed class $500 in statutory damages for each violation and
injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct in the future. In their
second cause of action, for knowing or willful violations of the
TCPA, they sought $1500 in statutory damages for each violation
and similar injunctive relief. The plaintiffs subsequently
abandoned their claims for knowing or willful violations of the
TCPA.

In April 2013, before any motion for class certification had been
made, Allstate made an offer of judgment to Chen and Pacleb under
Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Allstate offered
to allow judgment to be taken against it by Chen and Pacleb "on
their individual claims in the amount of $15,000.00 and
$10,000.00, respectively, together with reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs that have been accrued to date.

Allstate urged the court to enter judgment of dismissal "in its
favor and against Plaintiffs with prejudice." While the motion to
dismiss was pending, Chen accepted Allstate's Rule 68 offer.
Pacleb did not. The district court denied Allstate's motion to
dismiss.

On appeal, Allstate argues that the Court should "reverse the
denial of Allstate's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and remand to the District Court to order
disbursement of the tendered funds to Pacleb, the entry of
judgment in favor of Pacleb and the dismissal of this action as
moot."

In his Opinion dated April 12, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/r6gEnsfrom Leagle.com, Judge Fisher held that the
judgment Allstate has consented to would afford Pacleb complete
relief on his individual claims for damages and injunctive relief.
Even if Pacleb's individual claims were otherwise fully satisfied,
he could continue to seek class certification under Pitts.

Plaintiffs are represented by F. Paul Bland, Jr., Esq. --
pbland@publicjustice.net -- and Claire Prestel, Esq. --
cprestel@publicjustice.net -- PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C., Joshua B.
Swigart, Esq. -- josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- HYDE & SWIGART

          - and -

     Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
     KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
     245 Fischer Ave,
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Tel: (949)612-9999

Allstate Insurance Company is represented by Mark J. Levin, Esq.
-- levinmj@ballardspahr.com -- Daniel M. Benjamin, Esq. --
Benjamin@ballardspahr.com -- and Scott M. Pearson, Esq. --
pearsonj@ballardspahr.com -- BALLARD SPAHR LLP


AMERICAN EAGLE: Has Sent Unsolicited Messages, "Bricco" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laree Bricco, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-
00505-CNC (E.D. Wis., April 27, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited text messages to
telephones of consumers nationwide.

American Eagle Outfitters, Inc. is an international clothing
retailer with more than 1,000 retail stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey M. Salas, Esq.
      SALAS WANG LLC
      155 N. Wacker, Suite 4250
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312)803-4963
      Facsimile: (312) 244-3151
      E-mail: jsalas@salaswang.com

         - and -

      Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
      Alexis Wood, Esq.
      Kas Gallucci, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
      651 Arroyo Drive
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Telephone: (619) 696-9006
      Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
      E-mail: admin@consumersadvocates.com


ASHLEY FURNITURE: Faces "Razo" Class Suit in C. Dist. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Ashley Furniture
Industries, Inc., Ashley Homestores, Ltd., and Does 1 through 100,
inclusive.

The case is captioned Nicholas Razo and Kathleen Koehn, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Ashley Furniture
Industries, Inc., Ashley Homestores, Ltd., and Does 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 2:16-cv-02911 (C.D. Cal., April 27, 2016).

The Defendants own and operate a home furnishing retail company
headquartered in Arcadia, Wisconsin.

Nicholas Razo and Kathleen Koehn are pro se plaintiffs.


ASTRAZENECA: Del. High Court Affirms Dismissal of Nexium Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Collins J. Seitz, Jr. of the Delaware Supreme Court
affirmed the Superior Court's dismissal of the action with
prejudice in the case captioned, TEAMSTERS LOCAL 237 WELFARE FUND;
LOCAL 237 TEAMSTERS RETIREES' BENEFIT FUND; LOCAL 237 TEAMSTERS-
PLAINVIEW-OLD BETHPAGE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT HEALTH AND WELFARE
TRUST FUND; LOCAL 237 TEAMSTERS-NORTH BABYLON SCHOOL DISTRICT
HEALTH AND WELFARE TRUST FUND; LOCAL 237 TEAMSTERS-BRENTWOOD
SCHOOL DISTRICT HEALTH AND WELFARETRUST FUND; AND LOCAL 237
TEAMSTERS-SUFFOLK REGIONAL OFF-TRACK BETTING CORPORATION HEALTH
AND WELFARE TRUST FUND, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, v. ASTRAZENECA
PHARMACEUTICALS LP; AND ZENECA, INC., Defendants Below, Appellees,
Case No. 415, 2015 (Del.).

At issue are claims brought by the New York-based third party
payor health insurers (TPPs) under various state consumer fraud
laws against AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, and Zeneca Inc.
(AstraZeneca). The TPPs allege that AstraZeneca falsely advertised
its more expensive patented prescription drug Nexium as superior
to the less expensive generic drug Prilosec, causing the TPPs to
overpay for Nexium when generic Prilosec would have sufficed to
treat their conditions.

After conducting an extensive choice of law analysis, the Superior
Court determined that New York law controlled the TPPs' claims.
The court then held that the TPPs failed to state a claim under
New York's consumer fraud statute for failure to allege legally
sufficient causation. According to the Superior Court, a
physician's expertise in prescribing drugs for a patient's
condition broke the causation chain between the advertising and
the injury. The Superior Court denied leave to amend and dismissed
the action with prejudice.

On appeal, the TPPs claim that Delaware law, not New York law,
should govern their claims because Delaware has a closer
connection to the claims. They also  argued that the Superior
Court erred in its causation analysis because the physician's
decision to prescribe the higher-priced Nexium based on the
allegedly false advertising, when lower-priced Prilosec supposedly
would do, directly injured them by forcing them to pay higher
prescription drug costs.

In the Decision dated April 12, 2016, available at
http://is.gd/jIV7UBfrom Leagle.com, Justice Seitz found that
either state consumer fraud statute the TPPs cannot recover
damages as a matter of law. Before recovering damages, both
statutes require that the TPPs must be a victim of, or be injured
by reason of or as a result of the allegedly false advertising.
The TPPs cannot meet this standard of causation because any injury
they suffered was self-inflicted.

Teamsters Local 237 Welfare Fund is represented by Uriel
Rabinovitz, Esq. -- urabinovitz@lowey.com -- Barbara J. Hart, Esq.
-- bhart@lowey.com  -- and  Scott V. Papp, Esq. -- spapp@lowey.com
-- LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, P.C., Pamela S. Tikellis, Esq. -
- PamelaTikellis@chimicles.com -- A. Zachary Naylor, Esq. --
ZN@chimicles.com -- and Tiffany J. Cramer, Esq. --
TiffanyCramer@chimicles.com -- CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP, L.
Kendall Satterfield, Esq. -- ksatterfield@finkelsteinthompson.com
-- FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP, Robert S. Schachter, Esq. --
rschachter@zsz.com  -- and  Dan Drachler, Esq. --
ddrachler@zsz.com -- ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP, Jeffrey
L. Kodroff, Esq. -- jkodroff@srkw-law.com -- SPECTOR ROSEMAN
KODROFF & WILLIS, PC

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP is represented by Michael P. Kelly,
Esq. -- mkelly@mccarter.com -- and Daniel M. Silver, Esq. --
dsilver@mccarter.com -- MCCARTER & ENGLISH LLP, Jack B. Jacobs,
Esq. -- jack.jacobs@sidley.com -- Mark E. Haddad, Esq. --
mhaddad@sidley.com -- Joshua E. Anderson, Esq. --
janderson@sidley.com  -- and  David R. Carpenter, Esq. --
drcarpenter@sidley.com -- SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP


BAKERY EXPRESS: Recalls 7-Eleven Fresh Cookies Due to Peanuts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bakery Express of Central FL., Inc. of Orlando, Florida is
recalling select 7-ELEVEN FRESH TO GO cookies, because they may
contain undeclared peanuts. People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to peanuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume these products.
The select 7-ELEVEN FRESH TO GO Cookies were distributed to 7-
Eleven convenience stores in the state of Florida.

The affected cookies are packed in a clear package film, 2 cookies
per package, labeled "Fresh To Go" and have "best buy" date codes
Friday, 04/22/16, Saturday, 04/23/16, Sunday, 04/24/16 on the
front label.

7-Eleven Fresh To Go Sugar Cookie made with M&M chocolate candy,
UPC: 052548558765

   Product Description       Lot Code      Best By Dates
   -------------------       --------      -------------
   2 pack cookies            041916        4/24/16
                             042016        4/24/16
                             012116        4/24/16

7-Eleven Fresh To Go Peanut Butter Cookie, UPC: 052548585570

   Product Description       Lot Code      Best By Dates
   -------------------       --------      -------------
   2 pack cookies            041916        4/24/16
                             042016        4/24/16
                             042116        4/24/16

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after one of our suppliers, CSM Bakery
Solutions, reported that three different pre-bagged dry cookie mix
bases may contain undeclared peanuts. These potentially
contaminated cookie bases were used in production and distributed
in packaging that did not reveal the presence of peanuts. The
company and the ingredient supplier continue their investigation
to determine the cause of the problem.

Consumers who have purchased the above "best buy" date codes of
the affected cookies are urged to return them to the place of
purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact
the company at 1-800-255-0711 Monday - Friday, 8am - 5pm EDT

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


BASIC RESEARCH: Court Won't Amend March 31 Order in "Brady" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein denied the defendant's motion seeking
amendment of the district court's March 31, 2016 order in the case
captioned ASHLEY BRADY and STEPHANIE DALLI CARDILLO, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BASIC
RESEARCH, L.L.C., ZOLLER LABORATORIES, L.L.C., NICOLE E. POLIZZI
a/k/a SNOOKI, DENNIS W. GAY, DANIEL B. MOWREY, and MITCHELL K.
FRIEDLANDER, Defendants, No. 13-CV-7169(SJF)(ARL) (E.D.N.Y.).

On March 31, 2016, the district court issued an Order denying the
motion of defendants Basic Research, L.L.C., Zoller Laboratories,
L.L.C., Dennis W. Gay, Mitchell K. Friedlander, and Nicole E.
Polizzi to dismiss Ashley Brady's and Stephanie Dalli Cardillo's
first amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on
the basis of an unaccepted offer of judgment made pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68.

On April 7, 2016, the defendants filed a motion requesting that
the court amend its March 31, 2016 Order so as to certify for
interlocutory appeal the question of whether class action
defendants in the Second Circuit may moot a putative class action
before a plaintiff has had the opportunity to file a class
certification motion by placing an amount of money sufficient to
cover "all of the relief [plaintiff] could possibly obtain" in a
trust account and requesting the district court to enter judgment
against defendants over plaintiff's objection.

A full-text copy of Judge Feuerstein's May 2, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/w4I9SUfrom Leagle.com.

Ashley Brady, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Ignatius Marchese -
- jmarchese@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Neal J Deckant --
ndeckant@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Scott A. Bursor --
scott@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Yitzchak Kopel --
ykopel@bursor.com --  Bursor & Fisher P.A. & Shane T. Rowley --
srowley@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP.

Stephanie Dalli Cardillo, Plaintiff, represented by Shane T.
Rowley, Levi & Korsinsky LLP & Joseph Ignatius Marchese, Bursor &
Fisher, P.A..

Basic Research, L.L.C., Zoller Laboratories, L.L.C., Dennis W.
Gay, Daniel B. Mowrey, Mitchell K. Friedlander, Defendants,
represented by Daniel Adam Schnapp -- dschnapp@foxrothschild.com -
- Fox Rothschild LLP, Gerald Arth -- garth@foxrothschild.com --
Fox Rothschild LLP, Jason Kerr, Price Parkinson & Kerr, PLLC,
Ronald F. Price, Price Parkinson & Kerr, PLLC,Ryan Becker --
rbecker@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild LLP & Stephanie
Resnick -- sresnick@foxrothschild.com -- Fox, Rothchild, O'Brien &
Frankel, LLP.

Nicole E. Polizzi, Defendant, represented by Henninger Simons
Bullock -- hbullock@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP,
Jason Kerr, Price Parkinson & Kerr, PLLC & Ronald F. Price, Price
Parkinson & Kerr, PLLC.


BELK INC: Certification of Sales Team Managers Class Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled Hope Halleen and Donna
Maner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Belk, Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-00055-RC (E.D. Tex.), ask the
Court to conditionally certify the collective action and to
approve and facilitate notice to similarly situated employees.

The Plaintiffs alleges that Belk, Inc., misclassifies its Sales
Team Managers as exempt and fails to pay them overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 per week, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, even though STMs spend
the majority of their workdays performing non-exempt, retail clerk
duties such as: cashiering; basic customer service; returns;
stocking; inventory; cleaning; folding, tagging and hanging
clothes; and operational/clerical duties.

Through this Motion, the Plaintiffs, who worked in at least 13
different store locations in five different states, seek to
protect the rights of hundreds of STMs across the country.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9tMbQpHY

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alan L. Quiles, Esq.
          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Paolo C. Meireles, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          1515 S. Federal Hwy., Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: aquiles@shavitzlaw.com
                  gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                  pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Marc S. Hepworth, Esq.
          Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
          David A. Roth, Esq.
          Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq.
          HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
          192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-1199
          Facsimile: (212) 532-3801
          E-mail: mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com
                  cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com
                  david.roth@rothandrothlaw.com
                  rpredovan@hgrlawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John B. Brown, Esq.
          Britney Dieng, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          Preston Commons West 8117 Preston Road, Suite 500
          Dallas, TX 75225
          Telephone: (214) 987-3800
          Facsimile: (214) 987-3927
          E-mail: john.brown@ogletreedeakins.com
                  britney.dieng@ogletreedeakins.com


BIMBO BAKERIES: Ninth Circuit Stays Mislabeling Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandra Steinberg Laks, Esq. -- alaks@mofo.com -- of Morrison &
Foerster LLP, in an article for JSupra Business Advisor, reports
that we've recently reported on numerous district court -- and
even Ninth Circuit --stays in false advertising actions.  Many of
these stays have been based on FDA's consideration of food
labeling issues, such as those involving evaporated cane juice
(ECJ), the term "natural" or the presence of partially
hydrogenated oils (PHOs) in food products.  But courts have also
stayed cases pending the Ninth Circuit's review of class
certification decisions in misbranding cases, finding that
appellate guidance will aid in courts' consideration of these
issues.

Now, a mislabeling action against Bimbo Bakeries has been stayed
on the latter ground:  Ang v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., No. 13-cv-
01196-HSG (N.D. Cal. March 31, 2016) (Dkt. No. 161) ("Order").
Bimbo is at least the sixteenth Northern District decision to put
mislabeling claims on hold pending the Ninth Circuit's review.

What's on the Ninth Circuit's Docket? In the upcoming year, the
Ninth Circuit will review a number of the misbranding cases that
have flooded this Circuit.  The two key class action cases where
district courts are awaiting guidance, however, are:  Jones v.
ConAgra Foods, Inc., No. 14-16327 (9th Cir. Nov. 24, 2014), which
addresses the ascertainability requirement, and Brazil v. Dole
Packaged Foods, LLC, No. 14-17480 (9th Cir. Dec. 18, 2014), which
addresses the proper standard for damages models under Comcast
Corp. v. Behrend.  Brazil, which was dismissed on summary
judgment, also raises issues regarding required proof of consumer
deception as well as reliance and materiality requirements for
claims sounding in fraud.[1]

Judge Puts Bimbo Bakeries Action on Hold. On March 25, 2016,
Northern District of California Judge Haywood Gilliam issued an
order to show cause why plaintiffs' mislabeling action against
Bimbo Bakeries should not be stayed pending resolution of these
two appeals.  In doing so, he noted that several courts in the
District have stayed cases in light of the pending appeals in
Jones and Brazil.  The parties submitted a joint statement in
response, indicating that neither opposed the stay.

After analyzing factors courts use in considering stays, Judge
Gilliam concluded that a stay was warranted.  Because both parties
agreed to the stay, neither would be harmed.  Most importantly,
"it would be an inefficient and imprudent use of judicial
resources to rule on the pending motion for class certification
when the Ninth Circuit may offer 'substantial guidance, if not new
law, that will materially impact the Court's discussion in the
instant case.'"  (Order at 2:10-14 (citation omitted).) The court
accordingly stayed the entire action pending the Jones and Brazil
appeals.

"Food Court" Is Quiet. Bimbo and other district court stays of
misbranding actions have caused the Northern District, previously
dubbed the "food court," to be relatively quiet on the false
advertising front, at least for now.

[1] Both the Brazil and Jones appeals will be heard together along
with another food misbranding class certification decision,
Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., No. 15-55727.  Briseno also
involves ascertainability and classwide damages issues.


BRSB&G: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Jurado" Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tyvonne T. Jurado, as an individual and on behalf of the State of
California and all Aggrieved Employees v. BRSB&G at The Grove,
LLC, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC618659 (Cal.
Super. Ct., April 27, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to provide proper meal periods without compensation of
premium wages set out in California Labor Code.

BRSB&G at The Grove, LLC operates a restaurant specializing in
Japanese food in California and nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward W. Choi, Esq.
      Paul M. Yi, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES
      A Professional Corporation
      3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2400
      Los Angeles, CA 90010-2006
      Telephone: (213) 381-1515
      Facsimile: (213) 465-4885
      E-mail: Edward.Choi@Choiandassociates.com


BULLFRONG PEST: Faces "Guzman" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ivan Guzman, on behalf of all others similarly-situated v.
Bullfrong Pest Management, Inc. d/b/a AA quality Pest Control and
George A. Rose, Case No. 0:16-cv-02089 (E.D.N.Y., April 27, 2016),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants is a New-York based extermination and pest-control
service company located at 2 Roosevelt Ave., Syosset, New York
11791.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Caitlin McNaughton, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES P.L.L.C.
      1010 Northern Blvd, Suite 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: cm@employmentlawyernewyork.com


CALLSMART INC: Dolemba Seeks Certification of TCPA & ICFA Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled SCOTT DOLEMBA, on behalf of
plaintiff and the class defined below v. CALLSMART, INC., Case No.
1:16-cv-04863 (N.D. Ill.) asks the Court to enter an order
determining that the action may proceed as a class action against
Callsmart.  The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

The Plaintiff brings Count I, the TCPA claim, on behalf of a
class, consisting (a) all persons (b) who, on or after a date four
years prior to the filing of this action, and on or before a date
20 days following the filing of this action, (c) received calls
from the Defendant on their cell phones, (d) placed using an
automated dialer or a prerecorded or artificial voice.

The Plaintiff brings Count II, the ICFA claim, on behalf of a
class, consisting of (a) all persons with phone numbers in the
Illinois area codes (b) who, on or after a date three years prior
to the filing of this action, and on or before a date 20 days
following the filing of this action, (c) received calls from
defendant on their cell phones, (d) placed using an automated
dialer or a prerecorded or artificial voice.

Mr. Dolemba further requests that Edelman, Combs, Latturner &
Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the classes.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UdY30uan

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Dulizaza (Julie) Clark, Esq.
          Michelle A. Alyea, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379


CASCADE DESIGNS: Recalls Avalanche Rescue Probes
------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Cascade Designs Inc., of Seattle, Wash., announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,600 Avalanche rescue probes in the U.S. (in
addition, about 230 were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The lock button on the probe can fail to engage and lock, causing
the probe not to function as intended. This can interfere with
finding someone buried beneath snow, posing a suffocation hazard.

This recall involves Mountain Safety Research Striker(TM) 320,
Striker(TM) 240 avalanche rescue probes. The probe is divided into
six or eight sections of 18-inch aluminum shafts that lock into
place to create a single 94-inch or 126-inch probe, depending on
the model. The probe is used by searchers to help identify
something or someone buried by snow after an avalanche. "Striker
320" is printed on the red and gray probe and "Striker 240" is
printed on the yellow and gray probe. "MSR" is printed on the
shaft.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in Korea and sold at REI
and other outdoor recreation stores nationwide and online at
Amazon.com and other websites from September 2014 through January
2016 for between $60 and $70.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled probes and
call Cascade Designs for instructions on receiving a refund or
free replacement probe.


CASHLESS PAYMENTS: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid Continued to May 17
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on May 3, 2016, in the case entitled
Able Home Health, LLC v. Cashless Payments, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:16-cv-04461 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan.

The minute entry states that:

   -- the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is entered
      and continued to May 17, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.;

   -- the Plaintiff's motion to continue the Plaintiff's class
      motion is stricken as moot;

   -- initial status hearing is set for May 17, 2016, at
      9:00 a.m.;

   -- at least four working days before the initial status
      hearing, the parties shall conduct a FRCP 26(f) conference
      and file a joint written Initial Status Report, not to
      exceed five pages in length, and file the Court's Joint
      Jurisdictional Status Report and deliver courtesy copies to
      this Court's Courtroom Deputy in Room 1908; and

   -- the Court's standing orders on the Initial Status Report
      and Joint Jurisdictional Status Report may be obtained from
      Judge Der-Yeghiayan's Web page or from this Court's
      Courtroom Deputy.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Uq4emTks


CAVIAR INC: Court Tosses "Levin" Wage and Hour Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. LaPorte dismissed the putative wage
and hour class action, JEFFRY LEVIN, Plaintiff, v. CAVIAR, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-01285-EDL (N.D. Cal.).

The case was brought by restaurant delivery drivers against
Defendant Caviar, Inc. The Court previously granted a motion to
compel arbitration of Plaintiff's individual claims, held that the
class action waiver was enforceable but the California Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004, Cal. Lab.Code, Sec. 2698 et seq.
waiver was not, and ultimately ordered the parties to arbitrate
the issue of the arbitrability of the PAGA claims.  The Court
stayed the case pending the arbitrator's decision on the question
of whether Plaintiff's PAGA claim is arbitrable.

On March 24, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal
with prejudice of Plaintiff's PAGA claims because they have agreed
that another Caviar courier will pursue these claims in
arbitration.  The parties did not ask the Court to either stay or
dismiss the remainder of the case.

On March 29, 2016, the Court notified the parties that it was
inclined to dismiss the entire case with prejudice and that any
party who objected to dismissal of the case, or objected to
dismissal with prejudice as opposed to without prejudice was
required to file a brief of no more than three pages within one
week of the date of the Court's order explaining the reason for
the objection.  No objections were received.

A copy of the Court's May 2, 2016 Order is available at
http://is.gd/umYpgNfrom Leagle.com.

Jeffry Levin, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew David Carlson --
mcarlson@carlsonlegalservices.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.,
Shannon Liss-Riordan -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-
Riordan, P.C., pro hac vice & Adelaide Pagano --
apagano@llrlaw.com -- Lichten and Liss-Riordan, P.C., pro hac
vice.

Caviar, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert James Slaughter --
rslaughter@kvn.com -- Keker & Van Nest LLP, Ashok Ramani --
aramani@kvn.com -- Keker & Van Nest, LLP, Erin E. Meyer --
emeyer@kvn.com -- Keker and Van Nest LLP & Simona Alessandra
Agnolucci -- sagnolucci@kvn.com -- Keker & Van Nest LLP.


CAYAN LLC: Must Defend Against South Orange Chiropractic Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Patti B. Saris of the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts denied Defendant's Rule
12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss the class action and to strike the
class action allegations in the case captioned, SOUTH ORANGE
CHIROPRACTIC CENTER, LLC, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CAYAN LLC d/b/a CAPITAL
BANKCARD, Defendant, Case No. 15-13069-PBS (D. Mass.).

Plaintiff South Orange Chiropractic Center, LLC (South Orange),
received the fax from Defendant Cayan LLC, doing business as
Capital Bankcard (Capital Bankcard), promoting various merchant
services. Soon afterwards, on August 3, 2015, South Orange filed a
proposed class action with itself as class representative.
Plaintiff immediately filed a motion to certify a class defined to
include "all persons or entities within the United States to whom
Capital Bankcard sent Junk Faxes promoting Capital Bankcard's
goods or services at any time within four years prior to the
filing of this Complaint through the date of certification in this
action." The complaint seeks injunctive relief and statutory
damages.

On December 18, 2015, Defendant served Plaintiff with an offer of
judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 and a
stand-alone settlement offer. Defendant offered (1) to have
judgment entered against it; (2) to pay $7,500 to Plaintiff, an
amount in excess of the TCPA's statutory maximum of $1,500 per
unsolicited fax; (3) to pay for any costs recoverable in the case;
(4) to be enjoined from using any fax machine, computer, or other
device to send unsolicited fax advertisements in violation of the
TCPA to Plaintiff or any other entity; and (5) to preserve
evidence. Defendant tendered a bank check in the amount of $7,500
with its offer and asserts that its settlement offer remains open.
Plaintiff has rejected Defendant's offer of judgment and
settlement offer, and has refused to accept the check Defendant
offered.

Defendant moved to dismiss and to strike class allegations arguing
that Plaintiff's individual claims are now moot and, therefore,
Plaintiff can no longer serve as a class representative. On
February 4, 2016, Defendant requested that it be allowed to
deposit the $7,500 with the Court in the event that the bank check
that it tendered is deemed insufficient to provide the named
plaintiff with complete relief.

In her Memorandum and Order dated April 12, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/WMcDg3from Leagle.com, Judge Saris held that even
though Plaintiff's individual claims have become moot, the class
action may proceed as a case or controversy under Article III. The
named plaintiff no longer has the requisite "live claim" because
Defendant has offered to deposit a check with the court, to
satisfy all of Plaintiff's individual claims, and to have the
district court enter judgment in Plaintiff's favor.

The Clerk of Court accepts the $7,500 check Defendant has
requested be deposited and directed the parties to confer and
inform the Court whether interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1292(b) is appropriate within two weeks of the issuance of the
order.

South Orange Chiropractic Center, LLC is represented by:

     Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
     Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
     Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
     BRODERICK LAW PC
     125 Summer St # 1030
     Boston, MA 02110
     Tel: (617) 738-7080

Cayan LLC is represented by Christine M. Reilly, Esq. --
creilly@manatt.com -- Diana L. Eisner, Esq. -- deisner@manatt.com
-- and Matthew P. Kanny, Esq. -- mkanny@manatt.com -- at MANATT,
PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP, Peter E. Ball, Esq. -- peb@sally-fitch.com
-- and Ryan M. Cunningham, Esq. -- rmc@sally-fitch.com -- SALLY &
FITCH LLP

          - and -

     Harry M. Haytayan, Jr., Esq.
     HAYTAYAN & HAYTAYAN, PLLC,
     One Tara Blvd Ste 200
     Nashua, NH 03060


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Conn. Court Tosses TCPA Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
David M. Krueger, Esq. -- dkrueger@beneschlaw.com -- of Benesch
Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP, in an article for Lexology,
reports that in Simmons v. Charter Communs., Inc., No. 15-cv-317,
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42091 (D. Conn. March 30, 2016), the
District of Connecticut granted summary judgment in favor of
Charter Communications in a putative class action alleging
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C.
Sec. 227 ("TCPA").  Simmons alleged that Charter violated the TCPA
by contacting him four times over a two week period, despite the
fact that his telephone number was registered on the national do-
not-call registry. Simmons sought to represent a class of
similarly situated persons.

The underlying facts in Simmons are detailed, but two holdings of
the district court are of particular significance.  First, the
court held that Charter was entitled to summary judgment under the
"safe harbor" of 47 C.F.R. Sec. 64.1200(c), because Charter called
Simmons by accident (because it reasonably, though erroneously,
believed that it was contacting an existing customer), and Charter
had otherwise established reasonable policies and procedures to
avoid calling individuals on the
do-not-call registry.

Second, Simmons also alleged that he instructed Charter not to
call him anymore during one of the calls, but that Charter still
called him after making this do-not-call request.  Simmons alleged
that Charter's conduct violated 47 C.F.R. Sec. 64.1200(d)(3),
which requires telemarketers to record and honor a consumer's
specific do-not-call request made to a company. The district
court, however, rejected this argument, noting that subsection
(d)(3) only required that a telemarketer honor a do not call
request "within a reasonable time from the date such request was
made," not to exceed 30 days.  Charter honored the plaintiff's
request within two weeks, which the court held was reasonable as a
matter of law, as it was "half the period deemed by the regulation
to be the outer limits of reasonableness."


CHICAGO: Faces "Badillo" Class Suit in N. Dist. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against City of Chicago.

The case is captioned Natalie Badillo and Marina Pulido, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. City of
Chicago, Case No. 1:16-cv-04707 (N.D. Ill., April 27, 2016).

The city of Chicago is an Illinois municipal corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Katrina Carroll, Esq.
      Kyle Alan Shamberg, Esq.
      Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC
      211 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 500
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 750-1591
      Facsimile: (973) 877-3845
      E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
              kshamberg@litedepalma.com


CHURCH & DWIGHT: Sued in N.Y. Over Truth-In-Lending Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vincent Riedel and Yang Shen, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Church & Dwight Co., Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-
02093 (E.D.N.Y., April 27, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Truth-In-Lending Act.

Church & Dwight Co., Inc. is a manufacturer of household products
that is based in Ewing, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1188
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


CODILIS & ASSOC: "Gierke" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Robert W. Gettleman entered a memorandum opinion and
order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss the putative
class action lawsuit captioned JUSTIN GIERKE, on behalf of
plaintiff and a class v. CODILIS AND ASSOCIATES, P.C., Case No. 15
C 11618 (N.D. Ill.).

Mr. Gierke filed a one-count putative class action complaint
against defendant Codilis alleging that it violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.  The Defendant filed the motion to
dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

In his complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, a law
firm, has been attempting to collect from him a loan, secured by
his home, that is insured by the Federal Housing Authority.  He
also alleges that the Defendant filed a foreclosure action against
him in DuPage County, Illinois, on February 17, 2015.  He argues
that the FHA "narrowly limits the circumstances under which a
deficiency will be sought to cases where the borrower committed
fraud or engaged in a 'strategic' default."  According to the
complaint, the "FHA does not authorize deficiencies where, as
here, the Plaintiff suffered a financial emergency or hardship."

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's complaint should be
dismissed for failure to state a claim because it "did not make a
false or misleading representation under Section 1692e of the
FDCPA in the foreclosure complaint as the foreclosure plaintiff at
all relevant times retained the right to seek a personal
deficiency from Plaintiff based upon the plain language of the FHA
regulations."

According to the Defendant, and the Court agrees, the fact that
the FHA ultimately may not authorize a deficiency judgment, does
not make the allegations in the foreclosure complaint false or
misleading.

A copy of the Memorandum is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Bme86xia

Justin Gierke, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
     James O. Latturner, Esq.
     Michelle A. Alyea, Esq.
     Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
     Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC
     20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Tel: 312-739-4200
     Fax: 312-419-0379

          - and -

     Christopher Davis Kruger, Esq.
     Werner Wolfgang Gruber, Esq.
     Kruger & Gruber, LLP
     500 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 600
     Chicago, IL 60611
     Tel: (847) 420-1763
     Fax: (847) 733-0135
     E-mail: chris@krugerandgruber.com
             werner@krugerandgruber.com

Codilis & Associates, P.C., Defendant, represented by David M
Schultz -- dschultz@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson & Jason
L Santos -- jsantos@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP.


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: "Dean" Plaintiff Seeks Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled JACQUELINE DEAN, on Behalf of
Herself and all Others Similarly Situated v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE
CO., Case No. Case No. 5:15-CV-00107-JGB(DTBx), notifies the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California that, on
September 12, 2016, she will move for an order certifying a class
defined as:

     All persons in California, Delaware, the District of
     Columbia, Kansas, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Utah, Virginia
     and West Virginia who purchased Optic White on or after
     October 1, 2013, or who purchased Optic White Platinum on or
     after February 1, 2014.

A copy of the Notice is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nMrifP3l

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
          Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          E-mail: srowley@zlk.com
                  cmaccarone@zlk.com


               - and -

          Christopher Marlborough, Esq.
          THE MARLBOROUGH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          445 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 400
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (212) 991-8960
          E-mail: chris@marlboroughlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Todd S. Garber, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          1311 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 220
          White Plains, NY 10605
          Telephone: (914) 298-3283
          E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com


COOK MEDICAL: Recalls Catheters with Beacon(R) Tip Technology
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cook Medical initiated a voluntary recall of 4,146,309 catheters
with Beacon(R) Tip technology. Catheters with Beacon Tip
technology have been found to exhibit polymer degradation of the
catheter tip, resulting in tip fracture and/or separation, which
have resulted in 30 Medical Device Reports to date.
Potential adverse events that may occur as a result of catheter
polymer degradation could include loss of device function,
separation of a device segment leading to medical intervention, or
complications resulting from a separated segment. Such
complications include device fragments in the vascular system,
genitourinary system, or other soft tissues. Fragments within the
vascular system could result in embolization to the heart or
lungs, or occluding blood flow to end organs.

Cook Medical has notified its customers and distributors by recall
notification letters. The letters requested that all customers and
distributors quarantine and discontinue use of all potentially
affected units and return the affected product to Cook as soon as
possible for credit.

Catheters with Beacon Tip technology are intended for use by
physicians who are trained and experienced in each of the
procedures for which these devices are indicated for use.

  Product Family            Intended Use
  --------------            ------------
  Beacon(R) Tip Torcon      The catheters are intended for use in
  NB(R) Advantage Catheter  the peripheral and coronary vascular
                            system including the carotid arteries
                            in angiographic procedures by
                            physicians trained and experienced in
                            angiographic techniques. Standard
                            techniques for placement of vascular
                            access sheaths, angiographic
                            catheters and wire guides should be
                            employed.

  Beacon(R) Tip Royal       The catheters are intended for use in
  Flush(R) Plus High-Flow   angiographic procedures by physicians
  Catheter                  trained and experienced in
  Beacon(R) Tip Centimeter  angiographic techniques. Standard
  Sizing Catheter           techniques for placement of vascular
  Beacon(R) Tip White       access sheaths, angiographic
  Vessel Sizing Catheter    catheters and wire guides should be
  Beacon(R) Tip Vessel      employed.
  Sizing Catheter

  Shuttle(R) Select          The catheters are intended for use
  Slip-Cath                 in angiographic procedures by
  Slip-Cath(R) Beacon(R)    physicians trained and experienced in
  Tip Catheter              angiographic techniques.

  FluoroSet(R)              Used for instillation of contrast
  Radiographic Tubal        media into the uterine cavity for
  Assessment Set            radiographic evaluation of the
                            uterine cavity and for injection of
                            appropriate contrast media into the
                            fallopian tubes for evaluation of
                            tubal patency.

  Haskal Transjugular       Intended for transjugular liver
  Intrahepatic Portal       access in diagnostic and
  Access Set                interventional procedures.

  Kumpe Access Catheter     Used in combination with a HiWire(R),
                            Bentson, or other flexible-tipped
                            wire guide to gain difficult ureteral
                            access beyond a redundant or tortuous
                            ureteral segment.
  Liver Access and Biopsy   Intended for use in obtaining liver
  Needle Set                histology samples via a jugular vein
                            approach.
  Neff D'Agostino           Intended for single-puncture
  Percutaneous Access Set   percutaneous access to facilitate
  Aprima(TM) Access         placement of an .038 inch (0.97 mm)
  Nonvascular Introducer    diameter working wire guide for
  Set                       interventional radiology procedures.

  Selective Salpingography  Used for injection of contrast medium
  Catheter with Beacon(R)   into the fallopian tube(s) for
  Tip                       selective salpingography.

  Transluminal Biliary      Intended for access to and biopsy of
  Biopsy Forceps Set        tissue within the biliary ductal
  system.

  White Lumax(R) Guiding    Intended for the delivery of
  Coaxial Catheter          angioplasty balloons and other types
                            of interventional devices.

This recall includes all lots of catheters with the Beacon(R) Tip
technology. A full product listing is attached. Products can be
identified by the part number on the outer package of the product
label. Products in this recall were distributed globally.
Cook Medical identified an increase in reports of polymer
degradation of the catheter tip, resulting in tip fracture and/or
separation. The preliminary investigation into this matter has
identified that environmental conditions, such as storage
temperature, humidity, the use of Vaporized Hydrogen Peroxide
(VHP) for whole-room decontamination within healthcare facilities,
may be contributing to the occurrence. Cook Medical recognizes
that there may be other undetermined contributors to this issue
and will continue to investigate.

The FDA and other regulatory agencies around the world have been
notified of this action.

Consumers with medical questions or concerns should contact Cook
Medical Customer Relations at 1-800-457-4500 or 1-812-339-2235,
Monday through Friday, between 7:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern
time. For information regarding the recall, please contact
Stericycle Expert Solutions at 1-866-201-9067.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.
Complete and submit the report online at
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm or via regular mail or fax.
Download the form at www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-
800-332-1088 to request a reporting form, and then complete and
return to the address on the preaddressed form, or submit by fax
to 1-800-FDA-0178. Adverse events may also be reported to Cook
Medical Customer Relations at 1-800-457-4500 or 1-812-339-2235,
Monday through Friday, between 7:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern
time or by email at CustomerRelationsNA@cookmedical.com.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/gVc4aF


CORNERSTONE HOME: Bingham Seeks Conditional Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled CHRISTINA BINGHAM, On Behalf
of Herself And All Others Similarly Situated v. CORNERSTONE HOME
LENDING, INC., Case No. 4:15-cv-2377 (S.D. Tex.) moves for
approval of notice to potential plaintiffs and conditional
certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The lawsuit is brought individually and on behalf of other
similarly-situated current and former exempt classified mortgage
origination employees, including Loan Officers employed by
Cornerstone Home Lending, Inc.

Ms. Bingham brings this collective action to recover unpaid
overtime wages pursuant to the FLSA because the Defendant
allegedly uniformly misclassifies its mortgage origination
employees, including Loan Officers as exempt from overtime.  She
states that the Defendant employed her as a LO to sell its
mortgage products and services in its office in the Scottsdale,
Arizona area.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=W4X6yGdP

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq.
          ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC
          10601 Mission Rd., Suite 100
          Leawood, KS 66206
          Telephone: (913) 766-5587
          Facsimile: (816) 875-5069
          E-mail: Rowdy.Meeks@RMLegalGroup.com


COSTCO: Faces Class Action Over Organic Berry Cherry Blend
----------------------------------------------------------
Siskinds LLP on April 28 disclosed that it has launched a class
action regarding the recall of Nature's Touch Organic Berry Cherry
Blend due to possible contamination with Hepatitis A.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has issued various public
warnings that certain bags of Nature's Touch Organic Berry Cherry
Blend sold exclusively at Costco warehouse locations in Ontario,
Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador
may be contaminated with Hepatitis A.  The Canadian Food
Inspection Agency states that there have been reported illnesses
associated with the consumption of this product. Further
information about the recall is available on the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency website: www.inspection.gc.ca

Among other things, the plaintiff alleges that Nature's Touch
negligently produced the Organic Berry Cherry Blend, which was
negligently distributed by Costco and seeks to recover on behalf
of purchasers of those products and their family members.
Siskinds LLP acts in a proposed class action for Canadians seeking
compensation for physical injury, medical expenses, lost wages or
employment income, and a refund for the cost of purchasing the
recalled product. Siskinds LLP continues to investigate the case.

Consumers who purchased the recalled Berry Cherry blend should
retain copies of related receipts.  Consumers who believe they
might have consumed Nature's Touch Organic Berry Cherry Blend and
are experiencing physical discomfort (symptoms range in severity
and include fever, loss of appetite, stomach cramps, and jaundice)
should seek medical advice and retain copies of any related
medical reports, prescriptions, etc.

Elizabeth deBoer - elizabeth.deboer@siskinds.com -- a lawyer with
Siskinds LLP, describes the purpose of the proceeding: "Canadian
consumers have a right to trust that the food they purchase is of
the quality and standard they expect, such that it is safe for
consumption and will not pose a health risk.  This lawsuit seeks
to protect that right."

Siskinds LLP have been counsel in many product liability and other
class actions, recovering millions of dollars for consumers.


CRACKER BARREL: Persons w/ Mobility Disabilities Class Certified
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Mark R. Hornak entered an order in the lawsuit captioned
SARAH HEINZL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CRACKER BARREL OLD COUNTRY STORE, INC., Case No. 2:14-
cv-01455-MRH-RCM (W.D. Pa.):

   -- denying the Defendant's motion for summary judgment;

   -- granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify class.  The
      following class is certified:

      All persons with qualified mobility disabilities who were
      denied the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,
      facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations of any
      Cracker Barrel store location in the United States on the
      basis of disability because such persons encountered
      accessibility barriers due to Cracker Barrel's failure to
      comply with the ADA's accessible parking and path of travel
      requirements; and

   -- appointing Sarah Heinzl as the representative Plaintiff for
      this Class and that the law firm of Carlson Lynch Sweet &
      Kilpela, LLP is appointed as counsel for the Class.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=hYNxV8kM


CRAVE RESTAURANT: Tipped Employees Seek Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled JULIE ULLETT and SARAH
RUSSELL, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals v. CRAVE RESTAURANT OHIO, LLC, d/b/a CRAVE-American
Kitchen and Sushi Bar, Case No. 1:16-cv-00272-MRB (S.D. Ohio),
move, pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
for entry of an order:

   (1) conditionally certifying the proposed collective FLSA
       class as defined herein;

   (2) implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
       Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-mail)
       to:

       All individuals employed by Defendant in its Ohio
       restaurants as servers, waiters, waitresses, bartenders,
       server trainers, banquet servers and banquet captains and
       other tipped employees at anytime from January 28, 2013
       through and including the present; and

   (3) requiring the Defendant to, within 14 days of this Court's
       order, identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by
       providing a list in electronic and importable format, of
       the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of all
       potential opt-in plaintiffs, who worked for Defendant in
       Ohio at any time from approximately January 28, 2013,
       through and including the present and until the final
       resolution of the case.

The Plaintiffs, who are tipped employees of Crave, allege that
throughout their employment, Crave paid them at a reduced minimum
wage rate while attempting to utilize a tip credit to satisfy its
obligation of paying the federally established minimum wage.  They
also allege that it was also Crave's common business practice to
require its Servers to participate in an illegal tip pool
maintained and administered by the Defendant's management
employees, in which servers were required to remit 5% of their
total sushi sales to nontipped employees, including a management
employee.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Bg8lAex3

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


CSM BAKERY: Recalls Cinnabon Stix Products Due to Peanut
--------------------------------------------------------
Bakery supplier, CSM Bakery Solutions, has notified Cinnabon of
the recall of Cinnabon Stix due to the possible presence of peanut
allergens in an ingredient used in Cinnabon Stix. The Cinnabon
Stix are sold in bakery cups, bags, or boxes, and may have been
distributed to Cinnabon retail locations throughout the U.S. and
internationally.

Although the nutritional and allergen information currently
indicates that Cinnabon products may contain milk, eggs, wheat,
soy, peanuts, pecans, other tree nuts or traces of nuts, Cinnabon
is taking extra measures knowing that peanut allergens have been
detected in the ingredients for the Cinnabon Stix. People who have
an allergy or severe sensitivity to specific types of allergens,
such as peanuts, run the risk of serious life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume these products. Cinnabon is not aware of
any complaints or illnesses at this time.

Effective immediately, all Cinnabon bakeries are discontinuing the
sale of Cinnabon Stix until CSM has confirmed that the potential
source of peanut allergens has been contained and eliminated.
Anyone who has purchased Cinnabon Stix is encouraged to discard
them if there is possible exposure to anyone with a peanut
allergy.

Founded in Seattle in 1985 and now based in Atlanta, Cinnabon LLC,
is the market leader among cinnamon roll bakeries. The company
serves fresh, aromatic, oven-hot cinnamon rolls, as well as a
variety of other baked goods and specialty beverages. Cinnabon(R)
currently operates over 1,200 franchised locations worldwide,
primarily in high traffic venues such as shopping malls, airports,
train stations, travel plazas, entertainment centers and military
establishments. Cinnabon(R) is also a multi-channel licensor,
partnering with other companies to provide over 70 brand licensed
products at foodservice and retail venues. Visit
www.Cinnabon.comdisclaimer icon for more information, follow on
Twitter @Cinnabon or become a Facebook fan at
www.facebook.com/Cinnabon.

                      About FOCUS Brands Inc.

Atlanta-based FOCUS Brands Inc., through its affiliate brands, is
the franchisor and operator of more than 5,000 ice cream shoppes,
bakeries, restaurants, and cafes in the United States, the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and 60 foreign countries under
the brand names Carvel(R), Cinnabon(R), Schlotzsky's(R), Moe's
Southwest Grill(R), Auntie Anne's(R) and McAlister's Deli(R), as
well as Seattle's Best Coffee(R) on certain military bases and in
certain international markets. Please visit
www.focusbrands.comdisclaimer icon to learn more.


CSM BAKERY: Recalls Red Velvet Cake & Chocolate Chip Cookies
------------------------------------------------------------
CSM Bakery Solutions (Atlanta, GA) is voluntarily recalling the
following products:

  -- Safeway 8" Single Layer Red Velvet Cake
  -- ACME 12" Decorated Chocolate Chip Cookie
  -- Jewel 12" Decorated Chocolate Chip Cookie

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to peanut run the
risk of a serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume these products.

The 8" Single Layer Red Velvet Cake was sold in Safeway stores in
Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico (Farmington and Aztec), South
Dakota, and Nebraska.

The 12" Decorated Chocolate Chip Cookie was sold in Acme stores in
Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New
York and Jewel stores in Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana.

Products listed may contain undeclared peanuts.

Both products are merchandised in the bakery department and can be
identified as follows:

  Product     Description       UPC Code    Lot Code
  Name        (Size)            --------    --------
  -------     of Package
              -----------
  Cake Red    Net Wt. 1lb 3oz   Unit UPC:   Sell Thru: Apr 14, 16
  Velvet 1                      0226945     (April 14, 2016)
  Layer 8"                                  through May 2 16
                                            (May 2, 2016)
  12"         24 oz.            Unit UPC:   Sell Thru: May 02, 16
  Decorated                     4114405568
  Chocolate                     Unit UPC:
  Chip Cookie                   4114457856
                                Unit UPC:
                                4114457855

*latest sell thru date code based upon shelf life.

Scale Label is applied

  Product     Description       UPC Code    Lot Code
  Name        (Size)            --------    --------
  -------     of Package
              -----------
  12"         24 oz.           Unit UPC:    Sell Thru Apr 28, 16
  Decorated                    4114405568
  Chocolate
  Chip Cookie

*latest sell thru date code based upon shelf life.

Scale label is applied

No illnesses have been reported to date.
The recall was initiated after it was discovered by CSM during
post-production testing that flour containing undeclared peanut as
a result of incidental contact was provided by a supplier to CSM
Bakery Solutions. The flour was used in products distributed by
CSM in packaging that did not reveal the presence of peanut.

Consumers and wholesale customers who have purchased the product
are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact CSM Bakery Solutions at 1-
800-241-8526 extension 4, option 3. Calls can be made to this
office during normal business hours (EST) during the week.  Email
inquiries can be sent to CSMrecall@csmbakerysolutions.com.
Consumers can also contact ACME and Jewel at 1-877-723-3929 at any
time.


D'ARCY PLACE: Former Residents to Receive Compensation
------------------------------------------------------
Todd McEwen, writing for Northumberland News, reports that a
$36-million lawsuit was awarded to former residents who were
housed for decades in provincial hospitals where it's claimed they
experienced widespread abuse and neglect, including at a former
Cobourg facility.

The Superior Court of Justice approved the settlement on Monday,
April 25.  It provides individuals who suffered harm while living
at the 12 former developmental services facilities between the
1960s and 1990s a chance to receive financial compensation.

One of the facilities is the former Cobourg developmental
hospital, D'Arcy Place, which operated from 1963 to 1996.

The lawsuit stated the Province of Ontario failed to properly care
for and protect the people who lived in the institutions. The
lawsuit claimed the people who lived there were emotionally,
sexually, physically and psychologically traumatized by their
experiences.

"I'm glad that we were able to reach a fair settlement in this
matter. These individuals were harmed in a place that was intended
to provide them with care, and while we cannot change the past, it
is my hope that this settlement will help these individuals -- and
their families -- to heal," Attorney General Madeleine Meilleur
said.

The lawsuit was filed by Marlene McIntyre, a former resident of
D'Arcy Place who began living there in 1963 when she was 13 years
old. While in operation, D'Arcy Place housed thousands of
residents who were labelled "severely developmentally challenged
and delayed," the lawsuit states.  Individuals were admitted to
D'Arcy Place either by family members or their principal
caregivers.  Once inside, the lawsuit claims, residents lost their
free will and their lives were "dictated, controlled and provided
for" by the Province.

"Individuals at D'Arcy had virtually no control over any aspect of
their lives," the lawsuit claims.  "The opportunities to make
choices and provide any input into their daily lives were
extremely limited if not non-existent."

Ms. McIntyre claims she was repeatedly and continuously abused and
punished, which began upon her initial admission and continued
throughout her duration at the facility.

"Residents were left to aimlessly walk or crawl around the
facilities at times, often without any clothing," according to the
lawsuit, and "were organized into work gangs to perform the
routine and ordinary tasks of running such an institution."

The lawsuit alleges Ms. McIntyre was hit across the head with
wooden and metal spoons, was subject to consistent, demeaning
verbal abuse and her arm was broken by a staff member as
punishment.  The lawsuit claims she found her life at D'Arcy
"terrifying" and for many years watched as her fellow residents
were beaten and humiliated by staff members.

The lawsuit also claims the Province was well aware of the
inadequate resources at D'Arcy Place following a 1971 report
sponsored by the Ministry of Health, entitled "Present
Arrangements of the Care and Supervision of Mentally Retarded
Persons in Ontario".  The report was a scathing indictment of
large institutions for people with mental handicaps.

The report claimed the wards were "severely overcrowded", lacked
"any degree" of personal attention or privacy, a complete
segregation of sexes and residents were paid "minimal and
completely unrealistic wages" for their work, ranging from four
cents to eight cents an hour.

"This is aiming to partially close the loop on Ontario's history
of institutionalization," Jody Brown of Koskie Minsky LLP said,
referring to two similar class-action lawsuits settled in the last
few years.

The first saw about 1,075 former residents of the Huronia Regional
Centre in Orillia settle their lawsuit for $35 million in 2013,
while about 1,700 former residents of the Rideau and Southwestern
Regional Centre settled for $32.7 million.

Between 1977 and 1999, the 12 facilities listed in the lawsuit
closed their doors.  The government decided to shut down
institutions and relocate adults with developmental disabilities
to homes in their community.

"We're building a more inclusive Ontario, where people with
developmental disabilities can live as independently as possible
in their communities," Dr. Helena Jaczek, minister of Community
and Social Services said.

"That's why our government closed the province's last remaining
facilities and transitioned to community supports and services --
a key step in our ongoing transformation of developmental
services."


DEFFENBAUGH INDUSTRIES: Court Wants More Evidence to Support Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Carlos Murguia entered an order in two lawsuits against
Deffenbaugh Industries, Inc. and Deffenbaugh Disposal, Inc.,
directing that the parties may provide evidence in support of
their supplemental submission regarding their proposed class
action settlement.  The brief should be limited to 15 pages absent
leave of court.  Judge Murguia also directed the parties to submit
the supplemental joint brief by May 17, 2016, or seek an extension
of time.

The lawsuits are: LARRY WHITTON, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. DEFFENBAUGH INDUSTRIES, INC. and
DEFFENBAUGH DISPOSAL, INC., Case No. 2:12-cv-02247-CM-KGG (D.
Kan.), and GARY, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. DEFFENBAUGH INDUSTRIES, INC. and DEFFENBAUGH DISPOSAL,
INC., Case No. 2:13-cv-2634-EFM-JPO (D. Kan.).

Before the Court is the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of a proposed class action settlement filed
by the Plaintiffs.  Before the Court issues its ruling, it orders
the parties to provide joint supplemental briefing addressing
certain issues, including whether there is any alleged harm to the
putative class members, who did not pay a fuel charge.  The Court
notes that it is considering breaking the putative class into two
subclasses -- one in which the members paid fuel charges, and one
in which the members did not.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=CIp15Jjb


DL BUILDERS: "Valdovinos" Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled SEBASTIAN VALDOVINOS; JOSE
CARRILLO; ABELINO SOLARIO; and on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated individuals v. DL BUILDERS, INC.; DAVID
HALVORSEN, Case No. 5:15-cv-O4256-RMW (N.D. Cal.), notifies the
Court that on June 3, 2016, they will move the Court for an order
certifying the First and Second Causes of Action of the complaint
filed in the lawsuit as a collective class action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are undocumented workers, who worked for DL
Builders remodeling homes and apartments.  The work structure of
DL Builders divided the workers into crews with supervisors
overseeing the crews.  Each crew had a leader, who was the most
experienced laborer on the crew, and who worked alongside the
other laborers.  The crew leaders were akin to a "lead" person,
with no managerial authority.

In September 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint against DL
Builders, Inc., and David Halvorsen, setting forth First and
Second Causes of Action for overtime, and minimum wage violations
under the FLSA.  Prior to that filing, DL Builders workers were
given release agreements and final checks (not itemized).  The
Plaintiffs did not receive a release agreement.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UBpavdMs

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert David Baker Esq.
          ROBERT DAVID BAKER, INC.
          80 South White Road
          San Jose, CA 95127
          Telephone: (408) 251-3400
          Facsimile: (408) 251-3401
          E-mail: rbaker@rdblaw.net


DOLLAR THRIFTY: June 21 Hearing on McKinnon's 2nd Class Cert. Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled SANDRA McKINNON, et al. v.
DOLLAR THRIFTY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC. d/b/a DOLLAR RENT A CAR;
DOLLAR RENT A CAR, INC.; DTG OPERATIONS, INC. d/b/a DOLLAR RENT A
CAR; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 12:cv-04457-YGR (N.D.
Cal.), filed with the Court their second amended motion for class
certification of a single narrowed Class, defined as:

     All persons who reside in the United States who, since
     January 1, 2009, obtained a rental car from a Dollar or
     Thrifty rental car location operated by Defendants at one of
     the following locations in the State of California: Los
     Angeles International Airport, Lindbergh Field (San Diego)
     International Airport, or John Wayne (Orange County)
     International Airport, where the location failed to post
     signage regarding Loss Damage Waiver ("LDW") in the manner
     required by Cal. Civ. Code Section 1936(g)(1), and who were
     charged for LDW.

Excluded from the Class are persons: (a) who incurred LDW as part
of a pre-paid tour reservation or previously approved LDW as part
of Dollar's membership program, (b) who made a claim with
Defendants and received full coverage under the LDW provision, or
(c) who received a full refund of LDW payments, with interest
thereon.

The Class, which as re-defined in this Motion is intended to
conform to this Court's March 8, 2016 Order, satisfies the
requirements of both Rules 23(a) and (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Among other things, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have
failed to provide clear and conspicuous signage containing the
language mandated by Section 1936(g)(1) of the California Civil
Code as to all members of the class.  The required language is
designed to allow consumers to make an informed decision regarding
their purchase of LDW.

The Court will commence a hearing on June 21, 2016, at 2:00 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=p9MnZmxo

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
          1 Sansome Street, 35th Floor, PMB #131
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 860-2503
          Facsimile: (888) 331-9633
          E-mail: amansfield@whatleykallas.com

               - and -

          Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq.
          1180 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 447-7060
          Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
          E-mail: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com

               - and -


          Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
          60 State Street, Seventh Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 573-5118
          Facsimile: (617) 573-5090
          E-mail: psheehan@whatleykallas.com

               - and -

          S. Scott Garrett, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
          2001 Park Place North
          1000 Park Place Tower
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 488-1200
          Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
          E-mail: sgarrett@whatleykallas.com


EARTH CARE: Court Preliminary Approves "Hernandez" Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Elizabeth T. Hey of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted conditional
certification and preliminary approval of the settlement agreement
in the case captioned, ROGELIO ORTEGA HERNANDEZ, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. EARTH CARE, INC., SCOTT
RISBON, and KIM RISBON, Case No. 15-5091 (E.D. Pa.).

Plaintiff Rogelio Ortega Hernandez has brought the action on
behalf of himself and other similarly situated seasonal landscape
laborers from Mexico who were employed by Earth Care, Inc. (Earth
Care) from 2010 through 2014. Defendants recruited and hired
Plaintiffs pursuant to the requirements of the federal H-2B visa
program, which permits United States employers to recruit foreign
workers to fill unskilled, non-agricultural positions when the
employer demonstrates a shortage of available American workers.
Mr. Ortega alleges that Defendants failed to pay the H-2B workers
the wage rates required by the H-2B program. Defendants dispute
the class allegations and deny having violated wage laws.

Very early in the litigation, the parties began settlement
discussions and came to an agreement prior to the filing of an
answer to the complaint and prior to any certification
proceedings. After finalizing their agreement, the parties
consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction.

The proposed settlement calls for payment of any shortfall for
each worker. Although the amount of the shortfall may not be the
same for each worker, the calculation of the shortfall is
identical for each.  The proposed agreement also provides for the
payment of $440 per year for each of the class members as a
reimbursement for travel and visa costs for each year (2013, 2014,
and 2015) the worker was employed by Earth Care.

The parties filed their motion seeking court approval of their
settlement, and have attached the agreement and associated forms.

In her Memorandum and Order dated April 13, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/1J1TsAfrom Leagle.com, Judge Hey concluded that the
settlement is fair and reasonable. The Court conditionally certify
the collective action and settlement class because at the stage in
the litigation that the members of the proposed settlement class
are similarly situated.

Rogelio Ortega Hernandez is represented by:

     Arthur N. Read, Esq.
     Stephanie Dorenbosch, Esq.
     FRIENDS OF FARMWORKERS INC.
     699 Ranstead Street, 4,
     Philadelphia, PA 19106
     Tel: (215)733-0878

Earth Care, Inc. is represented by Jonathan Landesman, Esq. --
COHEN SEGLIAS PALLAS GREENHALL & FURMAN, PC


EDGAR ADULT: Former Residents to Receive Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------
Janis Ramsay, writing for Simcoe.com, reports that residents who
lived at the Edgar Adult Occupational Centre in Oro-Medonte from
1966 to 1999 are finally being awarded compensation for any harm
suffered.

The Superior Court of Justice has just approved a $36-million
settlement to those residents and 11 other facilities in Ontario
where people with developmental disabilities lived.

The settlement is the result of a class action lawsuit brought
against Ontario by former residents.

The case began in 2014 with former Edgar resident Marlene
McIntyre, who lived in the institution between August 1973 and
December 1974.  She was also housed in the Huronia Regional Centre
in Orillia.

At its peak, the Edgar facility held more than 260 people.

A tentative settlement was reached in November, but needed court
approval.

"I'm glad that we were able to reach a fair settlement in this
matter," Attorney General Madeleine Meilleur said.  "These
individuals were harmed in a place that was intended to provide
them with care, and while we cannot change the past, it is my hope
that this settlement will help these individuals and their
families to heal."

Other institutions in the suit are: the St. Lawrence Regional
Centre, D'Arcy Place, Pine Ridge, Muskoka Centre, Oxford Regional
Centre, Midwestern Regional Centre, L.S. Penrose Centre, Bluewater
Centre, Durham Centre for Developmentally Handicapped, Prince
Edward Heights and Northwestern Regional Centre.

The 12 facilities closed between 1977 and 1999 after a government
decision to close residential institutions and move adults with
developmental disabilities to homes in the community with
appropriate supports and services.

Former residents of the developmental facilities can receive a
copy of their personal resident files at no charge by emailing
AccessandPrivacyOffice.mcss@ontario.ca or calling 1-855-376-9886.

Class action members (eligible former residents) will have four
months after the court's approval of the settlement to request
their files.


EGS FINANCIAL: Court Grants Joint Bid to Stay "Burns" Proceedings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Greg Kays of the United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri granted the parties' Joint
Motion to Temporarily Stay Proceedings in the case captioned,
LANCE BURNS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. EGS FINANCIAL CARE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 4:15-CV-06173-DGK (W.D. Mo.).

The putative class action arising from alleged violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act. The case is included in the Court's
Mediation and Assessment Program (MAP), and the Mediation
Conference is currently set for April 14, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.

On March 16, 2016, the Court entered an order granting Defendant's
motion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional class certification. In its order, the Court set a
deadline of May 2, 2016, for limited discovery on the issue of
conditional class certification.

Pending before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion to
Temporarily Stay Proceedings pending analysis of electronic data
and the outcome of settlement or mediation. In the motion, the
parties contend that a stay is required to allow them opportunity
to assemble, exchange, and review a portion of electronic data
that they believe is critical in establishing their claims and
defenses. The parties argue that this information will allow them
to engage in more meaningful direct settlement negotiations and
participate effectively in mediation.

In his Order dated April 12, 2016 available at http://is.gd/6ThHQW
from Leagle.com, Judge Kays found that all factors weigh in favor
of granting a temporary stay of the proceedings since the parties
are still in the preliminary stages of discovery, and a stay may
allow them to simplify factual disputes and streamline issues for
trial. Because the parties have agreed to toll the statute of
limitations for any person who wishes to join as a plaintiff in
the action during the period, no party will be substantially
injured by granting a stay and the possibility of an amicable
resolution of the case outweighs the harm in delaying discovery,
and the interests of judicial economy favor such a resolution.

Plaintiffs are represented by Michael F. Brady, Esq. --
tbrady@tbradyandassociates.com -- Sara Tess Ballew, Esq. --
sballew@tbradyassociates.com -- and Mark A. Kistler, Esq. --
mkistler@tbradyandassciates.com -- BRADY AND ASSOCIATES

EGS Financial Care, Inc. represented by David Israel, Esq. --
disrael@sessions.legal -- and Justin Homes, Esq. --
mnathan@sessions-law.com -- jhomes@sessions.legal -- SESSIONS,
FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, L.L.C., Gregory K. Wu, Esq. --
gwu@shb.com -- SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, LLP


EUROCHOC AMERICAS: Glen Ellyn Seeks Certification of 3 Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled GLEN ELLYN PHARMACY, INC., on
behalf of plaintiff and the class members defined herein v.
EUROCHOC AMERICAS CORPORATION, UROCHOC U.S.A., INC., CURADEN USA,
INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-04929 (N.D. Ill.) asks
the Court to enter an order determining that the action may
proceed as a class action.

For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, the Plaintiff seeks to represent a class
consisting of (a) all persons (b) who, on or after a date four
years prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by
or on behalf of any of the Defendants Eurochoc Americas
Corporation, Eurochoc U.S.A., Inc., and Curaden USA, Inc.,
promoting their goods or services for sale (d) and which did not
contain an opt out notice.

For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act, the Plaintiff seeks to represent a class
consisting of (a) all persons in Illinois (b) who, on or after a
date three years prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent
faxes by or on behalf of any of the Defendants Eurochoc Americas
Corporation, Eurochoc U.S.A., Inc., and Curaden USA, Inc.,
promoting their goods or services for sale (d) and which did not
contain an opt out notice.

For purposes of Count III, alleging conversion; Count IV, alleging
nuisance; and Count V, alleging trespass to chattels, the
Plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of (a) all persons
(b) who, on or after a date five years prior to the filing of this
action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of any of the
defendants Eurochoc Americas Corporation, Eurochoc U.S.A., Inc.,
and Curaden USA, Inc., promoting its goods or services for sale
(d) and which did not contain an opt out notice.

The Plaintiff further requests that he be appointed class
representative and that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC,
be appointed counsel for the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xixRPwBp

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Dulijaza Clark, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379


FEDEX FREIGHT: Motion to Approve Settlement Unsealed
----------------------------------------------------
At the behest of the parties in the case, ROY D. TAYLOR, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FEDEX
FREIGHT, INC., an Arkansas corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, No. 1:13-cv-01137-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd unsealed the motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement reached in the case.

On February 24, 2016, defendant filed an unopposed request to seal
plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of a class action
settlement until the issuance by the court of an order granting
preliminary approval.  On February 29, the motion for preliminary
approval was filed and on March 1, the court granted the request
to seal the motion "until further order of the court."

On April 20, 2016, the court issued the order granting preliminary
approval of the class action settlement.  On April 29, the parties
filed a joint stipulation and proposed order unsealing the motion
for preliminary approval.

A copy of the Court's May 1, 2016 Order is available at
http://is.gd/AwA819from Leagle.com.

Roy D. Taylor, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Cat Nguyen Bulaon, Esq.
     Lawrence Cagney, Esq.
     Phillip R Poliner, Esq.
     R. Duane Westrup, Esq.
     Westrup Klick LLP
     444 W. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 1614
     Long Beach, CA 90802

          - and -

     Michael Lee Carver, Esq.
     Michelle MacEachern Lunde, Esq.
     Labor Law Office, APC
     1395 Ridgewood Dr Ste 300
     Chico, CA 95973
     Tel: (530) 891-8503
     Fax: (530) 891-8512
     E-mail: mcarver@carverlaw.com

FedEx Freight, Inc., Defendant, represented by:

     Karin Morgan Cogbill, Esq.
     Littler Mendelson, PC
     50 West San Fernando Street, 15th Floor
     San Jose, CA 95113
     Tel: (408) 998-4150
     Fax: (408) 288-5686
     E-mail: kcogbill@littler.com

          - and -

     Keith A. Jacoby, Esq.
     Littler Mendelson
     2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     E-mail: kjacoby@littler.com
     Tel: (310) 772-7284

          - and -

     Michelle B. Heverly, Esq.
     Littler Mendelson
     333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Tel: (415) 677-3161
     E-mail: mheverly@littler.com

          - and -

     Sophia Behnia, Esq.
     Littler Mendelson, P.C.
     501 W. Broadway, Suite 900
     San Diego, CA 92101
     E-mail: sbehnia@littler.com
     Tel: (619) 515-1873


FENTON & MCGARVEY: "Tetik" Seeks Certification of FDCPA Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff is the lawsuit captioned Lisa Tetik, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fenton &
McGarvey Law Firm, P.S.C., a Kentucky corporation, and Jefferson
Capital Systems, LLC, a GA limited liability company, Case No.
1:16-cv-04802 (N.D. Ill.), moves the Court for class
certification, and requests that the Court allow her to represent
a class of all persons similarly situated in the state of Illinois
from whom the Defendants attempted to collect a delinquent,
consumer debt allegedly owed for a Comenity Bank/Dress Barn
account, via the same form collection letter that the Defendants
sent to the Plaintiff, from one year before the date of the
Complaint to the present.

The action seeks a finding that the Defendants' form collection
letter violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and asks
that the Court award damages as authorized by Section 1692k(a)(2)
of the FDCPA.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cJuv6oha

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Philipps, Esq.
          Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
          Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
          PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
          9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
          Palos Hills, IL 60465
          Telephone: (708) 974-2900
          Facsimile: (708) 974-2907
          E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com
                  mephilipps@aol.com
                  angiekrobertson@aol.com


FLOWERS FOODS: Faces "Medrano" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Medrano, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
individuals v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and Flowers Baking Co. of El
Paso, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-00350 (D.N.M., April 27, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are producers of packaged bakery foods in the
United States and operate more than 40 bakeries nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jenny Faye Kaufman, Esq.
      Jerry Todd Wertheim, Esq.
      Samuel C. Wolf, Esq.
      JONES, SNEAD, WERTHEIM & CLIFFORD, P.A.
      Post Office Box 2228
      Santa Fe, NM 87504
      Telephone: (505) 982-0011
      Facsimile: (505) 989-6288
      E-mail: jenny@thejonesfirm.com
              todd@thejonesfirm.com
              sam@thejonesfirm.com


FOWLER PACKING: Courts Denies Bid for Submission of Trial Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Carolyn S. Ostby of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California denied Defendants'
motion for an order requiring plaintiffs to submit a detailed
trial plan with their motion for class certification and vacated
the April 19, 2016 hearing in the case captioned, BEATRIZ ALDAPA,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. FOWLER PACKING COMPANY, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:15-CV-00420-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal.).

In the motion, defendants requested that the court issue an order
requiring plaintiffs to submit a detailed trial plan with their
motion for class certification. Defendants argue that plaintiff's
trial plan include: 1) an explanation of how the membership of the
class will be established; 2) an explanation of how liability will
be established; 3) an explanation of how defendants will have an
opportunity to present their liability defenses; 4) an explanation
of how damages will be calculated; 5) a witness list and summary
of the expected.

According to plaintiffs, discovery on class certification issues
has not yet even commenced, let alone any merits focused
discovery.

In the Order dated April 13, 2016 available at http://is.gd/o7onPA
from Leagle.com, Judge Drozd agreed with plaintiffs that
defendants' request for a detailed trial plan is premature at the
juncture in the case and defendants have cited no binding
authority suggesting a trial plan must be filed at the stage in a
class action.

Plaintiffs are represented by Erica Deutsch, Esq. --
edeutsch@bushgottlieb.com -- and Ira L. Gottlieb, Esq. --
igottlieb@bushgottlieb.com -- BUSH GOTTLIEB, Mario Martinez, Esq.
-- mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com -- MARTINEZ AGUILASOCHO & LYNCH
APLC

Fowler Marketing International LLC is represented by:

     Howard A. Sagaser, Esq.
     Ian Blade Wieland, Esq.
     SAGASER, WATKINS & WIELAND, PC
     7550 N Palm Ave #100,
     Fresno, CA 93711
     Tel: (559)421-7000


FRONTERA FOODS: Recalls Taco Skillet Sauce Due to Soy
-----------------------------------------------------
Frontera Foods of Chicago, Illinois is recalling a total of 720 (8
oz.) packages of its Frontera Texas Original Taco Skillet Sauce
because it contains undeclared soy. People who have an allergy or
severe sensitivity to soy may run the risk of a serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product.

The recalled Frontera Texas Original Taco Skillet Sauce packages
were only distributed to District Columbia and the following 11
states; Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Virginia and Vermont. The recalled product went to the specific
retail stores on the attached list.

The product comes in a printed 8 oz. pouch that is marked with a
"BEST BY" date of "13 APR 17" on the bottom of the back side of
the package. Please see the attached picture as a reference. The
UPC code for the recalled product is: 6-04183-12170-7.

No illnesses have been reported to date and there are no other
safety concerns for people who do not have a soy allergy.

This recall was voluntarily issued by the company after it
discovered that the label on the product did not accurately
reflect the ingredients. The company has since corrected the
problem and has initiated corrective actions to prevent its
reoccurrence.

Consumers who have purchased 8 oz. packages of Frontera Texas
Original Taco Skillet Sauce with a "BEST BY" date of "13 APR 17"
are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full
refund.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at (800) 509-
4441, Monday to Friday, 8 am to 5 pm, CST.

  Store      Store    Store         Store      Store   Store
  Name       Number   Address       City       State   Zip Code
  -----      ------   -------       -----      -----   --------
ACME #2494   2494    160 W. PUTNAM  GREENWICH  CT      06830
GREENWICH CT         AVENUE
SAFEWAY      2737    490 L STREET   WASHINGTON DC      20001
EASTERN              NW
#2737
SAFEWAY      2737    490 L STREET   WASHINGTON DC      20001
EASTERN              NW
# 2737
SAFEWAY      2808    3830 GEORGIA   WASHINGTON DC      20011
EASTERN              AVENUE NW
# 2808
THE BROAD    5608    BROAD BRANCH   WASHINGTON DC      20015
BRANCH               RD
MARKET
SHAWS #123   123     301 POND ST    ASHLAND    MA      01721
ASHLAND MA
SHAWS #551   551     535 TRAPELO    BELMONT    MA      02478
BELMONT MA           RD
SHAWS #538   538     33 KILMARNOCK  BOSTON     MA      02215
BOSTON MA            SXT
SHAWS #104   104     125 PEARL ST   BRAINTREE  MA      02184
BRAINTREE MA
SHAWS #504   504     49 WHITE ST    CAMBRIDGE  MA      02140
CAMBRIDGE MA
SHAWS #507   507     699 MT AUBURN  CAMBRIDGE  MA      02138
CAMBRIDGE MA         ST
SHAWS #168   168     100 N MAIN ST  CARVER     MA      02330
CARVER MA
SHAWS #388   388     246 BORDER ST  EAST       MA      02128
EAST BOSTON                         BOSTON
MA
SHAWS #548   548     255 E CENTRAL  FRANKLIN   MA      02038
FRANKLIN MA          ST
SHAWS #571   571     7 RAILROAD AVE GLOUCESTER MA      01930
GLOUCESTER
MA
SHAWS #579   579     1070 IYANNOUGH HYANNIS    MA      02601
HYANNIS MA           RD
SHAWS #165   165     390 WEST       MANSFIELD  MA      02048
MANSFIELD MA         STREET
SHAWS #340   340     1 PROSPECT ST  MILFORD    MA      01757
MILFORD MA
SUDBURY      209     1177 HIGHLAND  NEEDHAM    MA      02494
FARMS 209            AVENUE
SHAWS #502   502     33 AUSTIN ST   NEWTON     MA      02460
NEWTON MA    111     175 MANSFIELD  NORTON     MA      02766
ROCHE BROS.          AVENUE
SUPERMRKTS
111
SHAWS #511   511     134 NAHATAN ST NORWOOD    MA      02062
NORWOOD MA
SHAWS #588   588     9 WEST RD      ORLEANS    MA      02653
ORLEANS MA
PRICE        140     55 HUBBARD     PITTSFIELD MA      01201
CHOPPER #140         AVE
SHAWS #359   359     11 TRADERS WAY SALEM      MA      01970
SALEM MA
SHAWS #121   121     780 S MAIN ST  SHARON     MA      02067
SHARON MA
SHAWS #552   552     115 GREAT RD   STOW       MA      01775
STOW MA
SHAWS #332   332     178 MAIN       STURBRIDGE MA      01566
STURBRIDGE MA        STREET
SHAWS #366   366     130 RIVER ST   WALTHAM    MA      02453
WALTHAM MA
SHAWS #132   132     127 MARION RD  WAREHAM    MA      02571
WAREHAM MA
ROCHE BROS.  104     338 WASHINGTON WESTWOOD   MA      02090
SUPERMRKTS           STREET
104
SHOPPERS     7523    8212 LIBERTY   BALITMORE  MD      21244
# 7523               ROAD
SAFEWAY      1481    2610 BOSTON    BALTIMORE  MD      21224
EASTERN              STREET
# 1481
SAFEWAY      1481    2610 BOSTON    BALTIMORE  MD      21224
EASTERN              STREET
# 1481
SAFEWAY      1513    4401 HARFORD   BALTIMORE  MD      21214
EASTERN              ROAD
# 1513
SHOPPERS     7533    1200 EASTERN   BALTIMORE  MD      21221
# 7533               BLVD
SHOPPERS     7545    857 E FORT     BALTIMORE  MD      21230
# 7545               AVENUE
SHOPPERS     7567    6500 EASTERN   BALTIMORE  MD      21224
# 7567               AVENUE
SAFEWAY      2848    5000 BRADLEY   BETHESDA   MD      20815
EASTERN              BLVD
# 2848
SAFEWAY      2853    15916 CRAIN    BRANDYWINE MD      20613
EASTERN              HWY SE DR
# 2853
SAFEWAY      1880    8858 WALTHAM   CARNEY     MD      21234
EASTERN              WOODS ROAD
# 1880
SAFEWAY      1939    1925 MAIN      CHESTER    MD      21619
EASTERN              STREET
# 1939
SHOPPERS     2623    6300 COVENTRY  CLINTON    MD      20735
# 2623               WAY
SHOPPERS     2623    6300 COVENTRY  CLINTON    MD      20735
# 2623               WAY
SAFEWAY      1565    15411 NEW      CLOVERLY   MD      20905
EASTERN              HAMPSHIRE
# 1565               AVENUE
SHOPPERS     2624    3831           COLMAR     MD      20722
# 2624               BLADENSBURG    MANOR
                     ROAD
SAFEWAY      2794    9807 MAIN      DAMASCUS   MD      20872
EASTERN              STREET
# 2794
SAFEWAY      1129    10276 SOUTHERN DUNKIRK    MD      20754
EASTERN              MD BLVD
# 1129
SAFEWAY      952     139 N          EASTON     MD      21601
EASTERN              WASHINGTON
# 952                STREET
SAFEWAY      2608    52 WEST        EDGEWATER  MD      21037
EASTERN              CENTRAL
# 2608               AVENUE
SAFEWAY      1281    10000 BALT     ELLICOTT   MD      21042
EASTERN              NTL PIKE       CITY
# 1281
SHOPPERS     2669    2950 DONNELL   FORESTVILLE MD     20747
# 2669               STREET
SAFEWAY      1075    927 W 7TH      FREDERCK   MD      21701
EASTERN              STREET
# 1075
SAFEWAY      1620    20211 GOSHEN   GAITHERSBURG MD    20879
EASTERN              ROAD
# 1620
SAFEWAY      1596    2644 CHAPEL    GAMBRILLS   MD     21054
EASTERN              LAKE DRIVE
# 1596
SAFEWAY      1596    2644 CHAPEL    GAMBRILLS   MD     21054
EASTERN              LAKE DRIVE
# 1596
SAFEWAY      1579    19718          GERMANTOWN  MD     20874
EASTERN              GERMANTOWN
# 1579               ROAD
SAFEWAY      3274    3702 EAST      HYATTSVILLE MD     20782
EASTERN              WEST HIGHWAY
# 3274
SAFEWAY      2753    10541          KENSINGTON  MD     20895
EASTERN              CONNECTICUT
# 2753               AVENUE
SAFEWAY      19389   40 SHINING     LA PLATA    MD     20646
EASTERN              WILLOW WAY
# 1938
SHOPPERS     2635    806 LARGO      LANDOVER    MD     20774
# 2635               CENTER DRIVE
SHOPPERS     2672    13600 BALTIMORE LAUREL     MD     20707
# 2672               AVENUE # 100
SHOPPERS     2618    7790 RIVERDALE NEW         MD     20784
# 2618               ROAD           CARROLLTON
SAFEWAY      2797    3333 SPARTAN   OLNEY       MD     20832
EASTERN              ROAD
# 2797
SHOPPERS     2653    6111 LIVINGSTON OXON HILL  MD     20745
# 2653               ROAD
SAFEWAY      1758    9645 BELAIR     PERRY HALL MD     21128
EASTERN              ROAD
# 1758
SAFEWAY      1399    3499 SWEET      PHOENIX    MD     21131
EASTERN              AIR ROAD
# 1399
SAFEWAY      1668    5510 NORBECK    ROCKVILLE  MD     20853
EASTERN              ROAD
# 1668
SAFEWAY      1715    403 REDLAND     ROCKVILLE  MD     20850
EASTERN              BLVD
# 1715
SAFEWAY      1956    14939 SHADY     ROCKVILLE  MD     20850
EASTERN              GROVE ROAD
# 1956
SFW EASTERN  3257    1800 ROCKVILLE  ROCKVILLE  MD     20852
3257 GROC            PIKE
ROCKVILL
SAFEWAY      1369    909 THAYER      SILVER     MD     20910
EASTERN              AVENE           SPRING
# 1369
SAFEWAY      2979    1017 YORK ROAD  TOWSON     MD     21204
EASTERN
# 2979
SAFEWAY      1616    444 WMC DRIVE   WESTMINSTER MD    21158
EASTERN
# 1616
SHAWS #488   488     353 MAIN ST     BANGOR     ME     04401
BANGOR ME
SHAWS #483   483     1 CHANDLER DR   BATH       ME     04530
BATH ME
SHAWS #495   495     200 LOWER MAIN  FREEPORT   ME     04032
FREEPORT ME          ST
SHAWS #493   493     27 EAST AVE     LEWISTON   ME     04240
LEWISTON ME
SHAWS #487   487     4 SCAMMON ST    SACO       ME     04072
SACO ME
SHAWS #475   475     417 PAYNE RD   SCARBOROUGH ME     04074
SCARBOROUGH
ME
SHAWS #356   356     96 DANIEL      BELMONT     NH     03220
BELMONT NH           WEBSTER HWY
SHAWS #374   374     1150 EASTMAN   CENTER      NH     03813
CENTER CONWAY        RD             CONWAY
NH
SHAWS #372   372     625 MEADOW ST  LITTLETON   NH     03561
LITTLETON NH
KEY FOOD     1724    31-30 ROUTE    DEVILLE     NJ     07834
OLIVE TREE           10 WEST
#1724
FAIRWAY      1005    30 EAST        PARAMUS     NJ     07652
PARAMUS #1005        RIDGEWOOD
                     AVE
ACME # 1893  1893    4100 PARK      WEEHAWKEN   NJ     07087
WEEHAWKEN NJ         AVENUE
DECICCO'S    2141    PALMER AVENUE  LARCHMONT   NY     10538
FAMILY MARKET
KEY FOODS    1560    1001 US 6      MAHOPAC     NY     10541
#1560
C-TOWN       1725    1ST AVE (89TH) NEW YORK    NY     10128
AMISH MARKET 731     9TH AVENUE     NEW YORK    NY     10019
                     (49-50 STREET)
FAIRWAY KIPS 1012    542-580 SECOND NEW YORK    NY     10016
BAY #1012            AVE
FAIRWAY      1006    847 B PELHAM   PELHAM      NY     10803
PELHAM               PARKWAY        MANOR
#1006
KUHN'S       2412    FERGUSON RD    ALLISON     PA     15101
                                    PARK
ACME MARKET  7913    48 WEST ROAD   NEWTOWN     PA     18940
#7913
NEWTOWN PA
ACME MARKET  7792    39 LEOPARD RD  PAOLI       PA     19301
#7792 PAOLI
KUHN'S       3125    BANKSVILLE RD  PITTSBURGH  PA     15216
BANKSVILLE
#021-2022
021-2022
SHAWS #192   192     99 E MAIN RD   MIDDLETOWN  RI     02842
MIDDLETOWN RI
SHAWS #192   192     99 E MAIN RD   MIDDLETOWN  RI     02842
MIDDLETOWN RI
SHAWS #175   175     1050 WILLETT   RIVERSIDE   RI     02915
RIVERSIDE RI         AVE
SHAWS #180   180     160 OLD TOWER  WAKEFIELD   RI     02879
WAKEFIELD RI         HILL RD
SAFEWAY      3250    3526 KING ST   ALEXANDRIA  VA     22302
EASTERN
# 3250
SHOPPERS     2652    6200 LITTLE    ALEXANDRIA  VA     22312
# 2652               RIVER TURNPIKE
SAFEWAY      1588    7414 LITTLE    ANNANDALE   VA     22003
EASTERN              RIVER TURNPIKE
# 1588
SAFEWAY      2635    12821 BRAEMAR  BRISTOW     VA     20136
BRISTOW              VILLAGE PLAZA
# 2635
SAFEWAY      4002    5727 BURKE     BURKE       VA     22015
EASTERN              CENTER
# 4002
FARM FRESH   232    309 S           CHESAPEAKE  VA     23320
#232 -              BATTLEFIELD
GROCERY             BLVD
FARM FRESH   676    1400 KEMPSVILLE CHESAPEAKE  VA     23320
#676 -              RD
GROCERY
SAFEWAY      2616   3043 NUTLEY     FAIRFAX     VA     22031
EASTERN             STREET
# 2616
SHOPPERS     2628   7005 MANCHESTER FRANCONIA   VA     22310
# 2628              LAKES
SAFEWAY      1689   413 ELDEN       HERNDON     VA     20170
EASTERN             STREET
# 1689
SAFEWAY      4218   437 S KING      LEESBURG    VA     20175
EASTERN             STREET
# 4218
FARM FRESH   231    353 CHATHAM     NEWPORT     VA     23602
#231 -              DRIVE           NEWS
GROCERY
FARM FRESH   803    730 W 21ST ST   NORFOLK     VA     23517
#803 -
GROCERY
SAFEWAY      5      11120 S LAKE    RESTON      VA     20191
EASTERN             DRIVE
# 5
FARM FRESH   576    2320 E MAIN ST  RICHMOND    VA     23223
#576 -
GROCERY
FARM FRESH   321    455 MERRIMAC    WILLIAMSBURG VA    23185
#321 -              TRAIL
GROCERY
SAFEWAY      1298   4240 MERCHANT   WOODBRIDGE  VA     22192
EASTERN             PLAZA
# 1298
SAFEWAY      1331   2205 OLD BRIDGE WOODBRIDGE  VA     22192
EASTERN
# 1331
SHAWS #411   411    66 MOUNTAIN     COLCHESTER  VT     05446
COLCHESTER          VIEW
VT
SHAWS #411   411    66 MOUNTAIN     COLCHESTER  VT     05446
COLCHESTER          VIEW
VT
MACS MARKET  101    PEARL ST        ESSEX       VT     05452
(ESSEX JUNCTION)                    JUNCTION
SHAWS #430   820    WATERBURY-STOWE WATERBURY   VT     05676
WATERBURY           RD
VT  430
SHAWS #414   414    71 BOXWOOD ST    WILLISTON  VT     05495
WILLISTON
VT
MACS MARKET  37     PLEASANT ST      WOODSTOCK  VT     05091
(WOODSTOCK)         ROUTE 4

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/dkKx8l


GENERAL MOTORS: Sued in N.J. Over Communications Act Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen L. Jefferson, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. General Motors Financial Company, Inc.
d/b/a AMERICREDIT, f/k/a Americredit Corp., Case No. 2:16-cv-
02349-WHW-CLW (D.N.J., April 27, 2016), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Federal Communications Act.

General Motors Financial Company, Inc. is a financial services arm
of General Motors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
      Kim Law Firm LLC
      411 Hackensack Ave 2 Fl.
      Hackensack, NJ 07601
      Telephone: (201) 273-7117
      Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
      E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


GIANT EAGLE: Recalls Walnut Delight and Pecan Tassie Cookies
------------------------------------------------------------
All lots of Giant Eagle brand Walnut Delight and Pecan Tassie
cookies prepared and sold from the Bakery department inside Giant
Eagle and Market District supermarkets with sell by dates through
May 3, 2016 have been voluntarily recalled by Giant Eagle due to
an undeclared milk allergen. People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to milk run the risk of a serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume these products. The product is
safe for consumption by those who do not have milk allergies.
Approximately 44,000 purchases containing the potentially affected
Pecan Tassies and 290 purchases containing the potentially
affected Walnut Delights were made in Giant Eagle and Market
District supermarkets in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia,
Maryland and Indiana. There are no reported illnesses to date
associated with this recall.

The Walnut Delights were sold in packages of six in plastic clam
shells with a PLU of 69690. The Pecan Tassies were also sold in
packages of six in plastic clam shells with a PLU of 77997, but
were also included in small, medium and large cookie trays with
PLUs of 9793, 9794 and 9795 respectively. All affected items were
sold in the Bakery department.

Giant Eagle became aware of the issue for both items after a
quality assurance review of the ingredient declaration. The
product label for the bakery items, which contain milk, omitted
milk as an allergen.

Customers with a milk allergy who have purchased the affected
product should dispose of it or return it to their local Giant
Eagle or Market District store for a refund. Customers with
questions may call Giant Eagle Customer Care at 1-800-553-2324
Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. EST.

In addition to this public communication regarding this recall,
Giant Eagle initiated its consumer recall telephone notification
process. The consumer recall process uses purchase data and
consumer telephone numbers housed in the Giant Eagle Advantage
Card(R) database to alert those households that purchased the
affected product and have updated telephone contact information in
the database.

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


GLEN GALEMMO: Final Settlement Order Entered in "Capannari" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael R. Barrett entered a Final Order in the lawsuit
styled JOHN CAPANNARI, et al. v. GLEN GALEMMO, et al., Case No.
1:13-cv-00883-MRB (S.D. Ohio), approving class action settlements
as to the Perry Defendants, the Teneyck Defendants, and the
Shelby/Job Defendants, and attorneys' fees and expenses.

Pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Court preliminarily certified a settlement class
consisting of:

     All persons and entities, individually and collectively, who
     invested money in or through Glen Galemmo or his affiliated
     entities from January 1, 2002 to July 26, 2013 and suffered
     a net loss (i.e., the funds invested exceeded the total of
     all funds received in the form of purported income or return
     of principal).

The Court appointed Plaintiffs John Capannari, John A. Anderson
and Kevin Eickmann as the Lead Plaintiffs and the law firms of
Cummins & Brown LLC and Strauss Troy Co., LPA as Lead Counsel for
Lead Plaintiffs and the proposed Class, as set forth in the
Court's Order of April 7, 2014.

Class Counsel are awarded $151,237 in attorneys' fees, and $62,102
for reimbursement of their out-of-pocket expenses since the
inception of the case.

Other than any authorized payment or awards pursuant to the Final
Approval Order, the Court directed the Class Counsel not to
distribute any portion of the Settlement Fund except in accordance
with further orders of this Court.  The Court also ordered the
Class Counsel to continue to communicate and coordinate with
parties and counsel in other Galemmo-related litigation in order
to distribute the Settlement Fund in a manner that treats Class
Members fairly and consistently.

A copy of the Final Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5TKJnhDM


H&R BLOCK: Bid to Certify Calif. Class in "Perras" Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Beth Phillips entered an order the lawsuit entitled
RONALD PERRAS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. H&R BLOCK, INC., et al., Case No. 12-00450-CV-W-BP
(W.D. Mo.), granting the Defendants' renewed motion for summary
judgment and denying as moot the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification of a California class.

The Plaintiff sued H&R Block, Inc., HRB Tax Group, Inc., and HRB
Technology, LLC regarding a compliance fee that was charged by H&R
Block in 2011 and 2012 which allegedly exceeded the actual cost of
compliance with the IRS's Tax Return Preparer Initiative.  Mr.
Perras' Second Amended Complaint contains five counts: (1)
violation of the California Unfair Competition Act; (2) violation
of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (3) violation of
the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act; (4) money had and
received; and (5) unjust enrichment.

H&R Block moves for summary judgment on all five counts.  Mr.
Perras seeks certification of a class of "[a]ll persons who
purchased from H&R Block tax return preparation services for
personal, family or household purposes and paid H&R Block's
compliance fee in the state of California."

H&R Block contends that Mr. Perras' claim for money had and
received must fail because H&R Block was never indebted to him.

Judge Phillips noted that the undisputed facts show that the
compliance fee was intended to cover costs that H&R Block would
incur in order to comply with IRS regulations.  She adds that Mr.
Perras offers no basis for his argument that the fee was supposed
to benefit him and other customers -- on the contrary, the fee was
supposed to benefit H&R Block by offsetting costs.  For these
reasons, the Court opined that Mr. Perras' claim for money had and
received, among other claims, fail as a matter of law.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=F3mL0jJa


HCA HOLDINGS: Appeals Court Revives Overcharge Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mary Anne Pazanowski, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that a
federal appeals court April 26 reinstated class allegations in a
lawsuit alleging medical providers charged unreasonable fees for
some emergency services.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in an
unpublished opinion, said a federal district court should have
allowed limited discovery on whether issues common to a large
group of potential plaintiffs would predominate over any questions
unique to the individuals in the action, rather than disallowing
class certification.

The case involves an issue that is growing: whether medical
providers should be stopped from charging allegedly unreasonable
amounts for emergency services when they know those claims won't
be paid by no-fault insurers, thus rendering the patients liable
for the overlap.  The billing practices are known as surprise or
balance billing.

This putative class action was brought against HCA Holdings Inc.
and three of its Florida hospitals, alleging that the hospitals
charged unreasonable fees for emergency radiological services. The
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida struck the
plaintiffs' class action allegations, effectively denying class
certification (40 HCDR, 3/2/15).

PIP Coverage Limits

Florida law requires motor vehicle owners to have personal injury
protection, or PIP, insurance coverage.  Once an insurer pays the
$10,000 policy limit, however, the insured become responsible for
any remaining expenses.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant hospitals charged
PIP-covered patients unreasonable fees for radiological services.
In some cases, they said, the fees charged were 65 percent higher
than the usual and customary fees charged for similar services.

The plaintiffs asserted violations of Florida's Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act and breach of contract.  The district
court refused to dismiss the complaint, but struck the class
allegations after finding that the key issues, namely the
reasonableness of the hospitals' charges and damages incurred by
each plaintiff, "would be highly individualized in nature."

Common Questions

Class certification is appropriate when questions of law or fact
common to the class members predominate over questions that affect
only individuals.  The district court said this requirement hadn't
been met in this case.

The Eleventh Circuit disagreed, saying it wasn't apparent on the
face of the plaintiffs' complaint that individualized issues would
predominate.  The parties, the court said, presented conflicting
interpretations of the issues and evidence that would be required
to establish liability and damages for the whole class.

The court said discovery "could reveal that it is relatively easy
to determine that these rates are unreasonable across the board
without having to analyze differences between hospitals or
patients."  Moreover, it said, the presence of individualized
damages issues didn't necessarily prevent a finding that common
issues in the case predominate.

The court said its opinion shouldn't be read to suggest how the
district court should rule on the certification question.  It held
only that the lower court should have allowed discovery instead of
striking the class allegations.

Judges Beverly B. Martin, Julie E. Carnes and R. Lanier Anderson
III issued the per curiam opinion.

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC represented the plaintiffs.
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt PA and Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC
represented the hospitals.


HOME DEPOT: Court Certifies California Class in "Henry" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jon S. Tigar grants class certification in the lawsuit
titled MICHAEL HENRY v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Case No. 14-cv-
04858-JST (N.D. Cal.).

The class is defined as:

     All persons employed by Defendant[ ] in hourly or non-exempt
     positions in California from September 18, 2010 through the
     date of class certification, who worked a shift past
     midnight in which the total aggregate number of hours for
     that shift exceeded eight hours.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=k0JTLqRy


HONEST COMPANY: Faces Various Class Actions Over Product Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adele Chapin, writing for racked, reports that Jessica Alba's non-
toxic brand The Honest Company got its start selling diapers and
baby products, and now it's an empire.  The brand stocks
everything from vitamins to tampons, and it expanded into beauty
last year with an 83-piece makeup line.  The Honest Company's
success landed Alba on the cover of Forbes magazine's "America's
Richest Self-Made Women" issue touting her brand's $1 billion
dollar valuation.

But now as The Honest Company is reportedly working toward an IPO,
lawsuits are coming out of the woodwork including one filed by the
Organic Consumers Association being reported on April 27. Alba's
company is dealing with a rash of lawsuits claiming that Honest
has violated its promise to produce products without health-
compromising chemicals or compounds -- a charge the company
vehemently denies.

Here's what to know about The Honest Company backlash:

THE LAWSUITS

Shampoo and body wash. In February of this year, Fortune reported
that a lawsuit filed in a New York District Court alleged that
Honest "falsely" and "deceptively" labeled its products as natural
and plant-based.  Brad and Manon Buonasera said they bought the
company's shampoo and body wash based on those claims. Their suit
alleged Honest's products actually contained synthetic and toxic
ingredients, even though advertising copy claimed "no harsh
chemicals, ever!"

Honest wrote in a statement that the lawsuit's allegations were
"without merit" and that they would "vigorously defend this
baseless lawsuit."

Sunscreen and more. A $5 million lawsuit filed in Northern
California District Court in September 2015 claimed that several
of Honest's products, including soap, diapers, and cleaners
contain "unnatural ingredients," according to ABC News. The suit
also called out Honest sunscreen for not being effective.

That sunscreen complaint also went viral when customers started
tweeting out photos of horrible sunburns that happened while using
Honest sunscreen.

Ms. Alba's brand responded with a lengthy blog post apology that
included photos of her children and a defense of its sunscreen
formula:

"We've gone through extensive third-party testing in accordance
with government regulations and our Sunscreen Lotion passed all
SPF 30 testing requirements.  It also received the best score
possible from the Environmental Working Group (EWG).  We care
about taking every precaution possible to ensure that your product
experience will keep you healthy and happy.
Detergent. In March, WSJ published an article with the results of
commissioned lab testing, saying that Honest detergent contained a
significant amount of sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) -- a chemical
that the company pledged to avoid."

Honest said that it used Sodium Coco Sulfate (SCS), "a gentler
alternative that is less irritating and safer to use," then the
company went after the Wall Street Journal's journalistic
integrity.  "The Wall Street Journal has been reckless in the
preparation of this article, refused multiple requests to share
data on which they apparently relied and has substituted junk
science for credible journalism," the brand's statement said in
part.

Within seven days of the WSJ story, a consumer filed a class-
action lawsuit against Honest over the detergent.  Inc. reports
that the lawsuit alleges that the company is "misleading
[consumers] in the extreme" with advertising that mentions its
detergent being SLS-free.

Baby food. News just broke about a lawsuit filed in Los Angeles
Superior Court by the Organic Consumers Association, alleging that
11 ingredients out of 40 in Honest's baby food are synthetic.
Fortune reports that the suit claims that the baby food "is
falsely labeled as 'organic.'"

The Honest Company might not just be looking at an IPO -- WWD
reported in April that the brand, which has $222 million in
venture capital backing, might be considering a sale as well.

Will all the lawsuits affect Honest Company's future? One analyst
doesn't think so.  "The brand is almost on the cusp of being
bigger than the lawsuits and the negative press around it," Martin
Okner, managing director at SHM Corporate Navigators, told WWD.
"It's been in the press now for months and it hasn't had a
material impact on sales at this point."


HOUSTON, TX: Summary Judgment in "Fontenot" Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BERTHA M. FONTENOT, Individually and on
Behalf of Those Similarly Situated; DAVID MILLER; SANTA ZAMARRON,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF HOUSTON; CLERK OF COURT
CHARLOTTE BOOKER, Defendants-Appellees,  No. 14-20763 (5th Cir.),
the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit affirmed the
district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of
Houston and its denial of David Miller's motion for class
certification.

The appeal was brought by David Miller, who had alleged that the
City violated due process rights when it reported to the State
that he had been convicted of committing a more serious driving
offense than in fact was true.  As a result of the misreporting,
the State assessed a surcharge against Miller for which he was not
statutorily liable.  The City's misreporting was not unique to
Miller; for over six years, the City of Houston regularly reported
convictions like Miller's as different, more serious convictions.

The Fifth Circuit, however, found that Miller has not presented
enough evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether the City had an official policy or custom to misreport
convictions.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 2, 2016 opinion is available
at http://is.gd/dhLzdlfrom Leagle.com.


HOUSTON CASUALTY: 3rd Cir. Says $102MM Excluded from PNC Coverage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit affirmed in part
and reversed in part the district court's ruling in the case
captioned THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.; PNC BANK, N.A.,
individually and as Successor in Interest to National City Bank,
Appellants in No. 15-1656, v. HOUSTON CASUALTY COMPANY;* AXIS
INSURANCE COMPANY *(Dismissed Pursuant to Court's Order dated
07/17/2015) AXIS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant in No. 15-1717, Nos.
15-1656, 15-1717 (3rd Cir.).

The appeal concerns whether PNC is entitled to insurance coverage
for amounts it paid to resolve several class action lawsuits.
Specifically at issue is whether $102 million that PNC paid
pursuant to two settlement agreements is covered under PNC's
insurance policy with its excess insurer, Axis Insurance Company.

On cross motions for judgment on the pleadings, the District Court
concluded that the majority of the settlement payments were
excluded from coverage under the policy's "Professional Services
Charge Exception" because the payments constituted a refund of
overdraft fees paid by PNC's customers.  The District Court also
held, however, that approximately $30 million of the $102 million,
which was awarded to class counsel as attorneys' fees and costs,
was recoverable under the policy as covered "Damages" that did not
fall within the Professional Services Charge Exception.

On appeal by PNC and cross-appeal by Axis, the Third Circuit
concluded that the entire $102 million is excluded from coverage
under the Professional Services Charge Exception.

A full-text copy of the appellate court's May 2, 2016 opinion is
available at http://is.gd/3orOPafrom Leagle.com.

Douglas E. Cameron, Esq. -- dcameron@reedsmith.com -- Courtney
C.T. Horrigan, Esq. -- chorrigan@reedsmith.com -- James C. Martin,
Esq. -- jcmartin@reedsmith.com -- [ARGUED], Robert H. Owen, Esq.,
Reed Smith LLP, 225 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Counsel for
Appellants/Cross-Appellees.

Jason P. Cronic, Esq. -- jcronic@wileyrein.com -- [ARGUED], John
E. Howell, Esq. -- jhowell@wileyrein.com -- Wiley Rein LLP, 1776 K
Street N.W., Washington, DC 20006, Counsel for Appellee/Cross-
Appellant.

Louis C. Long, Esq. -- llong@tthlaw.com -- Thomas, Thomas & Hafer
LLP, 525 William Penn Place, 37th Floor, Suite 3750, Pittsburgh,
PA 15219, Counsel for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.


INTERNATIONAL CRUISE: Bid to Certify "Burnside" Class Withdrawn
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on April 26, 2016, in the case titled
Bryson Burnside v. International Cruise & Excursion Gallery, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-02511 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing
held before the Honorable Robert W. Gettleman.

The minute entry states that:

   -- the Motion to certify class is withdrawn;

   -- response to the Defendants' motion to stay is due by
      May 10, 2016;

   -- reply is due by May 24; and

   -- status hearing is set for June 29, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ng4HEAmv


INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT: "Patrick" Class Suit Settlement Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Virginia M. Hernandez Covington entered an order granting
final approval of class settlement in the class action lawsuit
captioned NIEYSHIA PATRICK, on behalf of herself and all similarly
situated individuals v. INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, Case
No. 8:15-cv-1252-T-33AEP (M.D. Fla.).

The Class is defined as:

     All natural persons residing in the United States (including
     all territories and other political subdivisions of the
     United States) (a) who submitted an employment application,
     or application for transfer or promotion, or for retention
     with, and (b) who were the subject of a consumer report
     procured by Defendant for employment purposes between
     May 22, 2010 and June 8, 2015, (referenced herein as the
     "Settlement Class")

Luis A. Cabassa, Esq., and Brandon J. Hill, Esq., of Wenzel Fenton
Cabassa, P.A., will continue to serve as Class Counsel for the
Settlement Class.  Named Plaintiff, Nieyshia Patrick, will
continue to serve as Class Representative for the Settlement
Class.

As of the Effective Date, the Settlement Class members, including
the Plaintiff, but excluding those individuals who asked to be
excluded from the Settlement, release the Defendant and its U.S.
affiliates and subsidiaries, from the "Released Claims."

The Releasing Parties stipulate and agree that upon the Court's
final approval of this Settlement Agreement, the claims in the
case shall be dismissed with prejudice.  The Releasing Parties, on
behalf of themselves and their respective assigns, agree not to
sue or otherwise make a claim against any of the Released Parties
that is in any way related to the Released Claims.

The Court dismisses the Action and all claims with prejudice,
without costs to any party, except as expressly provided for in
the Settlement Agreement.

The Settlement Administrator has identified one individual,
specifically "Nadifo Halane," who timely submitted a request for
exclusion from the Settlement Class in compliance with the
procedures set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order.  The
person so identified shall not be entitled to benefits from the
settlement nor bound by this Final Order.

The Plaintiff's unopposed Motion for Fees, Costs, and a Class
Representative Award is granted.  The Plaintiff's counsel is
awarded a fee consisting of one-third of the total common fund
(equating to $175,000), plus costs totaling $3,580.  Nieyshia
Patrick, is awarded an incentive award of $10,000.  Additionally,
the settlement administrator will receive $65,000 for all work
performed in this case.  All of the fees are to be paid from the
Settlement Fund.

A copy of the Final Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=MXyrxTn5


INVESTMENT PROFESSIONALS: Fin'l Advisors Seek Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled JOSEPH R. HERRON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INVESTMENT
PROFESSIONALS INC., Case No. 2:15-cv-01664-MPK (W.D. Pa.), moves
for conditional certification and judicial notice pursuant to
Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The class of potential plaintiffs is defined as:

     All current and former financial advisors, financial
     consultants, registered representatives, and individuals
     with similar or related titles -- also known as and
     sometimes referred to as "security brokers" -- who were
     employed by Investment Professionals Inc., in the United
     States at any time in the past three years, and who were
     compensated on a commissions-only basis.

The Plaintiff (i) seeks approval of the form of the notice to be
sent to the prospective plaintiffs, (ii) seeks authority for the
dissemination of the notice to the prospective plaintiffs via U.S.
Mail, in current employees' pay envelopes, as well as electronic
mail, and via workplace posting at all of Defendant's facilities,
and (iii) asks the Court to instruct the Defendant to produce the
names and addresses of the prospective plaintiffs, in a computer-
readable format.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fd5zCS3A

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Ave., Fifth Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
                  jetzel@carlsonlynch.com


JP SPORTS: Certification of Assistant Managers' Class Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled MEGAN DAVIS, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. JP SPORTS
COLLECTIBLES INC., JOHN E. PEERY and JOLEAN PEERY, Case No. 2:16-
cv-00154-UA-CM (M.D. Fla.), asks the Court to conditionally
certify her FLSA collective action and facilitate notice to
potential class members.

Specifically, Ms. Davis, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated individuals, asks the Court to issue an order:

   -- conditionally certifying a class of current and former
      hourly non-exempt assistant managers, who worked for the
      Defendants at JP Sports Collectibles Inc. between
      February 25, 2013, and the present;

   -- directing the Defendants to produce, in an electronic
      readable format, to undersigned counsel within 14 days of
      the Order granting this Motion, a list containing the
      names, the last known addresses, phone numbers and e-mail
      addresses of putative class members, who worked for the
      Defendants between February 25, 2013, and the present;

   -- authorizing the Counsel to send notice to all individuals
      whose names appear on the list produced by the Defendants'
      counsel by first-class mail and e-mail; and

   -- providing all individuals whose names appear on the list
      produced by the Defendants' counsel with 60 days from the
      date the notices are initially mailed to file a Consent to
      Become Opt-In Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff performed work for the Defendants as an assistant
manager.  She alleges that she was not paid for all hours work
including overtime when applicable.  She discloses that she and
other employees, who worked for the Defendants, have come forward
to participate in this case by opting-in to this matter.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8gR6unYW

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bill B. Berke, Esq.
          BERKE LAW FIRM, P.A.
          4423 Del Prado Blvd. S.
          Cape Coral, FL 33904
          Telephone: (239) 549-6689
          E-mail: berkelaw@yahoo.com


KODAK: Settles Stock Ownership Plan Class Action for $9.7MM
-----------------------------------------------------------
13WHAM News reports that thousands of current and former Kodak
employees are eligible to receive part of a $9.7 million
settlement stemming from a class action lawsuit.

The defendants in this case are former Kodak executives who were
part of the Savings and Investment Plan Committee, the Stock
Ownership Plan Committee and others overseeing retirement plans.

"Unfortunately it seems to me Kodak said we'll pay the 10 million
bucks to leave us alone," said George Conboy of Brighton
Securities.

After Kodak filed for bankruptcy in early 2012, several lawsuits
were filed against the company involving the employees' Savings
and Investment Plan, as well as the Kodak Employee Stock Ownership
Plan.

Federal court paperwork states the employees claimed Eastman Kodak
should be held liable for offering Kodak stock as a investment
option, even after financial experts and bankruptcy attorneys
determined Kodak's financial situation was extremely poor, thus
making its shares a bad investment.

The lawsuits were eventually combined and consolidated into a
class-action suit comprising more than 21,000 current and former
employees.

Paperwork filed in federal court states that the $9.7 million
settlement "is guaranteed to be allocated to the Settlement class
members, after all Court-approved fees, awards, and expenses are
deducted."

Under the proposed Plan of Allocation, each Settlement Class
member will be paid in proportion to their losses in either (or
both) the ESOP or the SIP's Kodak Stock Fund."

The $9.7 million, "represents a recovery of between approximately
twenty to fifty percent of the total damages suffered," according
to the paperwork.

"At this point, years after the bankruptcy, I think any retiree
will be happy to get a check, but it doesn't change the fact that
they kept faith with their employer till the end and their
employer didn't keep faith with them," said Mr. Conboy.

Preliminary approval for the agreement was given by District Judge
David Larimer in a court order on April 26.

Court paperwork states that, "settlement class members do not need
to submit a claim form to participate and will automatically
receive their portion of the settlement proceeds."

13WHAM News will continue to update this developing story as more
information becomes available.


KOVITZ SHIFRIN: Plaintiffs Seek Approval of Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in four putative class action lawsuits against
Kovitz Shifrin Nesbit jointly filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois their renewed motion and
memorandum of law (unopposed) for preliminary approval of a non-
common fund class settlement.  The four cases are:

   * JANICE MCCARTER, on behalf of herself and all others
     similarly situated v. KOVITZ SHIFRIN NESBIT, an Illinois
     professional corporation, Case No. 1:13-CV-3909 (N.D. Ill.);

   * KRYSTYNA SCEHURA, on behalf of herself and all others
     similarly situated v. KOVITZ SHIFRIN NESBIT, an Illinois
     professional corporation, Case No. 1:14-CV-8838 (N.D. Ill.);

   * AMY LILL and CHRISTOPHER WOJDELKO, on behalf of themselves
     and all others similarly situated v. KOVITZ SHIFRIN NESBIT,
     an Illinois professional corporation, Case No. 1:14-CV-2647
     (N.D. Ill.); and

   * MICHAEL WOOD and ALEXANDRIA STOCKMAN v. KOVITZ SHIFRIN
     NESBIT, an Illinois professional corporation,
     Case No. 1:14-CV-10014 (N.D. Ill.).

The cases allege violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Parties have revised their Settlement Agreement pursuant to
the Court's previous instructions.  To avoid the cost of further
litigation, the Parties renewed their negotiation in good faith
and reached a new agreement.  Under this revised Settlement, KSN
agreed to pay an additional amount into the Settlement Fund while
the Plaintiffs agreed to reduce their request for attorneys' fees
and cost, relative to their original agreement reached on
October 27, 2015, at the settlement conference.

If the proposed preliminary approval for the revised Settlement of
the consumer debt collection class action, and later final
approval, is approved by the Court, the Plaintiffs will recover
from KSN a total settlement sum of $320,000 (versus $220,000 in
the original agreement), which now guarantees a minimum of
$150,000 for the class (versus $30,000 in the original agreement)
and which includes payments of costs of class administration,
Plaintiffs, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Settlement Class is defined as

     "All persons, including Plaintiffs, who from May 27, 2012
      through January 22, 2016 or the Preliminary Approval Date,
      whichever is later, resided in Illinois and were sent a
      '30-day Notice and Demand' by KSN."

In summary, the Parties' revised proposed class settlement
totaling $320,000 is as follows:

   Class Fund:                         $150,000
   Costs:                               $30,000
   Total Class Plaintiffs' Awards:      $15,500
   Class Counsel's Fees and Costs:      $84,000

The individual settlement for the Wood and Lock actions is as
follows:

   Total Individual Plaintiffs Awards:  $10,500
   Counsel's Fees and Costs:            $30,000

A copy of the Renewed Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=aibtP35g

Plaintiffs Janice McCarter and Krystyna Scehura are represented
by:

          Kenneth M. DucDuong, Esq.
          KMD LAW OFFICE
          4001 W. Devon Ave., Suite 332
          Chicago, IL 60646
          Telephone: (312) 997-5959
          Facsimile: (312) 219-8404

               - and -

          Mark Lavery, Esq.
          HYSLIP & TAYLOR, LLC LPA
          1100 W. Cermak, Suite B410
          Chicago, IL 60608
          Telephone: (312) 508-5480

Plaintiffs Amy Lill, Christopher Wojdelko, Michael Wood,
Alexandria Stockman, and Locke are represented by:

          M. Kris Kasalo, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF M. KRIS KASALO, LTD.
          20 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 726-6160
          Facsimile: (312) 698-5054


LANNETT COMPANY: Faces "Fraternal" Suit Over Generic Digoxin
------------------------------------------------------------
Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Lannett
Company, Inc., Allergan PLC, Impax Laboratories, Inc., Mylan Inc.,
Par Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries  Co., and
West-Ward Pharmaceutical Corp., Case No. 2:16-cv-02031-CMR (E.D.
Penn., April 27, 2016), arises from the Defendants' and others'
alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy  to fix,
maintain, and stabilize the prices of generic digoxin or
doxycycline products.

Digoxin is s prescription drug that is used to treat mild to
moderate heart failure in adults, increase the heart contracting
functions for pediatric patients with heart failure, and control
the resting heart rate in adult patients with chronic atrial
fibrillation.

Doxycycline monohydrate is a prescription antibiotic used in
treating humans and animals.

The Defendants own and operate pharmaceutical companies that
manufacture and distribute generic digoxin and generic
doxycycline.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      1792 Bell Tower Lane, Suite 203
      Weston, FL 33326
      Telephone: (561) 270-0795
      E-mail: jagoldstein@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Natalie Finkelman, Esq.
      SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
      Bennett 35 East State Street
      Media, PA 19063
      Telephone:  610-891-9880
      E-mail: nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com

         - and -

      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
      E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
              bdemuth@nussbaumpc.co


LIBERTY MUTUAL: LaFollettes Seek Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned ERIC LAFOLLETTE and
CAMILLE LAFOLLETTE, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:14-
CV-04147-NKL (W.D. Mo.), move for an order certifying the class,
appointing Eric and Camille LaFollette as class representatives,
and appointing the law firms of Steelman, Gaunt & Horsefield;
Hearne & Pivac; and Nelson, Terry, Morton, DeWitt & Paruolo as
class counsel.

The class is defined as:

     All persons who received an ACV payment, directly or
     indirectly, from Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company for
     physical loss or damage to their dwelling or other
     structures located in the state of Missouri arising under
     policy Form HO 03 (Edition 04 91) and endorsements, such
     payments arising from losses that occurred from April 8,
     2004 to the date of class certification, where a deductible
     was applied to the ACV payment for the person's dwelling or
     other structure (Coverage A and/or B).  Excluded from the
     Class are: (1) All persons who received a replacement cost
     payment from Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company under
     Coverage A and/or B; (2) All persons whose payment(s) plus
     the amount of any deductible applied was less than $2,500;
     (3) Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company and its
     affiliates, officers, and directors; (4) Members of the
     judiciary and their staff to whom this action is assigned;
     and (5) Plaintiffs' Counsel.

The Plaintiffs contends that certification of the proposed Class
is appropriate because, among other things, the class is so
numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Rlo7ASV0

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Derrick L. Morton, Esq.
          Douglas A. Terry, Esq.
          NELSON, TERRY, MORTON DEWITT & PARUOLO
          P.O. Box 138800
          Oklahoma City, OK 73113
          Telephone: (405) 705-3600
          Facsimile: (405) 705-2573
          E-mail: dterry@ntmdlaw.com
                  morton@ntmdlaw.com

               - and -

          David L. Steelman, Esq.
          STEELMAN, GAUNT & HORSEFIELD
          901 Pine Street, Suite 110
          P.O. Box 1257
          Rolla, MO 65402
          Telephone: (573) 341-8336
          Facsimile: (573) 341-8548
          E-mail: dsteelman@steelmanandgaunt.com

               - and -

          Thomas H. Hearne, Esq.
          HEARNE & PIVAC
          2733 E. Battlefield, No. 301
          Springfield, MO 65804
          Telephone: (417) 883-3399
          Facsimile: (417) 883-3996
          E-mail: thhearne@hplawfirm.org

The Defendant is represented by:

          Bruce A. Moothart, Esq.
          Michael L. Blumenthal, Esq.
          SEYFERTH BLUMENTHAL & HARRIS LLC
          4801 Main Street, Suite 310
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 756-0700
          Facsimile: (816) 756-3700
          E-mail: bruce@sbhlaw.com
                  mike@sbhlaw.com


LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: 8th Cir. Upholds Summary Judgment in "Brown"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Lavenski R. Smith of the Court of Appeals, Eighth
Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation (LP) in the case captioned, Alan
Todd Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louisiana-Pacific Corporation,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 15-1830 (8th Cir.).

LP's former subsidiary, ABT Building Products Corporation (ABT),
manufactured and sold TrimBoard, an exterior building component
intended for use as trim in housing construction. In 2003, Brown
purchased a lot from Bryan Clark Holmes, LLC in Urbandale, Iowa,
and hired Bryan Clark to construct a home on the property for
Brown and his wife. When discussing construction materials with
Clark, Brown emphasized the importance of finding a siding-and-
trim product that would not cause the rotting and buckling
problems present in Brown's prior home. TrimBoard was ultimately
the product selected and installed on Brown's home.

In August 2004, Brown moved into his new home. Sometime in 2010,
Brown noticed damage to certain pieces of the installed TrimBoard
and contacted Clark, who advised Brown of the ten-year limited
warranty. Brown located a copy of the limited warranty on LP's
website and filed a warranty claim. In response to Brown's
warranty claim, LP sent a warranty representative to inspect
Brown's house and identify the damaged TrimBoard. LP offered Brown
$197.67 in compensation for the damaged TrimBoard, which Brown
rejected.

Brown subsequently filed this putative class action, alleging
claims for negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of
warranty, and unfair or deceptive practices, and requested
declaratory relief and money damages. Pursuant to LP's dismissal
motion, the district court dismissed Brown's claim for negligence
and permitted the remaining claims to proceed. LP then moved for
summary judgment on all remaining claims. The district court
granted summary judgment to LP on the remaining claims finding
that Brown failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact
on whether LP made a representation to Clark and that the limited
warranty did not fail of its essential purpose and was not
unconscionable, meaning that Brown's remedy was limited to the
warranty's terms.

On appeal, Brown argues that the district court erred in granting
summary judgment to LP on his claims for fraudulent
misrepresentation, unfair or deceptive practices, and breach of
warranty.

In the Order dated April 12, 2016, available at
http://is.gd/qMVy5Ffrom Leagle.com, Judge Smith found that the
district court did not err in its judgment holding that Clark's
affidavit is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material
fact as to whether Clark received a communication from LP that he
subsequently communicated to Brown and upon which Brown relied.


LTD FINANCIAL: Court Postpones Class Certification Adjudication
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Paul G. Byron postpones adjudication of the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification in the lawsuit captioned LIZNELIA
BAEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v.
LTD FINANCIAL SERVICES, L.P., Case No. 6:15-cv-1043-Orl-40TBS
(M.D. Fla.), until the Plaintiff is given an opportunity to comply
with Local Rule 4.04(b).

The Plaintiff initiated this putative class action against the
Defendant to allegedly vindicate her rights and the rights of
other similarly situated consumers under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.  She states that she and approximately 34,000 other
consumers received dunning letters from the Defendant, which
sought payment on debts that are barred by the applicable statute
of limitations.

Of the many requirements the Plaintiff must satisfy before the
Court may certify a class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure is this Court's Local Rule 4.04(b), according
to the Order.  That rule provides, in pertinent part, that a
motion to certify a Rule 23(b)(3) class "shall . . . suggest a
means of providing, and defraying the cost of, the notice required
by Rule 23(c)(2)."

Upon review of Plaintiff's motion in this case, it is clear that
the Plaintiff has not met this requirement, Judge Byron noted.
Accordingly, he opined, certification cannot be granted at this
time.

The Plaintiff has 14 days from the date of this Order to file a
supplemental brief.  The Defendant has 14 days from the date the
Plaintiff files her supplemental brief to file a response, if
necessary.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BZdb0t97


MAGAN FOOD: Faces "Munoz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Munoz, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly-situated v. Magan Food Enterprises, Inc.
d/b/a Hubba's, and Carlos Magan, Case No. 7:16-cv-03143 (S.D.N.Y.,
April 27, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 24 North
Main Street, Port Chester, New York 10573.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Pooja Bhutani, Esq.
      Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
      Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
      1010 Northern Blvd., Ste. 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (732) 668-7024
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: pb@employmentlawyernewyork.com
              atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
              mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com


MAKING IT A LIFESTYLE: Recalls Dietary Supplements
--------------------------------------------------
Making It A Lifestyle, L.L.C. is voluntarily recalling all lots of
3rd Degree, Black Gold X Advanced and Black Label X capsule form
supplements to the consumer level. The products have been found to
contain undeclared sibutramine and sildenafil. These undeclared
ingredients make these products an unapproved new drug for which
safety and efficacy have not been established.
FDA laboratory analysis confirmed that 3rd Degree and Black Gold X
Advanced contains sibutramine. Sibutramine is a controlled
substance that was removed from the market in October 2010 for
safety reasons. The product poses a threat to consumers because
sibutramine is known to substantially increase blood pressure
and/or pulse rate in some patients and may present a significant
risk for patients with a history of coronary artery disease,
congestive heart failure, arrhythmias, or stroke. This product may
also interact, in life-threatening ways, with other medications a
consumer may be taking. Additionally, FDA laboratory analysis
confirmed that Black Label X contains sildenafil, the active
ingredient in the FDA approved prescription drug Viagra, used to
treat erectile dysfunction (ED). This undeclared ingredient may
interact with nitrates found in some prescription drugs such as
nitroglycerin and may lower blood pressure to dangerous levels.
Men with diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, or heart
disease often take nitrates. To date, Making It a Lifestyle has
not received any reports of adverse events related to this recall.

Black Label X, Black Gold X Advanced, and 3rd Degree are marketed
as weight loss dietary supplements and are packaged in white
plastic bottles, containing 60 capsules per bottle. The products
can be identified by the names on the bottle. These products were
distributed nationwide via internet.

Making It A Lifestyle, L.L.C. is notifying its distributors and
customers by e-mail and is arranging for return of all recalled
products. Consumers who have the recalled products should stop
using them. The recalled products were distributed from February
2015 to April 27th 2016.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact Making
It A Lifestyle, L.L.C. via by phone 1-888-648-4447 Monday thru
Friday 9:00am to 1:00pm or email at Makingitalifestyle@gmail.com.
Consumers should contact their physician or healthcare provider if
they have experienced any problems that may be related to taking
or using this drug product.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the preaddressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178
This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.


MDL 2575: Class Certification Sought in Water Connector Case
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in certain lawsuits consolidated in the
multidistrict litigation captioned In re: Fluidmaster, Inc., Water
Connector Components Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2575,
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois a motion and supporting memorandum of law asking the
Court to certify these classes:

     Class #1 -- Nationwide class under California CLRA: All
     persons who purchased or leased a No-Burst Line, not for
     resale, or sustained damage from the failure of a No-Burst
     Water Supply Line, between April 24, 2011, and the date of
     certification.

     Proposed Class #1 Representatives are Steven Rensel and
     Karen Rhyne

     Class #2 -- State Sub-Classes: Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3),
     breach of warranty on behalf of all persons who purchased or
     acquired a No-Burst Line, or sustained damage from the
     failure of a No-Burst Line, between April 24, 2004, and the
     date of certification in Pennsylvania, Vermont, Alabama,
     Minnesota, Arizona, and Tennessee.

        Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4), negligence on behalf of all
        persons who sustained damage from the failure of a
        No-Burst Line, between April 24, 2012 [or applicable
        statute of limitation], and the date of certification in
        Pennsylvania, Vermont, Alabama, Minnesota, Arizona,
        Illinois, North Dakota, Georgia, Maine, California and
        New Hampshire.

        Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4), strict liability on behalf of
        all persons who sustained damage from the failure of a
        No-Burst Line, between April 24, 2012 [or applicable
        statute of limitation], and the date of certification in
        Pennsylvania, Vermont, Alabama, Minnesota, Arizona,
        Illinois, North Dakota, Georgia, Maine, California and
        New Hampshire.

Additionally, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to appoint the
Plaintiffs identified in the Memorandum of Law as class
representatives, and Saltz, Mongeluzzi, Barrett & Bendesky, P.C.,
and Berger & Montague, P.C. as Class Counsel, and Wexler Wallace
LLP as Liaison Counsel.

The lawsuits and the requesting Plaintiffs are:

   * Rensel, et al., v. Fluidmaster, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-000648;

   * Sullivan, et al., v. Fluidmaster, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
     05696;

   * Hardwick v. Fluidmaster, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00363;

   * Hungerman, et al. v. Fluidmaster, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-
     00994;

   * Wyble v. Fluidmaster, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-01826;

   * Larson v. Fluidmaster, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-10222; and

   * Smith v. Fluidmaster, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00932.

Copies of the Motion and Memorandum of Law are available at no
charge at:

   http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BFS5NPWL
   http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rNncqCxz

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Simon Bahne Paris, Esq.
          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
          SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C.
          One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor
          1650 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 575-3986
          E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
                  phoward@smbb.com
                  ckocher@smbb.com

               - and -

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Glen Abramson, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  ldeutsch@bm.net

               - and -

          Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
          E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
                  aek@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Lisa A. White, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          Bank of America Center
          550 Main Avenue, Suite 600
          Knoxville, TN 37902
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          Anthony D. Shapiro, Esq.
          Jeniphr Breckenridge, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  tony@hbsslaw.com
                  Jeniphr@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Esq.
          Todd. A. Seaver, Esq.
          BERMAN DEVALERIO
          One California Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-3200
          Facsimile: (415) 433-6282
          E-mail: jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com
                  tseaver@bermandevalerio.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Amanda M. Williams, Esq.
          Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  awilliams@gustafsongluek.com
                  rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Donald L. Perelman, Esq.
          Gerard A. Dever, Esq.
          Ria C. Momblanco, Esq.
          FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, P.C.
          One South Broad St., 23rd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 567-6565
          Facsimile: (215) 568-5872
          E-mail: dperelman@finekaplan.com
                  gdever@finekaplan.com
                  rmomblanco@finekaplan.com


MERCK: Sex Discrimination Collective Action Gets Prelim. Court OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Pierson, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge
has granted preliminary approval for a lawsuit accusing Merck & Co
Inc of underpaying female sales representatives to go forward as a
collective action.

The lawsuit is seeking at least $250 million in damages.

U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp in Trenton, New Jersey, on April
27 granted conditional certification to a proposed class of
current and former representatives under the federal Equal Pay
Act, which requires women and men to be paid equally for the same
work.

The complaint alleges that Merck systematically paid female sales
representatives less than their male peers, denied them promotions
and subjected them to sexual harassment and an otherwise hostile
work environment.

Employees who become pregnant or have children were often
pressured to leave the company, the complaint says.

A collective action under the Equal Pay Act requires potential
class members to opt in, unlike a traditional class action in
which class members must opt out.  Judge Shipp's order allows
notices to be sent to potential members so they can opt in.

The class includes women who worked in certain sales
representative positions going back to 2009. It would still
require final approval later in the case for class members to win
damages.

However, Judge Shipp ruled that the four former sales
representatives who brought the lawsuit had already made a "modest
factual showing" of how Merck's policies affected them and other
employees similarly.

"We're glad that women across the country are going to have an
opportunity to join this case," said Russell Kornblith, an
attorney for the plaintiffs.

"We remain confident that this case lacks merit," Merck said in a
statement emailed by spokeswoman Lainie Keller.  "The company will
continue to vigorously defend itself, and remains fully committed
to providing equal employment opportunities for all employees."

The lawsuit, filed in 2013 in New Jersey U.S. District Court, also
includes claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The
plaintiffs are seeking to bring those claims as a class action,
though no class has yet been certified.

The case is Smith et al v. Merck & Co Inc, U.S. District Court,
District of New Jersey, No. 3:13-cv-02970.


METAL TECHNOLOGIES: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Action Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fannie M. Kolish, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Metal Technologies, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00145-JMS-
MJD (S.D. Ind., April 27, 2016), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay employees for short and missed meal breaks in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Metal Technologies, Inc. is in the business of manufacturing
different types of automobile parts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert P. Kondras Jr., Esq.
      HUNT, HASSLER, KONDRAS & MILLER LLP
      Cherry Street
      Terre Haute, IN 47807
      Telephone: (812) 232-9691
      Facsimile: (812) 234-2881
      E-mail: kondras@huntlawfirm.net


MICHIGAN: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Against UIA
-----------------------------------------------------
Paul Egan, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that an
attorney suing the Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency,
alleging it has wrongly accused tens of thousands of residents of
fraud and unlawfully confiscated tens of millions of dollars in
benefits and penalties, says an auditor general's report that was
highly critical of the agency supports her claims.

In the state's response to the report released April 21, "they're
admitting (the state's unemployment insurance system) is flawed in
the ways we're claiming it's flawed," Royal Oak attorney Jennifer
Lord told the Free Press on April 27.

Michigan Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Stevens is expected to rule
soon on the state's motion to dismiss Ms. Lord's proposed class
action.  Arguments were heard on March 8.

The lawsuit, filed in 2015, alleges the automated system the
agency uses for detecting and adjudicating unemployment insurance
fraud "deprives UIA claimants of due process and fair and just
treatment because it determines guilt without providing notice,
without proving guilt and without affording claimants an
opportunity to be heard before penalties are imposed."

The suit also alleges the state agency engages in unlawful
collection practices when it seizes benefits and income tax
returns and garnishes wages to collect the penalties it
arbitrarily assesses.

In a motion filed in October, attorneys for the Unemployment
Insurance Agency urged Stevens to dismiss the suit, saying the
system worked the way it should because lead plaintiff
Grant Bauserman appealed the agency's fraud determination against
him and "the agency reconsidered its previous determinations and
held Mr. Bauserman not liable for interest and penalties."

The state agency argued "Bauserman has been refunded all monies
intercepted and he owes the agency no money," and therefore "there
is no claim upon which relief may be granted."

But another client of Lord's, Daniel Di Gregorio, told the Free
Press on April 27 he's continued to receive letters from the UIA
accusing him of fraud, even after Administrative Law Judge Stephen
Goldstein threw out all allegations against him in February saying
that by failing to specify details about its allegations against
Di Gregorio, "the agency violate(d) the most rudimentary demands
of due process of law."

Mr. Di Gregorio, a crane operator in the concrete business, said
his wife Shirl took the lead in fighting the $33,000 demand he
received from the state agency and "if it wasn't for my wife, I
don't know what I would have done."  He said he might have rolled
over and found a way to pay the money.

Weeks after the judge ruled in her husband's favor, he received
another payment demand from the agency, this time for $6,000,
Shirl Di Gregorio said.

Ms. Lord said the report issued April 21 by Auditor General Doug
Ringler supports her case because the audit details how the
state's MiDAS (Michigan Integrated Data Automated System),
introduced in 2013, arbitrarily makes fraud determinations based
on answers to innocuous questions such as whether someone applied
for benefits because they needed the money.  The audit also
details how the agency fails to spell out details that would allow
claimants to defend themselves against fraud allegations, and says
the agency fails to give proper notice of allegations and
repeatedly sends notices to incorrect addresses even after letters
have been returned as "undeliverable."

In each case, the agency agreed with the auditor's findings,
though it says it has made changes.  Mr. Di Gregorio's experience
shows that even if methods have changed, similar results continue,
Ms. Lord said.

Ms. Lord said she sees parallels with the state's conduct in the
lead poisoning of Flint's drinking water: "The parallel I see is
that there's a CEO mentality," in which the human element is
ignored and "it's all based on the bottom line," she said.

Ken Silfven, a spokesman for the UIA, wouldn't comment on whether
the auditor general's report supports Lord's allegations, citing
the ongoing litigation.

But Mr. Silfven took issues with the Flint comparison and
suggestions Gov. Rick Snyder places too much emphasis on the
bottom line.

"To the contrary, the governor reminds his team constantly that
everything we do is about serving people," Mr. Silfven said in an
e-mail.

"I know that's what motivates him as he does his job.  That's why
he had the courage to lead the way on such things as the Healthy
Michigan program. He's driven by compassion and a clear sense of
duty.  It's not just dollars and cents.  He's made clear time and
again that we can never forget the human element when it comes to
shaping programs or policy."


MODESTO, CA: Irrigation District Faces Class Actions Over Subsidy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Garth Stapley, writing for Modesto Bee, reports that the Modesto
Irrigation District faces two separate class-action lawsuits, both
accusing the utility of overcharging electricity customers to
subsidize farmers' water prices.

Both ask that a judge grant class status enabling tens of
thousands of electricity customers to join the lawsuit and ask for
refunds.

Although filed for similar reasons within two weeks of each other,
the lawsuits were prepared independently.

"We feel it's important to get this case out there so people can
get a little more transparency with what the elected folks are
doing," said Beverly Hills attorney Jeffrey Koncius.

MID spokeswoman Melissa Williams said, "Our legal team is
confident that MID's rates practices are appropriate and comply
with the law."

Mr. Koncius' firm, Kiesel Law, represents Modesto resident Andrew
Hobbs, whose class-action lawsuit against MID was filed March 15.
Previous Modesto Bee reporting has focused on the other lawsuit,
brought two weeks later by Dave Thomas of Modesto.

"As best I can tell, they didn't know about our case when they
filed theirs, and we didn't know about theirs when we filed ours,"
Mr. Koncius said.

Both say overcharging power customers amounts to an illegal tax
prohibited by state law unless MID asks for voter approval, which
it has not.  The Hobbs complaint goes a step further, accusing MID
of overcharging homes to subsidize businesses that pay lower rates
for power, in addition to farmers getting sweet deals on water.

The nonprofit utility serves nearly 118,000 power accounts: 96,583
residential, 12,596 commercial and 156 industrial, plus another
8,524 spread among farm pumps, government buildings and railroads.

MID "has illegally inflated the electricity bills of its
residential customers through unapproved taxes," the Hobbs
complaint says.  Compared to families, MID's industrial customers
pay 75 percent less, and its commercial customers pay 22 percent
less, the lawsuit says.

Bee analyses have shown that MID reaped an average yearly
electricity profit of $93 million from 2010 to 2014, for a five-
year total of $466 million.  MID has used that money to repay debt
and build reserves, currently $196 million.

Electricity profits also subsidize irrigation prices, both
lawsuits note.  This year, the subsidy comes to more than $17
million: it costs MID $21.2 million to deliver water, while
customers pay only $3.82 million -- even after the MID board
raised water rates 20 percent.  The utility serves about 600
farms, critics estimate.

The district has refused to separate its water and power
bookkeeping.  The board has raised water rates several times in
recent years while leaving power rates alone since 2011, about the
time an attorney privately advised that an increase without a vote
of the people might violate state law.

MID's water side deserves but gets no credit for services
benefiting its power side, farm advocates say, such as canals
supporting power poles and carrying stormwater from Modesto
streets, and irrigation replenishing groundwater aquifers.

Mr. Thomas' complaint, brought by Krause, Kalfayan, Benink &
Slavens of San Diego, seeks refunds since February 2015, while
Hobbs' asks for refunds since March 2013.

Attorneys representing both have experience in litigation alleging
that utilities have overcharged customers.

"We tend to take on big cases with big causes, ones we feel
strongly about," Mr. Koncius said.


MOTOROLA: Faces Class Action Over Poor Customer Support
-------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Maxham, writing for Android Headlines, reports that
lately, the big news coming on the Motorola front has been about
their poor customer support when a user needs to get a replacement
device, because theirs is faulty.  Some have been told that
Motorola doesn't have any replacements to send out, and others
have gotten a replacement which was not the one they ordered in
the first place.  As is the case with the main plaintiff in this
class action lawsuit.  Douglas Lynch, who is a Georgia resident,
states that Motorola took months to replace his Moto 360 which was
defective, in 2015.  Motorola did finally replace it, but sent him
a cheaper model than the one that he bought.  This isn't just a
one time occurrence either, the court filing has a number of
additional cases where the same thing happened.  Motorola has
indeed admitted that there are delays in the processing of
warranty claims. That's cool and all, but doesn't help users that
paid for their Moto Care warranty, and now are out of a working
device.

When it comes to customer service, not everyone's experience is
the same.  For every company that has customer service, you can
find a group that has had a rough time with their customer
service, and another group that has had no issues.  Lately, it
seems that Motorola's customer service has just been atrocious
though.  Which is out of the norm for Motorola.  The class action
lawsuit is for $5 million, and we'll likely be hearing a lot more
on this in the coming weeks.

This could turn out to be a pretty expensive lawsuit for Motorola
and Lenovo.  With Lenovo having just restructured their latest
acquisition, one has to wonder if this is part of that
restructuring.  It likely isn't, but could be a cost cutting
measure.  Either way it's not sitting well with consumers, and
that should be no surprise.  This could definitely affect both
Motorola and Lenovo's sales moving forward, which isn't going to
be good for Lenovo. Especially where they want to challenge the
"big dogs" Apple and Samsung in the near future -- a bit reason
for buying up Motorola.


MOTRICITY INC: Dismissal of "Mosco" Securities Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the consolidated securities class action captioned CLIFF MOSCO;
et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, LOBEL FAMILY, Movant-Appellant.,
And JOE CALLAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MOTRICITY INC; et al., Defendants-
Appellees, v. LOBEL FAMILY, Movant-Appellant, No. 13-36029 (9th
Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit affirmed
two Rule 12(b)(6) orders dismissing the Second and Third Amended
Complaints filed by Cliff Mosco, Rich Hardy and Evan S. Lobel
against Motricity, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors,
and the banks who underwrote its Initial Public Offering on June
17, 2010.

A full-text copy of the appellate court's May 3, 2016 opinion is
available at http://is.gd/Ukl0ySfrom Leagle.com.


MTD PRODUCTS: Recalls Utility Vehicles Due to Crash Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
MTD Products Company, of Cleveland, Ohio, announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,300 Utility vehicles. Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The parking brake cable can fail, posing a crash hazard.

This recall involves model year 2015 Cub Cadet Challenger CX500
and Challenger CX700 four-wheel drive off-road utility vehicles.
The recalled vehicles have two bucket seats, roll bars, a canopy,
a two-piece windshield, a 35.5-inch by 44-inch cargo bed and a
winch. The vehicles were sold in the colors camouflage and yellow.
Challenger utility vehicles with the following model numbers are
being recalled. The model number is located under the driver's
seat.

  CX500          CX500           CX700          CX700
  (Yellow)       (Camouflage)    (Yellow)      (Camouflage)
  --------       ------------    --------      ------------
  37AW7CKD010    37AW7CLD010     37AW7CKD710   37AX7CKD710
  37AX7CKD010    37AX7CLD010     37AW7CLD710   37AX7CLD710

The firm has received 22 reports of incidents of the brake cable
failing. There have been no reports of injuries or property
damage.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/EBS9Pv

The recalled products are sold at Cub Cadet dealers nationwide
from April 2015 through October 2015 for between $8,500 to $9,500.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled vehicles and
contact a Cub Cadet dealer to schedule an appointment for a free
repair. Cub Cadet is contacting owners of the recalled utility
vehicles directly.


MURRAY GOULBURN: Class Action Mulled Over Profit Downgrade
----------------------------------------------------------
Damon Kitney, writing for The Australian, reports that Slater and
Gordon is investigating a potential investor class action against
Murray Goulburn in the wake of its shock profit downgrade.

The claim, which Slater and Gordon is investigating together with
litigation funder IMF Bentham Limited, relates to guidance
provided by Murray Goulburn in its Product Disclosure Statement
(PDS) issued last July ahead of its $500 million capital raising.

Those forecasts have since been slashed.

Slater and Gordon Senior class action lawyer Tim Finney said in a
statement that the firm would investigate whether Murray Goulburn
has misled the market.

It comes as the Australian Securities and Investments Commisison
is believed to have circumstances surrounding the downgrade and
the issue of the PDS "on its radar."

"Our initial investigations have identified inconsistencies
between Murray Goulburn's statements to the market regarding its
likely profits in the 2016 financial year, and the factors that
would affect its performance," Mr. Finney said.

"The downgrade was of such a scale that it cannot be explained by
the excuses that have so far been provided.  We are investigating
whether the true cause of Murray Goulburn's downgrade was an
aggressively optimistic profit forecast - built into its Product
Disclosure Statement -- that the company was simply never going to
achieve."


MYDATT SERVICES: "Levin" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Penalties
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nikolay Levin, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff(s), v. Mydatt Services, Inc., SMS Holdings
Corporation and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant(s), Case
No. RG16812703 (Cal. Super., April 21, 2016) seeks to recover
unpaid wages, declaratory relief, injunctive and equitable relief,
actual damages, statutory penalties, liquidated damages,
restitution, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs of
suit, reasonable  attorney's fees and such other relief under
California Labor Codes.

Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff for all hours worked at correct
rates of pay, provide rest and meal periods, failed to provide
wage statement penalties and failed to pay waiting time penalties.

Defendants employed Plaintiff as an hourly safety ambassador, lead
ambassador, team leader and supervisor at Defendants' Oakland,
California location.

Mydatt Services, Inc. offers security services such as detective
and armored car services, armored car services, burglary
protection services and guard dog rentals.

SMS Holdings Corporation is a holding company for several
companies which provide services to multiple industries including
healthcare, hospitality, retail, sports & leisure, transportation
and aviation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Spivak, Esq.
      THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
      9454 Wilshire Blvd., Ste 303
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone (310) 499-4730
      Facsimile (310) 499-4739
      Email: david@spivaklaw.com


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Approval of Concussion Deal Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit affirmed the
decision of the district court in the case captioned IN RE:
NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION.

The National Football League ("NFL") has agreed to resolve
lawsuits brought by former players who alleged that the NFL failed
to inform them of and protect them from the risks of concussions
in football.  The district court approved a class action
settlement that covered over 20,000 retired players and released
all concussion-related claims against the NFL.  Objectors have
appealed that decision, arguing that class certification was
improper and that the settlement was unfair. After thorough
review, however, the Third Circuit concluded that the district
court was right to certify the class and approve the settlement.

A full-text copy of the appellate court's May 2, 2016 opinion is
available at http://is.gd/0kzEwyfrom Leagle.com.

The case before the Third Circuit is captioned, In Re: National
Football League Players Concussion Injury Litigation.  Craig
Heimburger; Dawn Heimburger, Appellants (15-2206). Cleo Miller;
Judson Flint; Elmer Underwood; Vincent Clark, Sr.; Ken Jones; Fred
Smerlas; Jim Rourke; Lou Piccone; James David Wilkins, II,
Appellants (15-2217). Curtis L. Anderson, Appellant (15-2230).
Darren R. Carrington, Appellant (15-2234). Raymond Armstrong;
Nathaniel Newton, Jr.; Larry Brown; Kenneth Davis; Michael
McGruder; Clifton L. Odom; George Teague; Drew Coleman; Dennis
DeVaughn; Alvin Harper; Ernest Jones; Michael Kiselak; Jeremy
Loyd; Gary Wayne Lewis; Lorenzo Lynch; Hurles Scales, Jr.; Gregory
Evans; David Mims; Evan Ogelsby; Phillip E. Epps; Charles L.
Haley, Sr.; Kevin Rey Smith; Darryl Gerard Lewis; Curtis Bernard
Wilson; Kelvin Mack Edwards, Sr.; Dwayne Levels; Solomon Page; Tim
McKyer; Larry Barnes; James Garth Jax; William B. Duff; Mary
Hughes; Barbara Scheer, Appellants (15-2272). Liyongo Patrise
Alexander; Charlie Anderson; Charles E. Arbuckle; Cassandra
Bailey, as Representative of the Estate of Johnny Bailey; Ben
Bronson; Curtis Ceaser, Jr.; Larry Centers; Darrell Colbert; Harry
Colon; Christopher Crooms; Jerry W. Davis; Tim Denton; Michael
Dumas; Corris Ervin; Doak Field; Baldwin Malcolm Frank; Derrick
Frazier; Murray E. Garrett; Clyde P. Glosson; Roderick W. Harris;
Wilmer K. Hicks, Jr.; Patrick Jackson; Gary Jones; Ryan McCoy;
Jerry James Moses, Jr.; Anthony E. Newsom; Rance Olison; John
Owens; Robert Pollard; Derrick Pope; Glenell Sanders; Thomas
Sanders; Dwight A. Scales; Todd Scott; Frankie Smith; Jermaine
Smith; Tyrone Smith; James A. Young, Sr., Appellants (15-2273)
Scott Gilchrist, individually and on behalf of the Estate of
Carlton Chester "Cookie" Gilchrist, Appellant (15-2290) Jimmie H.
Jones; Ricky Ray; Jesse Solomon, Appellants (15-2291) Andrew
Stewart, Appellant (15-2292) Willie T. Taylor, Appellant (15-2294)
Alan Faneca; Roderick "Rock" Cartwright; Jeff Rohrer; Sean
Considine, Appellants (15-2304) James Mayberry, Appellant (15-
2305), Nos. 15-2206, 15-2217, 15-2230, 15-2234, 15-2272, 15-2273,
15-2290, 15-2291, 15-2292, 15-2294, 15-2304 & 15-2305 (3rd Cir.).

TerriAnne Benedetto, Esquire -- tbenedetto@seegerweiss.com --
Seeger Weiss, 1515 Market Street, Suite 1380 Philadelphia, PA
19102 David R. Buchanan, Esquire -- dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com --
Diogenes P. Kekatos, Esquire, Christopher A. Seeger, Esquire --
cseeger@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss LLP, 77 Water Street, 26th
Floor New York, NY 10005 Samuel Issacharoff, Esquire(Argued) New
York University Law School, Room 411J 40 Washington Square South
New York, NY 10012 Gene Locks, Esquire -- glocks@lockslaw.com --
David D. Langfitt, Esquire -- dlangfitt@lockslaw.com -- Locks Law
Firm 601 Walnut Street The Curtis Center, Suite 720 East
Philadelphia, PA 19106 Dianne M. Nast, Esquire --
dnast@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw, 1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
Philadelphia, PA 19107 Stephen F. Rosenthal, Esquire --
srosenthal@podhurst.com -- Steven C. Marks, Esquire --
smarks@podhurst.com -- Podhurst Orseck, 25 West Flager Street,
Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 Arnold Levin, Esquire --
alevin@lfsblaw.com -- Frederick S. Longer, Esquire --
flonger@lfsblaw.com -- Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, 510
Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Brad S. Karp,
Esquire -- bkarp@paulweiss.com -- Theodore V. Wells, Jr., Esquire
-- twells@paulweiss.com -- Lynn B. Bayard, Esquire --
lbayard@paulweiss.com -- Bruce A. Birenboim, Esquire, Walter R.
Reiman, Esquire -- wrieman@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019
Beth A. Wilkinson, Esq. -- bwilkinson@wilkinsonwalsh.com --
Wilkinson Walsh & Eskovitz, 1900 M Street, N.W. Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036 Paul D. Clement, Esquire (Argued) --
pclement@bancroftpllc.com -- Andrew N. Ferguson, Esquire --
aferguson@bancroftpllc.com -- David Zachary Hudson, Esquire,
Robert M. Bernstein, Esquire -- rbernstein@bancroftpllc.com --
Bancroft PLLC, 500 New Jersey Avenue, N.W. Seventh Floor
Washington, DC 20001, Robert C. Heim, Esquire, Dechert 2929 Arch
Street 18th Floor, Cira Centre Philadelphia, PA 19104 Sol H.
Weiss, Esquire, Anapol Schwartz, 1710 Spruce Street Philadelphia,
PA 19103 Counsel for Appellees.

Alan B. Morrison, Esquire, George Washington University, 2000 H
Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20052 Scott L. Nelson, Esquire, Public
Citizen Litigation Group, 1600 20th Street, N.W. Washington, DC
20009 Counsel for Amicus Appellant Public Citizen Inc.

Shana De Caro, Esquire, Michael V. Kaplen, Esquire, De Caro &
Kaplan, 427 Bedford Road, Suite 360 Pleasantville, NY 10570
Counsel for Amicus Curiae Brain Injury Association of America
Christopher A. Bandas, Esquire, Bandas Law Firm, 500 North
Shoreline, Suite 1020 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Howard J. Bashman,
Esquire (Argued) Suite G-22 2300 Computer Avenue Willow Grove, PA
19090 Gary P. Lightman, Esquire, Glenn A. Manochi, Esquire,
Lightman & Manochi, 1520 Locust Street, 12th Floor Philadelphia,
PA 19102 Counsel for Appellants Craig and Dawn Heimburger.

Edward W. Cochran, Esquire, Cochran & Cochran 20030 Marchmont Road
Shaker Heights, OH 44122 John J. Pentz, Esquire, 19 Widow Rites
Lane Sudbury, MA 01776, Counsel for Appellants, Cleo Miller;
Judson Flint; Elmer Underwood; Vincent Clark, Sr.; Ken Jones; Fred
Smerlas; Jim Rourke; Lou Piccone; James David Wilkins, II George
W. Cochran, Esquire, 1385 Russell Drive Streetsboro, OH 44241,
Counsel for Appellant. Curtis L. Anderson

Joseph Darrell Palmer, Esquire 2244 Faraday Avenue, Suite 121
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Jan L. Westfall, Esquire, 29896 Blue Water Way
Menifee, CA 92584 Counsel for Appellant Darren R. Carrington
Richard L. Coffman, Esquire, The Coffman Law Firm, 505 Orleans
Street, Suite 505 Beaumont, TX 77701 Deepak Gupta, Esquire
(Argued) Matthew W.H. Wessler, Esquire Jonathan E. Taylor, Esquire
Gupta Wessler PLLC, 1735 20th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20009
Mitchell A. Toups, Esquire, Weller Green Toups & Terrell, 2615
Calder Street, Suite 400 Beaumont, TX 77704 Jason C. Webster,
Esquire, The Webster Law Firm, 6200 Savoy, Suite 640 Houston, TX
77036 Counsel for Appellants Raymond Armstrong; Nathaniel Newton,
Jr.; Larry Brown; Kenneth Davis; Michael McGruder; Clifton L.
Odom; George Teague; Drew Coleman; Dennis DeVaughn; Alvin Harper;
Ernest Jones; Michael Kiselak; Jeremy Loyd; Gary Wayne Lewis;
Lorenzo Lynch; Hurles Scales, Jr.; Gregory Evans; David Mims; Evan
Ogelsby; Phillip E. Epps; Charles L. Haley, Sr.; Kevin Rey Smith;
Darryl Gerard Lewis; Curtis Bernard Wilson; Kelvin Mack Edwards,
Sr.; Dwayne Levels; Solomon Page; Tim McKyer; Larry Barnes; James
Garth Jax; William B. Duff; Mary Hughes; Barbara Scheer; Willie T.
Taylor Lance H. Lubel, Esquire, Adam Q. Voyles, Esquire, Lubel
Voyles, 5020 Montrose Boulevard, Suite 800 Houston, TX 77006
Mickey L. Washington, Esquire, 1314 Texas Avenue, Suite 811
Houston, TX 77002 Charles L. Becker, Esquire, (Argued) Kline &
Specter, 1525 Locust Street, 19th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102
Counsel for Appellants Liyongo Patrise Alexander; Charlie
Anderson; Charles E. Arbuckle; Cassandra Bailey, as Representative
of the Estate of Johnny Bailey; Ben Bronson; Curtis Ceaser, Jr.;
Larry Centers; Darrell Colbert; Harry Colon; Christopher Crooms;
Jerry W. Davis; Tim Denton; Michael Dumas; Corris Ervin; Doak
Field; Baldwin Malcolm Frank; Derrick Frazier; Murray E. Garrett;
Clyde P. Glosson; Roderick W. Harris; Wilmer K. Hicks, Jr.;
Patrick Jackson; Gary Jones; Ryan McCoy; Jerry James Moses, Jr.;
Anthony E. Newsom; Rance Olison; John Owens; Robert Pollard;
Derrick Pope; Glenell Sanders: Thomas Sanders; Dwight A. Scales;
Todd Scott; Frankie Smith; Jermaine Smith; Tyrone Smith; James A.
Young, Sr.

Jared H. Beck, Esquire, Elizabeth Lee Beck, Esquire, Beck & Lee
Trial Lawyers, Corporate Park at Kendall, 12485 Southwest 137
Avenue, Suite 205 Miami, FL 33186 Antonino G. Hernandez, Esquire,
4 Southeast 1st Street, 2nd Floor Miami, FL 33131 Cullin A.
O'Brien, Esquire, (Argued) 6541 Northeast 21st Way Fort
Lauderdale, FL 33308 Jeffrey J. Cairlanto, Esquire, Profy
Promisloff & Ciarlanto 100 North 22nd Street Unit 105
Philadelphia, PA 19103 Counsel for Appellant Scott Gilchrist,
individually and on behalf of the Estate of Carlton Chester
"Cookie" Gilchrist Dwight P. Bostwick, Esquire, Zuckerman Spaeder
LLP, 1800 M Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Cyril V.
Smith, Esquire, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, 100 East Pratt Street,
Suite 2440 Baltimore, MD 21202 Ramya Kasturi, Esquire, Zuckerman
Spaeder LLP, 399 Park Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10022
Counsel for Appellants Jimmie H. Jones; Ricky Ray; Jesse Solomon
Stuart D. Lurie, Esquire, Rosenthal Lurie, 102 Pickering Way Suite
200 Exton, PA 19341 Michael H. Rosenthal, Esquire, Rosenthal
Lurie, 1500 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1230 Philadelphia, PA
19102, Counsel for Appellant. Andrew Stewart

Steven F. Molo, Esquire (Argued) Thomas J. Wiegand, Esquire,
Kaitlin R. O'Donnell, Esquire, MoloLamken LLP, 540 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022 Eric R. Nitz, Esquire, Rayiner I. Hashem,
Esquire, Jeffrey M. Klein, Esquire, MoloLamken LLP, The Watergate,
Suite 660 600 New Hampshire Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20037
William T. Hangley, Esquire, Michele D. Hangley, Esquire, Hangley
Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller One Logan Square, 18th & Cherry
Streets, 27th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Linda S. Mullenix,
Esquire, 2305 Barton Creek Blvd, Unit 2 Austin, TX 78735 Counsel
for Appellants Alan Faneca; Roderick "Rock" Cartwright; Jeff
Rohrer; Sean Considine David S. Coale, Esquire, Edward J. Dennis,
Esquire, Kent D. Krabill, Esquire, Lynn Tillotson Pinker and Cox,
2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2700 Dallas, TX 75201, Counsel for
Appellant James Mayberry


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Ahmed Hassan Seeks Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned AHMED HASSAN, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. NATIONWIDE
CREDIT CORPORATION, D/B/A NATIONWIDE CREDIT CORPORATION OF VA, AND
PENDRICK CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, Case No. 16-cv-530 (E.D. Wisc.),
moves the Court to certify the proposed class in this case, and
appoint the Plaintiff as its representative, and Ademi & O'Reilly,
LLP as its Counsel; and further requests that the Court both stay
the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and
the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic
briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to
be filed with the motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence.  Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should
suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff asserts.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vvHMqEFV

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEBRASKA: Court Approves Fees and Costs in "Leiting-Hall" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John M. Gerrard of the United States District Court
for the District of Nebraska granted approval of the settlement
agreement and granted the parties' joint motion for fees and costs
in the case captioned, TAMI LEITING-HALL and ASHLEY DANKLEFF,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. COURTNEY PHILLIPS, as Chief Executive Officer of
the Nebraska Health and Human Services, and DOUGLAS WEINBERG, as
Director of the Division of Children and Family Services,
Defendants, Case No. 4:14CV3155 (D. Neb.).

Plaintiffs brought the instant action under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983
alleging that Defendants Courtney Phillips, as Chief Executive
Officer of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services
(or DHHS), and Douglas Weinberg, as Director of the Division of
Children and Family Services, fail to provide Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits within the time
frames mandated by federal law to eligible households who file
initial or renewal applications.

The action was filed on August 1, 2014, and on the same day the
plaintiffs moved pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 to certify a
plaintiff class.  In an order entered March 31, 2015, the Court
certified the plaintiff class, adopting the Magistrate Judge's
findings and recommendation to that effect. On December 23, the
Court was advised that the parties were approaching settlement. By
February 24, 2016, the parties entered into a proposed Stipulation
and Order of Settlement disposing of the plaintiffs' claims.
Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Court set a hearing on the fairness of
the proposed settlement and reviewed the forms of notice submitted
by the parties, approved them as to form, and approved their plan
for directing notice to the class members.

Pending before the Court is the parties' proposed Stipulation and
Order of Settlement, and the parties' Joint Rule 23(h) Motion for
Fees and Costs.

In his Memorandum and Order dated April 1, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/eg1WCqfrom Leagle.com, Judge Gerrard found that the
appointed class representatives and their counsel fairly and
adequately represented the interests of the class members in
connection with the settlement agreement and that the settlement
agreement was the product of good-faith, arm's-length negotiations
by the class representatives, defendants, and their respective
counsel and is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best
interests of class members. The form, content, and method of
disseminating notice to the class members were adequate and
reasonable and constituted the best notice practicable under the
circumstances, satisfying Rule 23(c)(2)(B).

Tami Leiting-Hall is represented by:

     James A. Goddard, Esq.
     Molly M. McCleery, Esq.
     NEBRASKA APPLESEED CENTER
     941 O St #920,
     Lincoln, NE 68508
     Tel: (402)-438-8853

          - and -

     Marc Cohan, Esq.
     NATIONAL CENTER FOR LAW AND ECONONIC JUSTICE
     275 Seventh Ave.
     New York, NY 10001-6860
     Tel: (212)633-6967

Courtney Phillips, Defendant, represented by:

     David A. Lopez, Esq.
     Jessica M. Forch, Esq.
     ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
     950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
     Washington, DC 20530-0001
     Tel: (202) 353-1555


NGOZI IGBINOSA: Court Dismisses Inmate's Suit v. Prison Doctor
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California dismissed Plaintiff's
complaint with leave to amend in the case captioned, JAMES JAMIL
GARRETT, Plaintiff, v. DR. NGOZI IGBINOSA, Defendant, Case No.
1:16-CV-00259-MJS (PC) (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in the civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 1983. Plaintiff is detained at the California Substance Abuse
Treatment Facility (CSATF), in Corcoran, California, where the
acts giving rise to his complaint occurred. He names a single
defendant: Dr. Ngozi Igbinosa. Plaintiff was diagnosed with Valley
Fever in 2011 while housed at Pleasant Valley State Prison.
Plaintiff is a member of a class action lawsuit in relation to his
contraction of the disease. Defendant's husband, Felix Igbinosa,
is a defendant in the class action lawsuit.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant retaliated against him for filing
a lawsuit against Defendant's husband by acting in deliberate
indifference in responding to his medical needs.

In his Order dated April 13, 2016 available at http://is.gd/FJ17dr
from Leagle.com, Judge Seng found that Plaintiff fail to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted because he fails to allege
facts to show that Defendant acted with deliberate indifference
and to state a claim for retaliation.

Plaintiff is given leave to amend within 30 days from the Order.


NORCOLD INC: September 16 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Consumers Who Own or Owned a Norcold 1200 Series, N6 Series, or N8
Series Gas-Absorption Refrigerator or Cooling Unit, Could Get
Benefits From a Class Action Settlement.

Class Action Settlement Preliminarily Approved: There is a
proposed settlement in two class action lawsuits against Norcold,
Inc., Thetford Corporation, and The Dyson-Kissner-Moran
Corporation ("Defendants") concerning three models of gas
absorption refrigerators (1200, N6 and N8 series) for use in
recreational vehicles ("RVs"), such as motorhomes, travel
trailers, and boats.  Those persons included in the settlement
class have legal rights and options and deadlines by which they
must exercise them.

On March 29, 2016 the United States District Court for the Central
District of California granted preliminary approval to the
proposed class action settlement and authorized the sending of the
Notice of Settlement to the members of the Settlement Class by
mail and publication.

Fairness Hearing Scheduled: The Court has scheduled a fairness
hearing to occur on September 16, 2016 at 2:30 pm at the United
States District Court in Santa Ana California at which time it
will consider whether to finally approve the settlement and
whether to grant Class Counsel's petition for attorneys' fees and
costs.

The Claims: Generally, the lawsuits claim that Defendants' 1200,
N6 and N8 series gas-absorption refrigerators share a safety-
related defect in the cooling unit which, in certain
circumstances, can cause the boiler tubes to corrode and leak
flammable gas, exposing consumers to the risk of fire.  The
lawsuits seek compensation for economic losses related to the
purchase of those Norcold Gas Absorption Refrigerators and Cooling
units.  The lawsuits do not allege class claims for personal
injury, wrongful death or damage to property other than the
allegedly defective Norcold Gas Absorption Refrigerators or
Cooling Units themselves.  Defendants deny any wrongdoing and have
denied all allegations in the Complaint and asserted many
defenses.  The Court has not issued any orders deciding which side
was right was on the merits.  Instead, after considerable
discovery and other motion practice, the parties decided to enter
mediation before an experienced former judge and ultimately, to
settle the class claims.

Who is In the Class: Subject to certain limited exclusions, those
persons included in the Settlement Class are persons who:

Currently own, or formerly owned, a Norcold 1200 Series Gas
Absorption Refrigerator or Cooling Unit that was manufactured
between January 1, 2002, and October 1, 2012; OR,
Currently own a Norcold N6 Series Gas Absorption Refrigerator or
Cooling Unit, or N8 Series Gas Absorption Refrigerator or Cooling
Unit that was manufactured between January 1, 2009, and
December 31, 2013.

Those persons who do not fall within the class definition, are not
part of the Settlement Class and are not affected by the
settlement.

The settlement does not involve class claims for personal injury,
wrongful death or damage to property other than to the Norcold
refrigerator they own, owned, or may own in the future.  Such
claims are considered Reserved Claims and are not subject to the
release of claims.

Settlement Benefits: The settlement creates a $36 million Monetary
Fund to resolve all eligible claims of class members and to fund
all administrative costs and attorneys' fees that may ultimately
be awarded by the Court.  The Monetary Fund will be divided in the
manner described in the settlement agreement's Allocation Plan,
and be paid in four annual installments. Generally, to receive a
payment, class members must timely submit a Claim Form by August
26, 2016.  Class members who file claim forms will be allotted a
certain number of shares in the Settlement's Monetary Fund based
on factors attested to on their Claim Form such as model owned
(1200, N8 or N6), whether they are a current or former owner, and
whether any repair expenses were incurred, and if so, in what
amount.  The Allocation Plan is described more fully in the
detailed Notice and Claim Form available at
www.norcoldclassaction.com.

In addition, Defendants will provide, at Defendants' sole expense,
a three-year extended warranty to class members who own N6 and N8
Series gas absorption refrigerators manufactured between January
1, 2009 and December 31, 2013, for a cooling unit that fails due
to a leak.

While Class counsel can petition to receive up to 25% of the
Monetary Fund as attorneys' fees and to reimburse costs incurred,
the final amount awarded will ultimately be determined by the
Court.  Fee petitions will be filed by Class Counsel by August 11,
2016.

Important Deadlines: It is important to note certain deadlines
associated with the settlement approval process.

   a. Claims Deadline: To receive a share of the Monetary Fund
class members must submit a Claim Form by August 26, 2016.  A
separate claim can be made for each Norcold 1200, N8 or N6
refrigerator owned during the applicable time period.  If class
members do nothing they will remain in the Class, be subject to
the release, will not be able to sue Defendants about the issues
raised in the lawsuit, but may not receive the benefits for which
they may be eligible.

   b. Opt-Out Deadline: If class members do not want to be part of
the settlement, they must exclude themselves (or "opt-out") by
August 26, 2016.  If class members opt-out, they will not be
eligible to share in the settlement benefits and receive any
payment, but they will retain the right to sue Defendants on the
class claims asserted.  Defendants, in turn, will retain all
defenses to those claims that they have.  If class members do not
timely exclude themselves from the Settlement Class, they will be
bound by the settlement and be subject to the release.

   c. Objection Deadline: Class members can object to all or part
of the settlement by August 26, 2016, if they don't exclude
themselves.

Enter Appearance: If class members prefer, they may enter an
appearance through the legal counsel of their choice, at their own
expense.  Otherwise, they will be represented by court-appointed
Class Counsel, Zimmerman Reed LLP.

Additional Information: A detailed Notice and Claim Form
explaining the foregoing in greater detail is available online at
www.norcoldclassaction.com The detailed Notice describes the
settlement, how class members may exclude themselves, submit a
Claim Form and/or object to the proposed settlement in greater
detail.  The settlement website also contains copies of other
pertinent documents such as copies of the operative complaints,
Defendants' answer and the full settlement agreement.  We
encourage class members to read and review these materials.
Interested persons may also call 1-877-449-8550 for further
information or to request copies of the detailed Notice or Claim
Form.


OHIO GAMING: "Betts" Plaintiffs Ask Court to Certify FLSA Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled Betts, et al. for herself and
others similarly situated v. Central Ohio Gaming Ventures, LLC,
Case No. 2:16-cv-373 (S.D. Ohio), pursuant to Section 16(b) of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, ask for entry of an order:

   (1) conditionally certifying the proposed collective FLSA
       class as defined herein;

   (2) implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
       Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-mail)
       to:

       All current and former employees of Defendant who during
       the previous three years worked over forty hours in any
       workweek but were not properly compensated for all of
       their overtime hours worked under the FLSA because of
       Defendant's automatic meal deduction policy, in the
       following departments: (1) back of the house food service,
       including cooks and stewards; (2) valet, including
       cashiers and valets; and (3) table games department; and

   (3) requiring Defendant to, within 14 days of this Court's
       order, identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by
       providing a list in electronic and importable format, of
       the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of all
       potential opt-in plaintiffs who worked for the Defendant
       at any time from approximately April 26, 2013, through the
       present.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=owB6cqJg

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

               - and -

          Gregory R. Mansell, Esq.
          MANSELL LAW LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Telephone: (614) 610-4134
          Facsimile: (513) 826-9311
          E-mail: greg.mansell@ohio-employmentlawyer.com


OSF HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Underfunded Benefit Pension Plans
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sheilar Smith, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the OSF Plans,
v. OSF Healthcare System, John and Jane Does 1-20, Members Of The
Osf Human Resources Committee, each an individual, and John and
Jane Does 21-40, each an individual, Case No. 3:16-cv-00467 (S.D.
Ill., April 27, 2016), is an action for damages as a proximate
result of the Defendants' practice of underfunding its benefit
pension plans.

The OSF Healthcare System operates a hospital corporation that
primarily provides healthcare services in Illinois, with certain
operations in Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laura R. Gerber, Esq.
      Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
      Havila Unrein, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101-3052
      Telephone: (206) 623-1900
      Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
      E-mail: lgerber@kellerrohrback.com
              lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
              hunrein@kellerrohrback.com

           - and -

      Ron Kilgard, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400
      Phoenix, AZ 85012
      Telephone: (602) 248-0088
      Facsimile: (602) 248-2822
      E-mail: rkilgard@kellerrohrback.com

           - and -

      Karen L. Handorf, Esq.
      Michelle Yau, Esq.
      Mary J. Bortscheller, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
      1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500,
      West Tower Washington, DC 20005
      Telephone: (202) 408-4600
      Facsimile:  (202) 408-4699
      E-mail: khandorf@cohenmilstein.com
              myau@cohenmilstein.com
              mbortscheller@cohenmilstein.com

           - and -

      Matthew H. Armstrong, ARDC, Esq.
      ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM LLC
      8816 Manchester Road, No. 109
      St. Louis, MO 63144
      Telephone: (314) 258-0212
      E-mail: matt@mattarmstronglaw.com


PASILADES COLLECTION: Court Denies DQ Bid Against Plaintiff Atty
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jesse M. Furman of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York denied Defendant's motion to
disqualify Plaintiff's counsel, Mitchell Pashkin, Esq. in the case
captioned, FRANCIS OLAJIDE, Plaintiff, v. PALISADES COLLECTION,
LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-7673 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.).

Between June 2011 and January 2014, Pashkin worked at the law firm
Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP (C&S), first as the assistant managing
attorney, and then, for the final ten months of his tenure, as the
managing attorney. During Pashkin's employment at C&S, the firm
was (and may still be) engaged by Palisades as one of its debt
collection law firms.

Pashkin left C&S on January 17, 2014. At some point later that
year, he began representing plaintiffs in the sorts of actions
against which he used to defend. Plaintiff Francis Olajide brings
claims pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)
against several Defendants, including Palisades Collection, LLC.
In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that, in 2006 and
2007, one of Palisade's debt-collection law firms, Wolpoff &
Abramson (W&A), sued and obtained (on Palisade's behalf) a default
judgment against him to recoup a debt of $502.15, excluding
interest, that Plaintiff allegedly owed to AT&T.

Plaintiff alleges that the process server who had supposedly
served the summons and complaint, Luis Agostini, did not actually
effect proper service; indeed, Plaintiff alleges that Agostini
conducted so-called "sewer service" by fraudulently representing
that he had served an unidentified co-tenant of Plaintiff's. As a
result -- and because Plaintiff did not, in fact, even have an
AT&T account -- Plaintiff did not learn of the action or judgment
against him until roughly seven years later, after Palisades hired
another firm, Houslanger & Associates (H&A), to enforce the
judgment.  After H&A was notified of the possible issues with
service of the complaint, H&A agreed to vacate the default
judgment and dismiss the action. Plaintiff claims that, based on
the foregoing, W&A, H&A, Palisades, and Alta (Palisades's parent
company) are liable for violations of the FDCPA. Plaintiff also
seeks to pursue the action on behalf of a class.

On December 18, 2015, Palisades moved to disqualify Pashkin from
serving as Plaintiff's attorney in this case, based on his prior
employment at C&S.

In the Opinion and Order dated April 12, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/Q6m7Nffrom Leagle.com, Judge Furman found that the
arguments presented by the Defendant is not a basis for his
disqualification, as he represents only Plaintiff and owes no
duties of loyalty to putative class members.

Francis Olajide is represented by:

     Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
     MITCHELL L. PASKIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
     25 Harriet Ln
     Huntington, NY 11743
     Tel: (631)351-1047

Palisades Collection, LLC is represented by Jonathan Justin
Greystone, Esq. -- jgreystone@lawsgr.com -- SPECTOR GADON & ROSEN,
P.C.


PARKMERCED INVESTORS: Faces "Stewart" Suit In California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Parkmerced
Investors Properties, LLC D/B/A Parkmerced and Does 1 to 100,
Inclusive.

The case is captioned Danilo Stewart, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Parkmerced Investors
Properties, LLC D/B/A Parkmerced and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive,
Case No. CGC 16 551696 (Cal. Super. Ct.).

Parkmerced Investors Properties, LLC engages in the development of
real estate properties.


PEARLS AGROTECH: Piper Alder Mulls Class Action Over Ponzi Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moneylife reports that the action holds out hope for PACL victims.
But will the Supreme Court appointed committee act quickly.

An Australian law firm, Piper Alderman, has offered to file a
civil action suit to recover over AU$170 million transferred
overseas by Nirmal Bhangoo, the alleged mastermind of the mammoth
Rs49,100 crore ponzi scheme that has duped over 50 million Indians
over a 25-year period.  These investors were sold fractions of
land in projects being developed by two Pearls group companies--
Pearls Agrotech Corporation Ltd (PACL) and Pearls Golden Forest
Ltd (PGFL).  An extensive investigation in Australia by
investigator Niall Coburn and the local media there has uncovered
transfer of at least AU$170 million to companies in Australia,
Hong Kong and Singapore that are directly or indirectly controlled
by Nirmal Bhangoo, founder and brain behind the Pearls
group.

Many Indian investors, angry with the slow investigation and
unexplained delay in freezing and recovering their money, have
formed two associations representing over 60,000 people duped by
Pearls and are attempting civil action in Australia to get back
their money.  They are PACL Employees and Customers Protection
Forum and the Janlok Prathishtan Sanghata Committee (India).

The associations hired Temple Law and Nayak Associates to handle
their case.  These lawyers, in turn, approached Niall Coburn and
Piper Alderman to pursue the class action in Australia to recover
their funds.  On February 2, 2016, based on an order of the
Supreme Court of India (SC), the Securities & Exchange Board of
India (SEBI) had constituted a committee headed by Justice RM
Lodha to oversee the liquidation and sale of Pearls group's assets
and refund of money to investors at the earliest, preferably
within six months from the date of the order.

Hence, Piper Alderman, the law firm, has written to Justice Lodha
and the SEBI chairman, offering to file cross-border proceedings
in Australia to bring overseas assets under control, liquidate
them and get back investors' money.  The law firm's letter says
that Niall Coburn, who has been investigating PACL assets in
Australia for two months, has traced assets of around $170 million
and there may be "more assets held in complex structures."  It
provides an extensive list of assets that have been traced in
Australia through their investigation, explains the connection
with Mr. Bhangoo's family and even provides a chart of the group
and its linkages.  These include AU$100 million in properties such
as Sheraton Mirage Resort (Sheraton) on the Gold Coast through a
company called Pearls Australasia Mirage 1 Pty Ltd incorporated in
October 2009, Pearls Infrastructure Projects Limited and several
homes and properties that are connected through Nirmal Bhangoo's
children.

Worryingly, Piper Alderman says that these foreign assets are not
under receivership in India and can be dissipated during the slow
investigation.  In fact, the Sheraton is already listed for sale.
Shockingly, it says that the Indian government has not even filed
applications to "preserve the investor funds in other
jurisdictions, such as Australia, Singapore and Hong Kong."

An international class action of this type, with approval from the
regulator, has never been attempted before.  Even if the
Australian legal process is swift and enables recovery of assets,
the government will have to evolve a mechanism to distribute the
money among an estimated 50 million investors.  The task is
humungous and SEBI is still in the process of collating investor
data with proof of investment.  It is, however, unclear why the
government is not invoking the draconian provisions of the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act or acting swiftly to preserve
the overseas assets of Nirmal Bhangoo's family.

Meanwhile, the Pearls group, which has been adept at gaming the
legal system for over 20 years, has already enlisted a phalanx of
expensive and influential lawyers to continue its fight.  There
are also dark rumours about powerful people trying to derail
action against the group.  It is also curious that the PACL scam
has evoked little interest in the Indian media, despite the
massive sum involved; it is the Australian press that unearthed
the massive transfer of funds and assets owned abroad.  Will the
Lodha committee really succeed in getting investors even a part of
their investment back? Or will this be another lackadaisical
pursuit that yields no result?


PEGGYBANK.COM: "Miller" Class Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned James Miller, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Peggybank.com LLC,
James Simon, Scandigital Inc., Memory Ventures, Anderson
Schoenrock, and Groupon, Inc., Case No. 16CV189101 was removed
from Lorain County Court of Common Pleas to the U.S. District
Court Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-01011-DAP to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts a Racketeering (RICO) Act violation.

Peggybank.com. LLC and Scandigital Inc. develop a platform that
enables users to digitize and upload old printed photos, slides,
and VCR tapes to the cloud.

Groupon, Inc. operates a global e-commerce marketplace offering
activities, travel, goods and services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:
      Dennis E. Murray Sr., Esq.
      Donna Jean A. Evans, Esq.
      MURRAY & MURRAY
      111 East Shoreline Drive
      Sandusky, OH 44870
      Telephone: (419) 624-3000
      Facsimile: (419) 624-0707
      E-mail: dms@murrayandmurray.com
              dae@murrayandmurray.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Joseph C. Weinstein, Esq.
      Roger M. Gold, Esq.
      SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS
      4900 Key Tower
      127 Public Square
      Cleveland, OH 44114
      Telephone: (216) 479-8500
      Facsimile: (216) 479-8780
      E-mail: joe.weinstein@squirepb.com
              roger.gold@squirepb.com


PENNSYLVANIA: SEPTA Faces Class Action Over Background Checks
-------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a man claiming his offer of employment as a bus driver with the
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority was revoked
because of his criminal history has filed a class action lawsuit
against SEPTA in federal court.

Frank Long alleged in his lawsuit that SEPTA routinely violates
the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Pennsylvania Criminal
History Record Information Act by failing to give "clear and
conspicuous" written notice to job applicants that it conducts
background checks and disqualifies candidates based on "unrelated
felony convictions."

The suit was filed on behalf of Mr. Long by a consortium of
groups, including the Public Interest Law Center, Philadelphia
Lawyers for Social Equity, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights
Under Law and law firms Willig, Williams & Davidson in
Philadelphia and Outten & Golden in New York.

Mr. Long, who was employed as a school bus driver at the time he
applied for the SEPTA job in 2014, was verbally offered the
position by a SEPTA recruiter, contingent upon a background check.
That offer was rescinded after Long disclosed that he had a
criminal record, specifically, convictions in 1997 for possession
and manufacture of a controlled substance stemming from a 1994
arrest, according to Mr. Long's complaint.

Mr. Long had to complete a form authorizing SEPTA to perform a
background check, however, Mr. Long argued that the form was
"unclear and inconspicuous" and was not solely a disclosure that
consumer information about him could be gathered.

The complaint also said, "Mr. Long's criminal history was not
relevant to the bus operator position for which he applied for
reasons including the nature of the crime, the age of the
conviction, and the years Mr. Long has been in the general
population without any further conviction."

The prospective class will cover all applicants who have sought
jobs with SEPTA and have had consumer reports about them reviewed
by SEPTA without a clear and conspicuous disclosure in writing
before the agency sought the report.

The criminal background aspect of the class definition includes
individuals who were denied employment with SEPTA for vehicle
operator positions on the basis of drug convictions more than
seven years old.

Both classes cover applicants who have been denied employment
within two years of the filing of the complaint through the date
of final judgment.

Mr. Long's complaint said that joining all of those potential
class members in the litigation would be impractical given the
sheer size, though a precise number is not known.

Therefore, commonality would be established by considering whether
the plaintiff meets the criteria of the classes, along with
whether SEPTA was in willful noncompliance with FCRA and CHRIA.

Additionally, "Mr. Long will fairly and adequately represent and
protect the interests of the class members because his interests
coincide with, and are not antagonistic to, the interests of the
class members he seeks to represent," the complaint said.

Ryan A. Hancock, of counsel and chair of the employment law
department of Willig Williams, is one of the attorneys
representing Long.

"What we're looking to accomplish is for SEPTA to come into the
compliance with the Criminal History Record Information Act," he
said.


PFIZER INC: 2nd Circuit Revives shareholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has resurrected a
class action lawsuit filed by Pfizer Inc. shareholders who allege
the drug maker misled them about certain pain-relieving drugs and,
in turn, cost them billions.

In its April 12 decision, the federal appeals court vacated the
judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

The three-judge panel concluded the district court's rationales
for excluding the plaintiffs' expert on loss causation and damages
-- Daniel Fischel, a former University of Chicago Law School dean
-- were "inadequate to justify excluding it in its entirety."

The Second Circuit, in its 63-page opinion, also concluded that
the district court erred in its earlier summary judgment ruling
that no reasonable jury could find Pfizer liable for certain
statements made by companies that owned the drugs before Pfizer,
including G.D. Searle & Co. and Pharmacia Corp.

"Plaintiffs' evidence of Pfizer's authority over the eight
statements by Searle and Pharmacia employees to various newspaper
and journal articles fares slightly better, however," the panel
wrote.  "In broad terms, the eight statements all conveyed that
there were no increased cardiovascular risks associated with
Celebrex.

"To be clear, there is no dispute that Searle and Pharmacia
employees, not Pfizer employees, actually delivered the statements
to the press.  Nor is there any evidence that these employees held
themselves out as representing Pfizer. And 'in the ordinary case,'
the fact that the statements were attributed to Searle or
Pharmacia employees 'is . . . strong evidence that [the]
statement[s] w[ere] made by -- and only by -- the party to whom
[they were] attributed.'"

The panel continued, "Nevertheless, we find that there is a
material question of fact whether the present case deviates from
the ordinary case.  Notwithstanding that the eight statements to
the press were attributed to Searle and Pharmacia employees,
Plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence to permit a
reasonable jury to conclude that Pfizer had 'ultimate authority'
over the statements' 'content and whether and how to communicate'
them."

The shareholders, who filed their lawsuit in 2004, allege Pfizer
concealed the risks associated with Celebrex and Bextra.  Both are
considered nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, used to treat
chronic pain and inflammation.

The class, which includes investors who bought Pfizer stock
between Oct. 31, 2000 and Oct. 19, 2005, alleges that when the
market eventually learned of the risks associated with the two
drugs, the value of Pfizer's shares fell by about $70 billion.

Bextra was available by prescription up until 2005, when the Food
and Drug Administration requested Pfizer withdraw the drug from
the U.S. market.  The FDA cited "potential increased risk for
serious cardiovascular (CV) adverse events" and an "increased risk
of serious skin reactions," among other things.

The drug maker agreed to suspend sales and marketing of Bextra,
but said it disagreed with the FDA's view of the drug's risks and
benefits.

In September 2009, Pfizer also agreed to pay $2.3 billion to
resolve an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice into
the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceuticals, including
Bextra.

The FDA allowed Celebrex, closely related to Bextra, to remain on
the market; however, it now includes strict warnings about the
risk of heart attacks and strokes.

The shareholders' lawsuit, as result of the Second Circuit's
decision, now returns to the Southern District of New York.

Pfizer said in a statement it has "appropriately communicated
accurate and science-based information about its medicines to
investors and the public at all times."

It said it plans to defend the case "vigorously."


PORSCHE CARS: W.Va. High Court Affirms "Harrison" Case Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Justice Menis E. Ketchum of the West Virginia Supreme Court
affirmed the circuit court's order dismissing amended complaint in
the case captioned, Arnold Harrison, Plaintiff Below, Petitioner,
v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Defendant Below, Respondent,
Case No. 15-0381 (W. Va.).

On May 15, 2003, petitioner Arnold Harrison, a resident of Kanawha
County, West Virginia, purchased a 2003 Porsche Carrera 4S Coupe
from an approved Porsche dealer in Texas. He alleges that, on
September 8, 2013, while he was operating the vehicle in a
reasonably foreseeable manner, the vehicle suffered engine failure
resulting in a complete loss of power. Petitioner filed his
original complaint in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County on June
26, 2014, in which he alleged breach of express warranty;
deceptive trade practices under West Virginia and Texas consumer
protection laws; and breach of implied warranty of
merchantability.

Porsche filed a motion to dismiss petitioner's complaint under
Rule 12(b)(6) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, or,
in the alternative, a motion for summary judgment. A hearing on
the motion was conducted on October 16, 2014. By order entered
November 3, 2014, the parties agreed that petitioner would
voluntarily dismiss, with prejudice, his breach of express
warranty claim. Thereafter, on November 20, 2014, the circuit
court entered an order that granted petitioner's motion to amend
his complaint and also ordered that Porsche's previously filed
motion to dismiss be held in abeyance.

On December 10, 2014, petitioner filed an amended complaint in
which he alleged deceptive trade practices under West Virginia and
Texas consumer protection laws, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, and property damage due to product defect (i.e.,
strict liability). Porsche filed a second motion to dismiss, which
was granted by order entered April 1, 2015.

On appeal, Petitioner, by counsel John H. Skaggs, argues that the
circuit court erred in holding that his claim for breach of
implied warranty of merchantability was time barred even though it
was filed less than two years after discovery of the defect and
that the case falls within the exception provided for in West
Virginia Code Sec. 46-2-725(2).

In his Opinion dated April 12, 2016, available at
http://is.gd/Z1eS5cfrom Leagle.com, Judge Ketchum found that no
substantial question of law and no prejudicial error and the
memorandum decision affirming the circuit court's order is
appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Settles TCPA Class Action for $18 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Bauer, writing for insideARM, reports that Portfolio Recovery
Associates LLC (PRAA) will pay $18 million to resolve
multidistrict litigation accusing the debt collection company of
violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by making
autodialed phone calls to consumers without their consent,
according to documents filed on April 25 in California federal
court.

In this instance the MDL originally involves four (4) separate
actions.  The various actions that were consolidated in the MDL
all involved allegations that PRAA violated the TCPA by placing
debt collection calls to consumers' cellular phones using an
Automated Telephone Dialing System (ATDS).

The Plaintiffs in the case (In re Portfolio Recovery Associates,
LLC, Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation, Case No. 3:11-
md-02295, United States District Court, Southern District of
California) filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Class Action Settlement and Class Certification that lays out the
terms of the proposed settlement.  A hearing to approve the
proposed settlement is set for June 6, 2016.  The Defendants in
the case are the aforementioned PRAA and PRA Group, Inc.

The Proposed Settlement

The proposed settlement consists of the following:

Defendants will pay $18,000,000.  Settlement Class members will
receive a pro rata share of the balance of that amount after
payment of notice and administration costs not to exceed
$3,325,000, attorney's fees not to exceed $5.4 million, litigation
costs, and incentive awards for each of the named Plaintiffs not
to exceed $6,250 each.

The injunctive relief affirmed in Meyer v. Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC, 707 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2012) will be continued
and expanded.  In sum, the injunction will prohibit PRA from using
its Avaya Proactive Contact Dialer to place calls to any person's
cellular telephone numbers without prior express consent.

The Agreement defines the Class as follows: All natural persons
residing in the United States who received one or more telephone
calls from an autodialer or a predictive dialer operated by
Defendants to such person's cellular telephone number between
December 23, 2006 and July 1, 2013, inclusive, and who are listed
in the csv data file titled pra_outbound_dial_list_20140304.zip
produced to Plaintiffs' counsel. (The data file identifies
approximately 7.4 million Class Members as meeting the definition
above.)

A consent decree entered into with this settlement provides an
injunction that prohibits PRA from using its Avaya Proactive
Contact Dialer to place calls to any person's cellular telephone
numbers without prior express consent.

Class Members will receive an opportunity to opt-out of the Class.
Those that do not ("Settlement Class Members") are eligible to
claim and receive a pro rata share of the remaining common fund;
the recovery for each Settlement Class Member who submits a valid
claim will depend on the total number of valid claims.  There is
no minimum or maximum amount that any Settlement Class Member is
entitled to receive.

Any remaining funds will go to the designated Cy Pres Recipient.
The Parties propose any cy pres relief be paid to the National
Association of Consumer Advocates, in particular for its work with
the Federal Communications Commission to ensure that consumers'
rights are maintained under the TCPA.  No funds shall revert to
Defendants.


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Deodorant Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Johnson, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated individuals v. The Procter & Gamble Co., Case No. 3:16-
cv-02302-SK (N.D. Cal., April 27, 2016), arises out of the
Defendant's defective Old Spice deodorant products, which contain
a mix of chemicals that, when applied to the skin, produce a
significant risk of injury, such as rashes, redness, blisters,
aches, and burns.

The Procter & Gamble Co. operates a consumer goods company with
its headquarters and principal place of business in Cincinnati,
Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
      Jordan Elias, Esq.
      Linh G. Vuong, Esq.
      GIRARD GIBBS LLP
      601 California Street, 14th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Telephone: (415) 981-4800
      Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
      E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com
              je@girardgibbs.com
              lgv@girardgibbs.com


QVC INC: "Robinson" Class Suit Removed to S. Dist. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Waverly Robinson, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. QVC, Inc. and Wen by
Chaz Dean, Inc., Case No. CACE-16-005367, was removed from the
17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida to U.S.
District Court Southern District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:16-cv-60932-CMA to the
proceeding.

QVC, Inc. operates a cable, satellite and broadcast television
network, and multinational corporation specializing in televised
home shopping.

Wen by Chaz Dean, Inc. is a manufacturer of natural hair care
products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua Harris Eggnatz, Esq.
      Michael James Pascucci, Esq.
      EGGNATZ, LOPATIN & PASCUCCI, LLP
      5400 S. University Drive, Suite 413
      Davie, FL 33328
      Telephone: (954) 889-3359
      Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
      E-mail: JEggnatz@ELPLawyers.com
              mpascucci@ELPLawyers.com

The Defendant QVC, Inc.is represented by:

Brian Michael Ercole, Esq.
      Robert Mark Brochin, Esq.
      MORGAN LEWIS, BOCKIUS
      200 South Biscayne Blvd, Suite 5300
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 415-3416
      Facsimile: (325) 415-3001
      E-mail: bercole@morganlewis.com
              rbrochin@morganlewis.com

The Defendant Wen by Chaz Dean, Inc.is represented by:

      Susan Elizabeth Raffanello
      COFFEY BURLINGTON, P.L.
      2601 S Bayshore Dr
      Penthouse 1
      Miami, FL 33133
      Telephone: (305) 858-2900
      Facsimile: (305) 858-5261
      E-mail: sraffanello@coffeyburlington.com


RBS CITIZENS: Court Certifies Class of Mortgage Loan Officers
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Arthur J. Schwab entered a memorandum order conditionally
certifying the lawsuit titled ALEX REINIG, KEN GRITZ, and BOB
SODA, Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v.
RBS CITIZENS, N.A., Case No. 2:15-cv-01541-AJS (W.D. Pa.), as a
collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

On November 23, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed an individual, class,
and collective action complaint, alleging that Citizens violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act,
and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.  The
Plaintiffs are current or former mortgage loan officers at
Citizens.

The Court directed the Parties to file a joint proposed notice to
the potential opt-in collective action members and a plan to
provide said notice by May 16, 2016, and to include Citizens'
mortgage loan officers who, during at least one work week since
November 23, 2012, worked more than 40 hours and earned
commissions, non-discretionary bonuses, or other premiums.

A status conference will be held on May 10, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=q76rAUJb


REPUBLIC OF TEA: Recalls Organic Turmeric Ginger Green Tea
----------------------------------------------------------
The Republic of Tea is dedicated to the health and wellness of
each and every citizen (customer). As such, we are issuing a
voluntary recall of our Organic Turmeric Ginger Green Tea in
response to a possible health risk. There have been no illnesses
reported in connection with this voluntary recall. No other teas
are impacted by this recall.

The Republic of Tea was notified by one of our suppliers, of the
possibility that one lot of its organic ginger ingredient may be
contaminated with Salmonella bacteria. Salmonella is an organism,
which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune
systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience
fever, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain.

The organic ginger supplier reported this finding from another
customer. The Republic of Tea and the organic ginger supplier have
conducted their own investigations and have tested numerous
samples of organic ginger by accredited independent third party
laboratories and confirmed the absence of Salmonella.

Despite the fact it was confirmed that there is no Salmonella in
the organic ginger that was tested, The Republic of Tea is taking
the precautionary measure to recall the following Organic Turmeric
Ginger Green Tea:

Organic Turmeric Ginger Green Tea - 50 CT Tin
UPC: 7-42676-40355-5 - Best Sipped by March 23, 2018
Organic Turmeric Ginger - 250 CT Bulk Bag
UPC: 7-42676-30655-9 - Best Sipped by March 23, 2018
Organic Turmeric Ginger - 250 CT Bulk Bag
UPC: 7-42676-30655-9 - Best Sipped by April 13, 2018
Organic Turmeric Ginger - 50 CT Refill Bag
UPC: 7-42676-42155-9 - Best Sipped by March 23, 2018

Citizens may return Organic Turmeric Ginger Green Tea to The
Republic of Tea for a replacement tea, or for a full refund.
"There is absolutely no evidence that our tea has been
contaminated. We are taking this preventive, cautious measure
because we want our citizens to feel comfortable when drinking our
premium quality teas and herbs," said Todd B. Rubin, Minister of
Evolution at The Republic of Tea. "The health and safety of our
citizens is our number one priority and we will not take potential
health risks lightly. This voluntary recall is the first in our
nearly quarter-century history."

For questions and concerns teasafety@republicoftea.com or call 1-
800-298-4832, Monday-Friday between the hours of 8:00am-5:00pm
CST.

The Republic of Tea enriches people's lives through its premium
teas, education and innovation, as it emphasizes a "Sip by Sip
Rather Than Gulp by Gulp" lifestyle. Founded in 1992, The Republic
of Tea sparked a specialty tea revolution. Today the brand offers
an unequaled selection of the highest-quality teas, herbal blends,
books and nature-inspired sip ware, available exclusively at
specialty retailers throughout the U.S. Further, The Republic of
Tea is mindful of how its actions impact the greater community and
actively supports worthy organizations like Action Against Hunger,
The Ethical Tea Partnership, The Prostate Cancer Foundation,
Xerces Society and The Whole Planet Foundation. Certifications
include Demeter USA Certified Biodynamic, Fair Trade
certification, Gluten-Free certification, Non-GMO Project
verification, OU Kosher certification, Rainforest Alliance
certification and USDA Organic certification. For more
information, please visit www.REPUBLICofTEA.comdisclaimer icon or
call 1-800-298-4832. Follow The Republic of Tea on Twitter at
twitter.com/republicofteadisclaimer icon and Like us on Facebook
at www.facebook.com/RepublicofTea


RUBI ROSE: Faces "Neuss" Class Suit in New Jersey Court
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Rubi Rose,
L.L.C. d/b/a Dapple Baby, John/Jane Does 1-100, and ABC
Corporations 1-100.

The case is captioned Kim Neuss and Antonio Neuss, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rubi Rose,
L.L.C. d/b/a Dapple Baby, John/Jane Does 1-100, and ABC
Corporations 1-100, Case No. 3:16-cv-02339-MAS-LHG (D.N.J. April
27, 2016).

Rubi Rose, L.L.C. is a manufacturer of cleansers for cleaning baby
bottles, baby bottle nipples, baby pacifiers, baby nursers, and
cups adopted for feeding babies

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Barry R. Eichen, Esq,
      EICHEN CRUTCHLOW ZASLOW & MCELROY, LLP
      40 Ethel Road
      Edison, NJ 08817
      Telephone: (732) 777-0100
      E-mail: beichen@njadvocates.com


SCHNUCK MARKETS: Court Drops Non-Settling Plaintiffs from Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Michael J. Reagan of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted Defendant's
motion to dismiss as to the non-settling plaintiffs in the case
captioned, CLYDE ALLEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SCHNUCK MARKETS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-0061-MJR-DGW (S.D. Ill.).

On December 9, 2014, Clyde Allen and 204 other plaintiffs filed a
civil mass action complaint against Schnuck Markets, Inc., in the
Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair
County, Illinois. Allen and his co-plaintiffs alleged that
criminals hacked into Schnucks' electronic payment systems and
stole information about them, including credit and debit card
information, and that Schnucks didn't adequately protect that
information.

On October 5, 2015, the parties advised the Court that settlement
was imminent as to some of the named plaintiffs. Around two weeks
later, 199 of the 205 plaintiffs stipulated to dismissal of their
claims with prejudice. That left six plaintiffs remaining: Belinda
Wilson, Carole Bellman, Dan Deters, Lydia Douglas, Ezell James,
and Verne Vollrath.

Counsel had already moved to withdraw as to Wilson and moved to
withdraw as to Bellman, Deters, Douglas, James, and Vollrath on
the day that the stipulation was entered.

Magistrate Judge Wilkerson granted those motions to withdraw and
further advised each of the non-settling plaintiffs that he or she
needed to appear via new counsel or inform the Court of his or her
intention to proceed pro se in writing by a specified date -- for
Wilson by September 18, 2015, and for the rest by November 20,
2015.

Schnucks moved to dismiss as to the non-settling plaintiffs,
claiming that each failed to prosecute his or her case and comply
with the Court's directives.

In his Memorandum and Order dated April 12, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/9Ap0gOfrom Leagle.com, Judge Reagan found that the
non-settling defendants have failed to abide by the Court's orders
and move forward with the case and dismissed the claims of Wilson,
Bellman, Deters, Douglas, James, and Vollrath with prejudice.

Schnuck Markets, Inc. is represented by Russell K. Scott, Esq. --
rks@greensfelder.com -- GREENSFELDER, HEMKER & GALE PC, Casie D.
Collignon, Esq. -- ccollignon@bakerlaw.com -- and Paul Karlsgodt,
Esq. -- pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com -- BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP


SMALLS ELECTRICAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Project Balance Due
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Supply Corp., on behalf of itself and all other persons
similarly situated as trust fund beneficiaries of Lien Law trusts
of which smalls Electrical construction, Inc., is a trustee v.
Smalls Electrical Construction, Inc. and Jeffrey J. Smalls, Case
No. 506796/2016 (N.Y. Super. Ct., April 28, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay balance due and owing of
$302,461.12 for the improvement project known as Port
Authority Bus Terminal, Replacement of Fire Pump.

The Defendants are engaged in the contracting business, furnishing
labor and materials in connection with public contracts involving
the improvement of real property in the state of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marshall M. Stern, Esq.
      MARSH M. STERN, P.C.
      17 Cardiff Court
      Huntington Station, NY 11746
      Telephone: (631) 427-0101


SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Zachariah Pinkney Seeks Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled ZACHARIAH PINKNEY,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
SOUTHWEST CREDIT SYSTEMS, LP, Case No. 16-cv-532 (E.D. Wisc.),
moves the Court to certify the proposed class in this case, and
appoint the Plaintiff as its representative, and Ademi & O'Reilly,
LLP as its Counsel; and further requests that the Court both stay
the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and
the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic
briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to
be filed with the motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence.  Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should
suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff asserts.

A copy of the xxx is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tfSLXA7L

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Faces "Hicks" Suit Over Royalty Underpayment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Hicks, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Southwestern Energy Company, SWN Production
(Arkansas), LLC, Southwestern Energy Services Company, and Desoto
Gathering Company, LLC, Case No. 4:16-cv-00226-SWW (E.D. Ark.,
April 27, 2016), arises out of the Defendants' underpayment of
royalties on natural gas from wells in the geological formation
referred to as the Fayetteville Shale Play in Arkansas through
improper accounting methods such as starting with a price that is
too low and taking deductions for marketing, gathering,
compression and dehydration which are collectively referred to as
"post-production expenses" ("PPE's") and by failing to account for
and pay royalties.

The Defendants own and operate an oil and natural gas company
based in Houston, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keith L. Grayson, Esq.
      GRAYSON & GRAYSON, P.A.
      209 East Main Street
      Heber Springs, AR 72543
      Telephone: (501) 206-0905
      E-mail: graysonandgrayson@att.net


STAACK & SIMMS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Forte" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Forte and Mary Ann Forte, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Staack & Simms, P.A. d/b/a Timeshare
Trustee, Timeshare Trustee, LLC, and The Resort on Cocoa Beach
Association, Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-01027-VMC-AEP (M.D. Fla. April
28, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.

Staack & Simms, P.A. operates a law firm located at 900 Drew St #
1, Clearwater, FL 33755.

The Resort on Cocoa Beach Association, Inc. own and operate a
beachfront resort in Cocoa Beach, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nicolas Ben Harvey, Esq.
      OSSI, WITHERS & HARRISON, PA
      4731 NW 53rd Ave Ste 1
      Gainsville, FL 32653-4899
      Telephone: (352) 692-4888
      Facsimile: (352) 692-4998
      E-mail: nick@owhlaw.com

          - and -

      Zachary West, Esq.
      BERMAN & BERMAN, PA
      Suite D, 805 NW 13th St
      Gainesville, FL 32601
      Telephone: (352) 514-3791
      Facsimile: (561) 826-5201
      E-mail: zwest@thebermanlawgroup.com


STARBUCKS CORPORATION: Faces "Pincus" Suit in N. Dist. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Starbucks
Corporation.

The case is captioned Stacy Pincus, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Starbucks Corporation, Case No.
1:16-cv-04705 (N.D. Ill., April 27, 2016).

Stacy Pincus is a pro se plaintiff.

SUNRUN INC: "Cohen" Files Securities Class Action in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
George Cohen, David Moss and Roxanne Xenakis, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Sunrun
Inc., Lynn Jurich, Robert Komn, Edward Fenster, Jameson Mcjunkin,
Gerald Risk, Steve Vassallo, Richard Wong, Credit Suisse
Securities (USA) LLC, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Morgan Stanley & Co.
LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated, RBC
Capital Markets, LLC, Keybanc Capital Markets Inc., and Suntrust
Robinson Humphrey, Inc., Defendants, Case No. CIV538304. (Cal.
Super. Ct., April 21, 2016), seeks compensatory damages,
rescissory claims, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees, expect witness fees, and other costs
and disbursements and such other and further relief for violations
of Sec. 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act.

Defendants are accused of misstatements and omissions as signers
of the Registration Statement and/or as an issuer, statutory
seller, of the shares during their initial public offering.
Defendant claims that the price of Sunrun common stock was
artificially and materially inflated at the time of the offering.

Sunrun engages in the design, development, installation sale,
ownership, and maintenance of residential solar energy systems in
the United States. The Company markets and sells its products
through direct channels, partner channels, mass media, digital
media, canvassing, referral, retail, and field marketing. Lynn
Jurich, Robert Komn, Edward Fenster, Jameson Mcjunkin, Gerald
Risk, Steve Vassallo and Richard Wong are members of the Board of
Directors. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Goldman, Sachs &
Co., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner &
Smith, Incorporated, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Keybanc Capital
Markets Inc., and Suntrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. are
underwriters for the said offering.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
     SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
     707 Broadway, Suite 1000
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 233-4565
     Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
     Email: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com

            - and -

     Joseph V. Halloran, Esq.
     SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
     The Chrysler Building
     405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
     New York, NY 10174
     Telephone: 212- 223- 6444
     Facsimile: 212- 223- 6334
     Email: jhalloran@scott-scott.com


SUNRUN INC: "Mancy" Sues over Artificially Inflated IPOs
--------------------------------------------------------
Greg Mancy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Sunrun Inc., Lynn Jurich, Robert Komn,
Edward Fenster, Jameson McJunkin, Gerald Risk, Steve Vassallo,
Richard Wong, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Goldman, Sachs &
Co., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner &
Smith, Incorporated, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Keybanc Capital
Markets Inc., and Suntrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. CIV538303. (Cal. Super. April 21, 2016), seeks
compensatory damages, rescissory claims, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, expect witness
fees, and other costs and disbursements and such other and further
relief in Violations of Sec. 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities
Act.

Defendants are accused of misstatements and omissions as signers
of the Registration Statement and/or as an issuer, statutory
seller, of the shares during its initial public offering.
Defendant claims that the price of Sunrun common stock was
artificially and materially inflated at the time of the offering.

Sunrun engages in the design, development, installation sale,
ownership, and maintenance of residential solar energy systems in
the United States. The Company markets and sells its products
through direct channels, partner channels, mass media, digital
media, canvassing, referral, retail, and field marketing. Lynn
Jurich, Robert Komn, Edward Fenster, Jameson Mcjunkin, Gerald
Risk, Steve Vassallo and Richard Wong are member of the Board of
Directors. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Goldman, Sachs &
Co., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner &
Smith, Incorporated, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Keybanc Capital
Markets Inc., and Suntrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. are
underwriters for the said offering.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Adam C. McCall, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
     445 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Tel: (213) 985-7290
     Fax: (202) 333-2121
     Email: amccall@zlk.com.

            - and -

     Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
     Sebastian Tornatore, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
     733 Summer Street, Suite 304
     Stamford, CT 06901
     Tel: (203) 992-4523
     Fax: (212) 363-7171
     Email: shopkins@zlk.com


SWANSON GROUP: Certification of Technicians Class Sought
--------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled MICHAEL DEEMS, on his own
behalf and others similarly situated, et al. v. THE SWANSON GROUP,
LLC, d/b/a ALLSTAR ANIMAL REMOVAL, a Florida limited liability
company, Case No. 3:16-cv-188-J-MCR (M.D. Fla.), filed a renewed
motion for an order:

   (1) granting conditional certification of the action as a
       collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act;

   (2) expediting discovery production by the Defendants, within
       15 days of the Court Order, of a complete list of each and
       every person, who is a current or former employee of the
       Defendant and Allstar Animal Removal, Inc. who was
       employed by the Defendants as an Animal Control
       Technician, or position with similar job description
       however titled, who were paid on a commission basis, at
       any time between June 23, 2009, and the present, including
       the last known home address, telephone number, and e-mail
       address of such persons;

   (3) requiring the Defendant to format and produce on an
       expedited basis a list of each such person listed
       alphabetically from "A" to "Z" and with each person's last
       known home address, telephone number, and e-mail address
       in a separate field corresponding with each name; and

   (4) permitting the Plaintiff's counsel to mail a Court-
       Approved Notice to all such persons about their rights to
       opt into this collective action by filing a Notice of
       Consent to Opt-In.

The Plaintiff alleges that on numerous occasions, he, the opt-in
Plaintiffs, and putative class members worked greater than 40
hours in a work week but were not paid the mandated minimum wage
or the overtime compensation required by the FLSA.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2tdh7KJD

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Kallaher, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BOHDAN NESWIACHENY
          151 College Dr., Suite 1
          Orange Park, FL 32065
          Telephone: (904)276-6171
          Facsimile: (904)276-1751
          E-mail: jkallaher@bnlaw.com


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Ciotti, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Synchrony Financial and Does 1 through 20, inclusive,
and each of them, Case No. 3:16-cv-01033-AJB-BLM (S.D. Cal., April
28, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing
unsolicited calls to telephones of consumers nationwide.

Synchrony Financial operates a consumer financial services company
headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Peter Kristensen, Esq.
      KRISTENSEN LAW GROUP
      12304 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 100
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (310) 507-7924
      Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
      E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com


SYSTEMS4PT LLC: Byer Clinic Seeks Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled BYER CLINIC OF CHIROPRACTIC,
LTD., an Illinois corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v.
SYSTEMS4PT, LLC and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-04886 (N.D.
Ill.), asks the Court to certify this class:

     All persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the
     filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile
     messages of material advertising the commercial availability
     or quality of any property, goods, or services by or on
     behalf of Defendants, and (3) from which Defendants did not
     have prior express permission or invitation, or (4) which
     did not display a proper opt-out notice.

The Plaintiff anticipates that the proposed class definition will
change after discovery defines the precise contours of the class
and the advertisements that were sent to it and the proposed class
members.  The Plaintiff requests leave to submit a brief and other
evidence in support of this motion after discovery about the class
elements has been completed.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=FloBaQya

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com


TD BANK: Sued in N.J. Over Penny Arcade Machine Shortchanging
-------------------------------------------------------------
Regina C. Filannino-Restifo, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. TD Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:16-cv-02374-JBS-JS
(D.N.J., April 27, 2016), is brought on behalf of all deposit
customers of TD Bank who have been harmed through the continued
shortchanging of TD Bank's Penny Arcade machines.

Headquartered in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, TD Bank, N.A. is a
national association, federally chartered pursuant to the National
Bank Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
      525 Route, 73 North, Suite 410
      Marlton, NJ 08053
      Telephone: (856) 797-9951
      Facsimile: (856) 797-9978
      E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com

          - and -

      Jeffrey Smith, Esq.
      Kevin G. Cooper, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      Facsimile: (212) 545-4653
      E-mail: smith@whafh.com
              kcooper@whafh.com


TEL-DRUG: "Skinner" Class Suit Removed to Arizona Dist. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Robert Skinner, as an individual
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Tel-Drug
Incorporated and Unknown Parties named as Does 1-10, Case No.
C20160763, was removed from the Pima County Superior Court, to the
U.S. District Court District of Arizona (Tucson Division). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00236-BGM to the
proceeding.

The case alleges breach of contract.

Tel-Drug Incorporated operates a home delivery pharmacy.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David James McGlothlin, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2633 E Indian School Rd., Ste. 460
      Phoenix, AZ 85016
      Telephone: (602) 265-3332
      Facsimile: (602) 230-4482
      E-mail: david@westcoastlitigation.com

          - and -

      Ryan Lee McBride, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP
      2633 E Indian School Rd., Ste. 460
      Phoenix, AZ 85016
      Telephone: (602) 900-1288
      E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      John C. West, Esq.
      Robert Matthew Kort, Esq.
      LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP
      201 E Washington St., Ste. 1200
      Phoenix, AZ 85004
      Telephone: (602) 262-5311
      E-mail: jwest@lrrc.com
              rkort@lrrc.com


TGI FRIDAY'S: Bid to Dismiss Count I of "Williams" Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, JASON C. WILLIAMS, individually and on
Behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TGI
FRIDAY'S INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:15-CV-1469 RLW (E.D. Mo.),
District Judge Ronnie L. White of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri denied in part Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss Count I of Complaint and stayed the action in
its entirety.

From time to time, TGIF markets its restaurants and makes offers
via text messages to customers who affirmatively agree to receive
them in connection with a customer loyalty and rewards program
called the Give Me More Stripes (GMMS) program. Williams alleges
that TGIF sent these text messages en masse to Plaintiff and the
members of the proposed class without prior express written
consent.

Plaintiff Jason C. Williams (Williams) alleges that Defendant TGI
Friday's (TGIF) violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA) by using an Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATDS) to
send text messages to his telephone, without his prior express
written consent.

In the motion, TGIF claims that Williams' Complaint fails to state
a claim for relief. TGIF asserts that Williams' theory of
liability fails as a matter of law because Williams is challenging
whether his enrollment in the GMMS program qualifies as a
"signature" that satisfies the FCC's definition of "prior express
written consent."

In response, Williams asserts that he has alleged sufficient facts
to maintain his claim. First, he has alleged that the text
messages were sent en masse, which is sufficient to allege to that
the messages were sent via an ATDS. Williams states that the Hobbs
Act precludes the Court from determining the propriety of the
FCC's regulations regarding the consent requirement.

In his Memorandum and Order dated April 12, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/E4rurrfrom Leagle.com, Judge White found that
Williams states a claim and that as the present stage of
litigation, Williams' Complaint states a claim for which relief
can be granted under the TCPA and that a stay is warranted while
the dispositive legal issue is decided. Every 90 days, beginning
July 12, 2016, the parties shall advise the Court of the status of
the appeals from the FCC's Declaratory Ruling and Order before the
D.C. Circuit.

Jason C. Williams is represented by Christopher E. Roberts, Esq.
-- croberts@butschroberts.com -- and David T. Butsch, Esq. --
dbutsch@butschroberts.com -- BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES, LLC

TGI Friday's Inc. is represented by John E. Galvin, III, Esq. --
jgalvin@foxgalvin.com -- and Jeremy Thomas Staley, Esq. --
jstaley@foxgalvin.com -- FOX GALVIN, LLC, Michael W. McTigue, Esq.
-- Michael.McTigue@dbr.com -- and Seamus C. Duffy, Esq. --
Seamus.Duffy@dbr.com -- DRINKER AND BIDDLE


THINGS REMEMBERED: Class Certification of 7 Subclasses Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled KIRAN KAUR and Rebecca
Lagassey, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. THINGS REMEMBERED, INC., a
Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. C
14-05544 VC (N.D. Cal.), moves for class certification of the
lawsuit.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent seven subclasses involving over
3,100 non-exempt, hourly employees who have worked for the
Defendant in its Things Remembered stores in California and who,
as a result of the Defendant's alleged uniform illegal policies
and practices, have been subject to wage statement, regular rate
of pay, meal period, and rest break violations of the California
Labor Code and related case law.

In their memorandum of points and authorities in support of the
Motion, the Plaintiffs argue that class certification is
appropriate because the Defendant's liability as to each subclass
can be established by common proof.  The Plaintiffs contend that
their seven theories of liability are each amenable to class
treatment because they are predicated on Defendant's statewide,
uniform policies and practices, which raise predominant common
questions of law or fact that will yield common answers based on
common proof.

The Plaintiffs' seven theories of liability and the corresponding
subclasses are:

   (1) The Wage Statement Theory (Re: Wage Statement Subclass):
       Defendant has maintained a class-wide policy and practice
       of knowingly and intentionally issuing incomplete and/or
       inaccurate wage statements that failed to list the
       inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is
       paid, failed to list all applicable hourly rates in effect
       during the pay period and the corresponding number of
       hours worked, and failed to include the name and address
       of the legal entity that is the employer, as required by
       California Labor Code section 226;

   (2) The Regular Rate Theory (Re: Regular Rate Subclass):
       Defendant has maintained a class-wide policy and practice
       of failing to pay meal period premiums based on the
       correct regular rate of pay as required under California
       Labor Code Section 512,3 IWC Wage Order 7-2001 subd. 11
       and related case law;

   (3) The Meal Period Waiver Theory (Re: Meal Period Waiver
       Subclass): Defendant has maintained a class-wide policy
       and practice of failing to provide a meal period to
       employees who work between five and six hour shifts,
       relying on an "automatic" meal period waiver which is
       neither consented to nor mutually agreed to, and therefore
       invalid as a matter of law;

   (4) The Brinker Rest Break Policy Theory (Re: Brinker Rest
       Break Policy Subclass): Defendant has maintained a
       facially illegal class-wide rest break policy in that it
       only authorizes subclass members to take one rest period
       for every 3.5 hours worked; thus, Defendant does not
       authorize and permit second rest periods for subclass
       members who worked shifts of more than 6 and less than 7
       hours in length, as required by IWC Wage Order 7-2001
       subd. 12 and related case law;

   (5) On-Duty Rest Break Theory (Re: Single Coverage Subclass):
       Defendant has maintained a class-wide policy and practice
       of scheduling one employee to work certain shifts on a
       "single coverage" basis, and as a consequence fails to
       provide subclass members with legally compliant rest
       periods during which they are relieved of all duty as
       required by IWC Wage Order 7-2001 subd. 12 and related
       case law.

   (6) Understaffing Theory (Re: Meal Break Subclass): Defendant
       maintains labor budget policies that result in chronically
       understaffed stores in California while at the same time
       implementing employee review and evaluation criteria which
       impede and discourage subclass members from taking timely,
       uninterrupted and compliant meal and rest breaks.

   (7) Derivative Claims Theory: The Complaint and proposed FAC
       include claims pursuant to Labor Code sections 510, 1198,
       1194, 1197, 1197.1, 201, 202, 203 and 204 and Business &
       Professions Code section 17200, et seq.  These claims are
       entirely or partially derivative of the putative class
       claims at issue in this Motion and should be certified
       along with them.

A copy of the Memorandum is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=A4kYFSNI

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert Drexler, Esq.
          Bevin Pike, Esq.
          Jonathan Lee, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 450
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: Robert.Drexler@Capstonelawyers.com
                  Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com
                  Jonathan.Lee@capstonelawyers.com


TIME WARNER: 9th Cir. Upholds Summary Judgment in "Corbin" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit affirmed the
district court's ruling granting summary judgment to Time Warner
Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership (TWEAN) in the case
captioned ANDRE CORBIN, individually and on behalf of other
members of the public similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT-ADVANCE/NEWHOUSE PARTNERSHIP, Defendant-
Appellee, No. 13-55622 (9th Cir.).

The plaintiff, Andre Corbin, argued before the district court that
he was entitled to relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and various California state employment laws for $15.02 in
lost wages and one minute of uncompensated time.  $15.02
represents the total amount of compensation that Corbin alleged he
has lost due to TWEAN's compensation policy that rounds all
employee time stamps to the nearest quarter-hour.  One minute
represents the total amount of time for which Corbin also alleged
he was not compensated as he once mistakenly opened an auxiliary
computer program before clocking into TWEAN's timekeeping software
platform.

The district court disagreed and granted summary judgment to
TWEAN.  The court determined that because the company's rounding
policy was neutral on its face and in practice, TWEAN's policy
complied with the federal rounding regulation, and Corbin's $15.02
in lost wages did not present an issue of material fact.  The
court also held that the one minute of uncompensated time Corbin
spent logging into an auxiliary computer program before logging
into TWEAN's timekeeping software was de minimis as a matter of
law.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit found that Corbin has failed to
demonstrate the existence of a material fact as to his rounding
claim, his logging-in claim, or his derivative state claims.
Additionally, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court did
not err by limiting consideration of Corbin's rounding claim to
the time period after the implementation of the Avaya/Kronos
timekeeping system.  Finally, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the
there si no need for the district court to consider whether
Corbin's rounding claim can form the basis for a viable class
action proceeding.

A full-text copy of the appellate court's May 2, 2016 opinion is
available at http://is.gd/y4984Tfrom Leagle.com.

William B. Sullivan (argued) and Eric Y. Yaeckel, Sullivan Law
Group LLP, San Diego, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Joseph W. Ozmer, II (argued) -- jozmer@kcozlaw.com -- Michael D.
Kabat -- mkabat@kcozlaw.com -- J. Scott Carr, and Rachel E.
Sankey, Wargo & French LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, for Defendant-
Appellee.


TRIUNE INFOMATICS: Faces "Behera" Class Action in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------
Debashish Behera, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and the State of California, Plaintiff, v. Triune
Infomatics, Inc., a California Corporation and Does 1 through 30,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RG16812520 (Cal. Super., April 20,
2016), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, restitution of
funds, civil penalties, reasonable attorney's fees and costs,
prejudgment interest and other relief for violation of California
Business and Professions Code Sec. 16600, 17200 et seq. and
California Labor Code Sec. 432.5 and 2699.

Triune Informatics provides job placement services to institutions
in California. It enters into contracts with individuals, usually
non-US citizens, and hires them as employees to perform services
for third-party customers. Their terms of employment include
reimbursement of costs should employees resign within 18 months,
including costs obtaining Hl-B visas for employees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy Pasternak, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JEREMY PASTERNAK
      445 Bush St., Sixth Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Telephone: (415) 693-0300
      Facsimile: (415) 693-0393

              - and -

      Joshua J. Konecky, Esq.
      Schneider Wallace, Esq.
      COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKINS LLP
      180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 421-7100
      Facsimile: (415) 421-7105


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Lawyers Want to Prevent Trump From Facing Trial
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Daily Beast reports that as a last-ditch effort to keep Donald
Trump from the witness stand in a pending Trump University trial,
his lawyers have come up with an inventive defense that, of
course, includes the Clintons.

On the first day of the Republican National Committee convention,
a set of Donald Trump's lawyers will be in a California courtroom.

That's where a district judge on April 26 struck down a Hail Mary
defense from Trump's legal team in an attempt to prevent their
client from facing trial in a lawsuit against his now defunct
Trump University.

The mogul faces a class action lawsuit in the state for his mid-
2000s project which promised to make ordinary people experts in
real estate, earn them tons of money, and provide expert seminars
from Trump himself.  None of which actually happened.

Meanwhile, in New York, Trump is also facing a lawsuit from the
Attorney General which will proceed to trial this year as well.
As he and his lawyers spin their wheels to escape litigation -- on
both coasts -- that could impact the presidential contest, things
are not going so well.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel set a hearing for July 18 to
determine if the civil case in California will proceed, which
could put the spotlight back on the lawsuit while Trump fights for
or is accepting his party's nomination.

Trump also previously stated in February that because Judge Curiel
"happens to be Spanish," he might be biased against him due to the
candidate's immigration platform.

And it's unlikely that his lawyers' latest motion to dismiss did
their case any favors.

Mr. Trump's lawyer, Daniel Petrocelli, a flashy Los Angeles
attorney who once beat O.J. Simpson in a civil case and
unsuccessfully represented Enron's CEO, filed the defense motion
to try to tie the 2016 presidential race to the civil suit.  In
it, he wrote that if the Clinton Global Initiative -- a consortium
the convenes leaders to discuss solutions to problems founded by
President Bill Clinton -- can market a yearly conference as a
"university," so can Trump's creation.

"In all but a handful of states there are no limitations on the
use of the word university in a business name," Mr. Petrocelli
writes in the document first obtained by the Hollywood Reporter.
"As a result, educational companies and business organizations of
all types frequently use the word 'university' to market their
products or services despite having no affiliation with a degree-
granting university."

Mr. Petrocelli told The Daily Beast he was not in a position to
talk about the case.

This semantics debate goes on for a few more pages.
In addition to CGI University, which is billed as a yearly meeting
of "global young leaders," Mr. Petrocelli included McDonald's
Hamburger University and an ad from Farmers Insurance featuring
actor J.K. Simmons as a fictional professor, as evidence his
client was being held to a different standard.

The problem with the comparison is that there are major
differences in the way in which these institutions are marketed.
For instance, CGI University calls itself "a meeting where
students, university representatives, topic experts, and
celebrities come together to discuss and develop innovative
solutions to pressing global challenges," on its website.

As for Hamburger University, the institution has a proven track
record of training people to become restaurant managers and
operators of various branches of the company.  Its Shanghai campus
had a reported selection rate of 1 percent in 2015, making it more
selective than Harvard University.  Additionally, Hamburger
University provides American students with the opportunity to earn
credits towards a bachelor's degree at 1,600 colleges or
universities across the country.

Not only did Trump University fall short in the education
department, it did not even provide students with the opportunity
to meet the straw-haired mogul as promised, but rather gave out
cardboard cutouts of his likeness.

The University of Farmers has been recognized among the better
corporate training organizations in the world by Training magazine
for four consecutive years.  It even got inducted into the 2014
hall of fame for the magazine alongside Microsoft, Deloitte, IBM,
and General Mills.

"The University of Farmers strives to deliver the best trained
people in our industry through world-class facilities offering
outstanding state-of-the-art curricula for Farmers agents, claims
personnel and management," Farmers Chief Learning Officer Annette
Thompson said at the time.  "Farmers is proud of its instructors,
curriculum development personnel, and support staff. They are the
best in the industry."

Neither Farmers nor CGI returned calls for comment about their
inclusion in Petrocelli's motion.

The broader problem with motions like these -- summary judgments -
- is that they seek to get a court opinion for the defendant (in
this case Trump) without the plaintiff being able to convince a
jury.  So the facts have to be crystal clear.

"As a general matter, summary judgment is difficult to obtain,"
CUNY law professor Frank Beale explained to The Daily Beast.  "It
would be a bold move for the Court to accept Trump's depiction of
the facts without giving the plaintiff the chance to contest some
of the statements contained in the summary judgment brief."

Mr. Beale said he doubted the motion would be granted because
summary judgments typically occur when "there is no serious
dispute about the facts."

On top of this shaky defense, Trump was specifically warned by the
New York State Education Department about using the term
"university" in conjunction with his company which functioned
essentially as an upsell scheme modeled after tactics developed by
notorious fraudsters.

"Almost immediately after Trump founded Trump University, the
New York State Education Department ("NYSED") wrote to Donald
Trump on May 27, 2005, warning him that using the name
"University" was illegal without a license, and asked Mr. Trump to
stop using the name "Trump University," attorney Art Cohen wrote
in his initial 2013 suit.  "Instead of complying, Defendant's
agents created a fictitious office in Dover, Delaware, and then
Defendant continued to brazenly operate illegally out of his 40
Wall Street office in New York, New York for five years."

At the time, Mr. Trump was also compelled to refund all the money
students had paid to the institution or face disciplinary action
as a consequence.

He did not comply.

"Defendant did not give students refunds, but did stop offering
and selling Live Events shortly thereafter in or about August
2010.  However, Defendant has made multiple statements that he
intends to resume Trump University courses in the future," Cohen
writes.

When asked about Mr. Petrocelli's argument, the law offices of
Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck, LLP, co-counsel on the two pending class-
action lawsuits against Trump University in California, simply
said "no comment."

Mr. Trump himself has said that he doesn't want the litigation to
proceed in the middle of an already insane Republican primary,
while at the same time making clear he has no intention of
settling the suit.

"I'm going to win that easily," Mr. Trump said of the lawsuit
during a press conference on April 27.

According to a recent estimate from Bloomberg, Mr.  Trump has been
sued 72 times in federal court since 2000 and has settled 35
percent of the time.

Meanwhile, across the country, Mr. Trump may also have to appear
in New York court over a lingering suit from Attorney General Eric
Schneiderman which alleges he scammed students with his Trump
University.

New York Justice Cynthia Kern decided on April 27 that the suit
which alleges that Trump University ripped students off of a
collective $40 million will go to trial.  Mr. Schneiderman
previously asked Justice Kern to rule on the matter without going
to trial because the evidence was so clear.  Yet some movement on
the years-long suit was better than nothing.

"I am very pleased the judge has indicated her intention to move
as expeditiously as possible to trial, as thousands of
Mr. Trump's alleged victims have been waiting years for relief
from his fraud," Mr. Schneiderman said in a statement provided to
The Daily Beast.  "We believe that Mr. Trump and Mr. Sexton will
be essential witnesses at trial.  As we will prove in court,
Donald Trump and his sham for-profit college defrauded thousands
of students out of millions of dollars."

As Mr. Trump continues his likely march toward the Republican
nomination, picking up delegates from five state wins on
April 27, he has tried to make his fight over Trump University
equivalent to a fight for the future of America.

"And you know what? The United States should fight back also,"
Trump said, shrouded in darkness in a video made by his campaign
in March.  "We shouldn't just be settlers, we should fight back.
And do what's right."

In this instance, Trump University customers would seem to agree.


TYSON FOODS: Statistical Evidence Can Be Used in Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Parent, writing for Employment Law Business Guide,
reports that in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, the U.S. Supreme
Court held that statistical or representative evidence could be
used by a class of employees to prove liability for an employer's
failure to pay them for donning and doffing protective gear in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  In this class
action lawsuit, workers at a meat-processing plant alleged that
Tyson failed to give them credit for time spent donning and
doffing protective gear and walking to and from their production
line.  The workers were claiming overtime pay as a result of all
hours worked over 40 hours a week when adding this additional
time.

A jury found for the workers and awarded the class about $2.9
million in unpaid wages.  At trial, the court allowed the
employees to use representative or an average sample of time it
took workers in donning and doffing their gear rather than
requiring each class member to present individualized proof of
time spent.  Plaintiffs' expert testified at trial that he
determined the average time it took 53 of the 3,344 workers in the
class to do these tasks and concluded that an average of 18
minutes a day needed to be added to weekly hours worked for one
department and 21.25 minutes a day for another department.
Plaintiffs claimed it could be presumed that all class members
were identical to the statistical average and that the workers
were owed overtime for all time over 40 hours when adding the
representative time to the weekly time worked.

Tyson argued that the trial court erred because the time per
employee to perform those tasks was so different that they cannot
rely on averages and the class should not have been certified
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).  The U.S. Supreme
Court disagreed and found that a categorical exclusion of the use
of samples made little sense.  It held that it would allow
statistical samples to establish liability on a case by case basis
-- depending on the purpose for which the evidence was being
introduced and on the elements of the underlying action.  In
reaching this decision, the Supreme Court highlighted the
employer's violation of its duty to maintain records of this time.
Because there was a gap in employer required records of work-time,
each employee could have relied on the average sample of time to
prove liability and therefore the representative evidence could be
used on a class-wide basis.

The Supreme Court explained that its holding was consistent with
its 2011 decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes as that case
involved 1.5 million employees who were not similarly situated
because they were at different stores and under different
policies.  The class in Dukes failed to meet even Rule 23(a)'s
basic requirement that class members share a common question of
fact or law.  On the contrary, in Tyson, the employees worked out
of the same facility, did similar work, and were under the same
policies for pay.

While refusing to establish a general rule governing the use of
such evidence, the Supreme Court widened the potential liability
for employers in defending class action suits by allowing
representative samples.  This is particularly the case where there
are record keeping violations by the employer in the wage and hour
area.  Employers should make sure that they review their practices
and procedures and confirm that they are maintaining appropriate
records of time for all employees.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers Criticizes Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Somerville and Dan Levine, writing for Reuters, report
that Uber's proposed settlement of a high-profile class-action
lawsuit has drawn opposition from some drivers and other concerned
parties as the ride-hailing service seeks to avoid reclassifying
drivers as employees.

The settlement, which still must be approved by a San Francisco
federal judge, provides for a $100 million payout to drivers, who
could get as little $12 apiece or as much as a few thousand
dollars, depending on how many miles they drove.

The deal contains a number of caveats and contingencies, however,
such as making $16 million of the payout to drivers dependent on
Uber Technologies Inc's [UBER.UL] future valuation increasing by
150 percent.

Moreover, the settlement's non-monetary provisions are set to
expire in two years, although Uber may choose to keep them in
place after that.

"If there were going to be any teeth to this settlement, (the
expiration) wouldn't be there," said Christian Perea, an Uber
driver and writer for The Rideshare Guy, a popular blog and
podcast for drivers.

The sunset clause is a way for Uber to protect itself from long-
term costs and annoyances, said Jack Schaedel --
jschaedel@dykema.com -- a labor and employment attorney at the
Dykema law firm, who is not involved in the case.  If any of the
concessions ends up "being totally unwieldy and Uber totally hates
it, Uber can get rid of it," he said.

Uber declined to comment.

A Rideshare Guy post explaining the terms of the settlement drew
more than 100 comments, many of them blasting the proposed deal.
Uber drivers expressed dissatisfaction for a range of reasons,
including that the settlement leaves unresolved the central issue
of whether the law requires that drivers be qualified as
employees.

Among the non-monetary provisions of the settlement are a new
policy governing driver termination, including an appeals process
for drivers terminated by Uber, and an agreement that the
privately-held company will clarify that drivers do not
automatically receive gratuities from their fares and allow them
to solicit tips.

The company also agreed to assist with the creation of a drivers'
association.

OUTSIDE OBJECTIONS

Lawyers representing Uber drivers in another class-action case
have said in court filings they may object to the settlement
because drivers covered by it would no longer be able to
participate in their case, which challenges Uber's alleged use of
credit reports during driver background checks.

The lawyers also object to Uber's request to omit details from the
settlement that would allow drivers to better evaluate the deal.

The company has asked U.S. District Judge Edward Chen to redact
key figures in court filings, including an estimate of the total
potential value of drivers' legal claims had they won in a jury
trial.

The redacted information "is critically important to any analysis
of whether the proposed settlement is fundamentally fair,
adequate, and reasonable," the lawyers wrote in a court filing.

Uber has said the figures are trade secrets and would damage the
company if made public.  In an order on April 27, Judge Chen told
both sides to further explain their positions, given the
importance of the information.

In a similar lawsuit against Lyft, Uber's chief competitor, U.S.
District Judge Vince Chhabria denied that company's request to
keep secret similar information.  Judge Chhabria ultimately
rejected the proposed $12.25 million settlement offer because it
represented only about 9 percent of the potential value of
drivers' claims, a deal that he said "short-changed" drivers.

While he will gladly cash a settlement check if one comes his way,
driver Perea said the deal with Uber provides little solace.
"We were hoping for a more definitive answer on what the on-demand
economy would look like in the future, and a sense that this whole
new economy that was taking off would work," he said.

A hearing on the deal is scheduled for June.


UNITED KINGDOM: Hillsborough Disaster Victims File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lizzie Dearden, writing for Independent, reports that relatives of
the victims of the Hillsborough disaster are launching a class
action lawsuit against police that could result in millions of
pounds in compensation.

Lawyers said "several hundred" family members are represented in
the claims, which were lodged at the High Court last year but
could not be reported until the inquest verdicts on April 26.

They are seeking damages from South Yorkshire and West Midlands
Police for "misfeasance in public office" over conduct on the day
of the disaster and an alleged conspiracy attempting to blame
Liverpool fans for the deaths.

A spokesperson for Saunders Law, which is representing the
families, said the claims concern "the cover-up and actions
intended to wrongly blame the deceased and Liverpool Football Club
supporters for the tragedy".

"Despite a half-hearted admission after publication of the
Hillsborough Independent Report, we have learnt South Yorkshire
Police spent an estimated GBP19 million of tax payers' money on
defending the indefensible at the inquest," a statement said.

"After issuing the claims last year we secured a Contempt of Court
Act order from a High Court Judge preventing publication of any
information about the claims until the inquest ended, to avoid any
risk of prejudice to the inquest.

"We now propose to move the claims forward to secure
accountability."


UNITED STATES: Groups Against PACER Fees Seek Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled NATIONAL VETERANS LEGAL
SERVICES PROGRAM, NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER, and ALLIANCE FOR
JUSTICE, for themselves and all others similarly situated v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:16-cv-00745-ESH (D.D.C.)
moves for class certification.

This case challenges the legality of fees charged to access
records through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records
system, commonly known as PACER.  PACER is a system that provides
online access to federal judicial records and is managed by the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

The theory of liability is that these fees -- set at the same rate
across the judiciary -- far exceed the cost of providing the
records, and thus, violate the E-Government Act, which authorizes
fees "as a charge for services rendered," but "only to the extent
necessary" to "reimburse expenses in providing these services."

Because this theory of liability applies equally to everyone who
has paid a PACER fee within the six-year limitations period, the
Plaintiffs move to certify the case as a class action under Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of themselves
and the following class:

     "All individuals and entities who have paid fees for the use
      of PACER within the past six years, excluding class counsel
      and agencies of the federal government."

The Plaintiffs assert that as the Act's sponsor put it: PACER fees
are now "well higher than the cost of dissemination" and, hence,
"against the requirement of the E-Government Act," which allows
fees "only to recover the direct cost of distributing documents
via PACER" -- not unrelated projects that "should be funded
through direct appropriations."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=aEUPhNwe

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Deepak Gupta, Esq.
          Jonathan E. Taylor, Esq.
          GUPTA WESSLER PLLC
          1735 20th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 888-1741
          Facsimile: (202) 888-7792
          E-mail: deepak@guptawessler.com
                  jon@guptawessler.com

               - and -

          William H. Narwold, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          3333 K Street NW, Suite 450
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 232-5504
          Facsimile: (202) 232-5513
          E-mail: bnarwold@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          Michael T. Kirkpatrick, Esq.
          INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION
          Georgetown University Law Center
          600 New Jersey Avenue, Suite 312
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 662-9535
          Facsimile: (202) 662-9634
          E-mail: michael.kirkpatrick@law.georgetown.edu


VARITRONICS LLC: Order Denying Bid to Deposit Funds Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Varitronics, LLC, Defendant, Civil No. 14-5008 ADM/FLN (D. Minn.),
Judge Ann D. Montgomery overruled Varitronics, LLC's objection to
Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel's February 29, 2016 order
denying Varitronics' Motion to Deposit Funds into the Court
Registry.

A full-text copy of Judge Montgomery's May 2, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/HoHVt3from
Leagle.com.

In the putative class action case, Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley
alleged that Varitronics sent eight unauthorized fax
advertisements in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act and New York General Business Law.

On August 28, 2015, this action was stayed pending resolution of
the United States Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co.
v. Gomez.  Campbell-Ewald, decided on January 20, 2016, addressed
the broad question of whether an unaccepted offer of judgment made
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 to the named
plaintiff rendered a putative class action moot when the complaint
was seeking relief on behalf of the named plaintiff and a class of
persons similarly situated. 136 S.Ct. 663, 665 (2016). That
question was answered in the negative.

After Campbell-Ewald's resolution, Varitronics moved under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 67 and Local Rule 67.1 to deposit $13,000
-- the amount Varitronics claims provides Bais Yaakov complete
relief for its claims -- into the Court Registry in an account
payable to Bais Yaakov.

In its Motion, Varitronics cited this language in Campbell-Ewald:
"We need not, and do not, now decide whether the result would be
different if a defendant deposits the full amount of the
plaintiff's individual claim in an account payable to the
plaintiff, and the court then enters judgment for the plaintiff in
that amount. That question is appropriately reserved for a case in
which it is not hypothetical."

Varitronics argued that this language signals the case would have
been decided differently if the defendant had deposited the full
amount of the plaintiff's individual claim in an account payable
to the plaintiff.

On February 29, 2016, Judge Noel denied Varitronics' motion. In
reaching this decision, Judge Noel recognized that courts were
split on this issue, but reasoned the fact pattern in the
Varitronics' case was more akin to Brady v. Basic Research, a
decision from the Eastern District of New York that denied a
similar request.  The Defendant objected.

In disagreeing with Varitronics, Judge Montgomery held that,
"Judge Noel concluded that Varitronics' Rule 67 motion was
motivated solely to later attempt to moot Bais Yaakov's case and,
because a class certification motion had not been decided, Bais
Yaakov must be afforded a fair opportunity to show that class
certification is warranted. Rather than decide the jurisdictional
question, Judge Noel reasoned that Varitronics' effort to
transition the jurisdictional question from the periphery onto
center stage now was premature. Such reasoning is not clearly
erroneous or contrary to law."

Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley, Plaintiff, represented by Aytan
Yehoshua Bellin, Bellin & Associates LLC, pro hac vice & Brant D
Penney -- bpenney@rwblawfirm.com -- Reinhardt Wendorf &
Blanchfield.

Varitronics, LLC, Defendant, represented by Bryan R Freeman --
bfreeman@lindquist.com -- Lindquist & Vennum PLLP, Jonathan M Bye,
Lindquist & Vennum PLLP & Nicole M. Tupman --
ntupman@lindquist.com -- Lindquist & Vennum LLP.


VENGROFF WILLIAMS: Maranda Woodward Seeks Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled MARANDA WOODWARD, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. VENGROFF
WILLIAMS, INC., Case No. 16-cv-533 (E.D. Wisc.), moves the Court
to certify the proposed class in this case, and appoint the
Plaintiff as its representative, and Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its
Counsel; and further requests that the Court both stay the motion
for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the
Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing
schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed
with the motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence.  Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should
suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff asserts.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OIrSbpz0

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VERENGO INC: Settlement Deal in "Lushe" Has Final Okay
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Andre Birotte, Jr. finally approved the settlement agreement
in the case captioned SHAHAR LUSHE and WILLIAM YOUNGBLOOD,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. VERENGO, INC. d/b/a VERENGO SOLAR, Defendant, No.
CV13-07632-AB (PJWx) (C.D. Cal.).

The Settlement Class consists of: "all persons to whom, on or
after October 16, 2009 through the date of Preliminary Approval,
Verengo or any of its affiliates or subsidiaries, or any entity
acting on its behalf, or any entity contracted to provide leads to
Verengo, placed a non-emergency telephone call to a cellular
telephone through the use of an automatic telephone dialing system
and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice, to a residential line
using an artificial or prerecorded voice, or to a telephone number
registered on the National Do-Not-Call registry, without the
consent of such person. Excluded from the Settlement Class are the
Judge to whom the Action is assigned and any member of the Judge's
staff and immediate family, as well as all persons who validly
request exclusion from the Settlement Class."

The final approval hearing was held on May 2, 2016.

The action is dismissed with prejudice, without costs to any
party, except as expressly provided for in the settlement
agreement.

Judge Birotte also approved the class counsel's application for
$591,250 in attorney's fees and $31,443.44 in costs, and for a
service award to the settlement class representatives, Shahar
Lushe and William Youngblood, in the amount of $2,500 each.

A full-text copy of Judge Birotte's May 2, 2016 final judgment and
order is available at http://is.gd/xu17jEfrom Leagle.com.

Shahar Lushe, Plaintiff, William Youngblood, Movant, represented
by Beth E Terrell -- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell
Marshall Law Group PLLC, pro hac vice, Adrienne D McEntee --
amcentee@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Daudt and Willie
PLLC, pro hac vice, Gretchen M Nelson, Nelson & Fraenkel LLP &
Mary B Reiten -- mreiten@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall
Law Group PLLC.

Verengo Inc, Defendant, represented by Anahit Tagvoryan --
atagvoryan@blankrome.com -- Blank Rome LLP, Joshua M Briones --
jbriones@blankrome.com -- Blank Rome LLP & Shirley M Leung --
sleung@blankrome.com -- Blank Rome LLP.


VITALICIOUS ACQUISITION: Recalls Apple Crumb VitaTops Due to Milk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vitalicious Acquisition LLC, of Jamaica, NY, is voluntarily
recalling select lots of VITALICIOUS Apple Crumb VitaTops because
they may contain undeclared milk. Individuals who have an allergy
to milk run the risk of a serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume this product.

The VITALICIOUS Apple Crumb VitaTops were sold nationwide directly
to consumers via online ordering only, not sold in stores and
began shipping on March 21, 2016.

The affected VITALICIOUS Apple Crumb VitaTops are packed in a
clear plastic film, NET WT. 2 oz. (55g) with the following LOT
CODES and sold frozen in cases of 12 units, 24 units, or variety
packs:

  -- VitaTops APPLE CRUMB LOT 16 075 C (stamped on top of film)
  -- VitaTops APPLE CRUMB LOT 16 078 C (stamped on top of film)

No other VITALICIOUS brand products are included in this recall
action.

There has been one reported illness to date.

The voluntary recall was initiated after it was discovered that
the incorrect ingredient statement which failed to declare the
presence of milk was included with the Apple Crumb VitaTops online
orders. The company has revised the ingredient statement to
declare the presence of milk.

Consumers who have an allergy to milk and are in possession of the
affected Apple Crumb lot codes are encouraged to dispose of it,
and contact the company for a refund. Consumers with questions may
call Vitalicious at 718-439-0200 ext. 627, Monday through Friday
from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EDT or by email to:
julie@vitalicious.com.

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


WAL-MART STORES: Recalls Rival Brand Electric Water Kettles
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., of Bentonville, Ark., announced a voluntary
recall of about 1.2 million Rival brand electric water kettles.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The heating element can fail and rupture, posing burn and shock
hazards to the user.

This recall involves Rival brand electric water kettles with model
numbers WK8283CU and WK8283CUY.  The model numbers are printed on
a product label on the underside of the water kettle. The white
plastic water kettles were sold with a warming base and a pitcher.
A window on the side pitcher has markings that measure the water
levels. "Rival" is printed beneath the window.

Walmart has received 80 reports of incidents, including seven
reports of burns.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/tGL3Bp

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Walmart stores nationwide and online at Walmart.com from March
2011 through October 2015 for about $14.


WELLS FARGO: "Hogan" Seeks Certification of Foreclosure Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled DEANNA BROWN HOGAN v. WELLS
FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No. 2:16-cv-00013 (S.D. Tex.), filed with
the Court a first amended complaint and motion to certify class.
The Plaintiff's claims include (i) lack of standing to foreclose
on the property located at 1006 Meadow Brook, in Portland, Texas,
(ii) wrongful foreclosure, and (iii) violations of the Deceptive
Trade Practices Act Parties and Service.

The Property was purchased by the Plaintiff through a loan, which
is serviced by Wells Fargo.  The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant has made material misrepresentations and material
errors, which do not support the foreclosure of the Property.  The
Plaintiff adds that the Defendant's actions caused the Plaintiff's
damages.

The Plaintiff believes there are additional similarly situated
persons and moves the Court to certify said class of plaintiffs
because joinder of all members is impracticable, there are
questions of law or fact common to the class, the claims of the
representative Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the class
and the representative party will fairly and adequately protect
the interests of the class.

A copy of the First Amended Complaint and Motion for Certification
is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UdY30uan


XPAT XTREME: "Rechterman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Logan Rechterman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Xpat Xtreme Pump & Testing LLC, Case No.
6:16-cv-00383-MHS-KNM (E.D. Tex., April 27, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Xpat Xtreme Pump & Testing LLC operates an oilfield services
company providing a variety of services, including testing
pressure containment and blow out prevention.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neely Balko, Esq.
      PHIPPS ANDERSON DEACON LLP
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Telephone: (361) 452-1279
      Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
      E-mail: nbalko@phippsandersondeacon.com


YEXT INC: Courts Grants In Part Motion to Seal Exhibits
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John F. Keenan of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York granted in part Defendant
Yext, Inc.'s (Yext) motion to seal certain documents submitted in
connection with both its motion for summary judgment and Plaintiff
Tropical Sails Corp.'s (Tropical Sails) motion for class
certification in the case captioned, TROPICAL SAILS CORP.,
Plaintiff, v. YEXT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 14 Civ. 7582
(S.D.N.Y.).

Tropical Sails is a small business involved in the travel cruise
ship industry that purchased a subscription to Yext's
PowerListings service. Tropical Sails brings suit against Yext for
itself and others similarly situated alleging that Yext
fraudulently induced it and others to purchase Yext's
PowerListings service and that Yext has been unjustly enriched by
Tropical Sails's and others' purchase of Yext's PowerListings
service. In addition to its causes of action for fraudulent
inducement and unjust enrichment, Tropical Sails alleged claims
for violations of New York General Business Law sections 349 and
350, which this Court dismissed on May 18, 2015, for failure to
state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (b) (6).

Tropical Sails moved for class certification pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (a) and (b) (3) on December 15, 2015.
On January 22, 2016, Yext moved for summary judgment pursuant to
Federal Rule of Procedure 56. Both motions were fully briefed on
March 11, 2016.

Yext moves to seal 22 of 65 exhibits appended to the motions. Yext
classifies these exhibits in two categories. The first category of
documents are those reflecting "its confidential marketing and
business development activities." Counsel for Yext explains that
these documents include Yext's sales training manuals, internal
marketing strategies, company marketing plans, and internal emails
discussing marketing tests. The second category of documents are
those reflecting "its confidential sales statistics." Counsel for
Yext explains that these documents describe Yext's otherwise
private revenue figures.

In his Opinion and Order dated April 12, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/NieWVCfrom Leagle.com, Judge Keenan concluded that
Yext has met its burden for continued sealing of the documents
relating to marketing and business development activities. It is
directed to file those 19 documents under seal. The remaining
three documents -- (1) Exhibit 4 to Tropical Sails's motion for
class certification; (2) Exhibit B to the Declaration of Max Shaw
in support of Yext's Opposition to Tropical Sails's motion for
class certification; and (3) Exhibit 5 to Tropical Sail's
opposition to Yext's motion for summary judgment -- shall be filed
on ECF in the same manner as all other public documents.

Tropical Sails Corp. is represented by:

     David Slade, Esq.
     Joseph Henry Bates, III, Esq.
     CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
     2800 Cantrell Rd
     Little Rock, AR 72202
     Tel: (501)312-8500

          - and -

     James Allen Carney, Esq.
     CAULEY BOWMAN CARNEY & WILLIAMS, PLLC
     11001 Executive Center Drive
     Little Rock, AR 72211
     Tel: (501)312-8500

          - and -

     Thomas M. Mullaney, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS M. MULLANEY
     275 Madison Ave
     New York, NY 10016
     Tel: (212)223-0800

Yext, Inc. is represented by Gavin J. Rooney, Esq. --
grooney@lowenstein.com -- LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP


YTS TRADING: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Lopez" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cesar Magdiel Lopez, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. YTS Trading LLC (d/b/a Jack's Egg Farm &
Sugar), Jack Egg Farm Inc. (d/b/a Jack's Egg Farm & Sugar), Jack
Egg LLC (d/b/a Jack's Egg Farm & Sugar), Jack's Eggs and Other
Ingredients LLC (d/b/a Jack's Egg Farm & Sugar), Jack Neustadt,
Mordechai Neustadt and Jack Stein, Case No. 1:16-cv-02091
(E.D.N.Y., April 27, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40
hours per week.

The Defendants own, operate, and control an egg and sugar
distribution center located at 130 44th Street, Brooklyn, New York
11232.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6th Cir. Affirms Ruling in "Upton"
---------------------------------------------------
In the case styled CHRISTOPHER TODD UPTON, Plaintiff, LESLIE
DARNELL JONES; JEFFREY LYNN KEYLON; JAMES DAVID PARTEN; TIMOTHY
EDWARD ROBBINS; and PAUL STEVEN VANCE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
BNFL, INC.; TSB FA NUCLEAR SERVICES, INC., Defendants-Appellees,
No. 15-5751 (6th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, holding that
it properly granted summary judgment in favor of BNFL.  A full-
text copy of the Opinion dated April 22, 2016, is available at
http://is.gd/mTCtgdfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bath Iron Dropped as Defendant in "Thorne"
-----------------------------------------------------------
In BARBARA THORNE, as Wrongful Death Heir, and as Successor-in-
Interest to ANDREW PRICE, Deceased, and BRENDA MARONDE, CELESTIA
SIMS-MAYER, BECKY PRICE, KAYELLEN PRICE-LEE, as Legal Heirs of
ANDREW PRICE, Deceased, Plaintiffs, v. BATH IRON WORKS
CORPORATION, FOSTER WHEELER LLC (FKA FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION),
Defendants, No. 3:14-cv-02460-SI (N.D. Calif.), Judge Susan
Illston of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California in an April 13, 2016, Order available at
http://is.gd/NWnOFGfrom Leagle.com, granted the parties'
dismissal of strict liability claims only, as to defendant Bath
Iron Works Corporation, without prejudice.

Barbara Thorne, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Donadio,
Brayton Purcell LLP, Alan R. Brayton, Brayton Purcell LLP &
Kimberly Joy Wai Jun Chu, Brayton Purcell LLP.

Brenda Maronde, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Donadio,
Brayton Purcell LLP, Alan R. Brayton, Brayton Purcell LLP &
Kimberly Joy Wai Jun Chu, Brayton Purcell LLP.

Celestia Sims-Mayer, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Donadio,
Brayton Purcell LLP, Alan R. Brayton, Brayton Purcell LLP &
Kimberly Joy Wai Jun Chu, Brayton Purcell LLP.

Becky Price, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Donadio, Brayton
Purcell LLP, Alan R. Brayton, Brayton Purcell LLP & Kimberly Joy
Wai Jun Chu, Brayton Purcell LLP.

Bath Iron Works Corporation, Defendant, represented by Paul M.
Bessette, Demler, Armstrong & Rowland, LLP, Charles S. Park, Hugo
Parker, LLP, Edward R. Hugo, Brydon Hugo & Parker & Edward P
Tugade, Demler, Armstrong & Rowland LLP.

Foster Wheeler LLC, Defendant, represented by Shelley Kaye
Tinkoff, Hugo Parker LLP & Edward R. Hugo, Brydon Hugo & Parker.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bids to Dismiss "Hovsepian" Granted
----------------------------------------------------
In the case styled BERJ HOVSEPIAN, Plaintiff, v. CRANE CO., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 4:16-CV-414-CEJ (E.D. Mo.)., Judge Carol
E. Jackson in an April 13, 2016, Memorandum and Order available at
http://is.gd/iBL7ATfrom Leagle.com, granted defendants' motions
to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Berj Hovsepian, Plaintiff, represented by Carson C. Menges, Esq. -
- cmenges@toverdict.com -- FLINT AND ASSOCIATES LLC, Demetrious T.
Zacharopoulos, WOLF AND ZACHAROPOULOS LLP, Erin Rafferty Burton,
Esq. -- eburton@toverdict.com -- FLINT AND ASSOCIATES LLC, Jacob
A. Flint, Esq. -- jflint@flintfirm.com -- FLINT AND ASSOCIATES
LLC, Luke Perry Pfeifer, Esq. -- lpfeifer@toverdict.com -- FLINT
AND ASSOCIATES LLC & Timothy Paul Hulla, Esq. --
thulla@toverdict.com -- FLINT AND ASSOCIATES LLC.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Carl J. Geraci, HEPLER BROOM
& Benjamin John Wilson, HEPLER BROOM.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Gregory C. Flatt, HEYL AND ROYSTER & Kent L. Plotner, HEYL AND
ROYSTER.

ALFA Laval, Inc., Defendant, represented by Paul W. Lore.

Aurora Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Melanie E. Riley,
Esq. -- mriley@sandbergphoenix.com -- SANDBERG PHOENIX, P.C. &
Michael P. McGinley, Esq. -- mmcginley@sandbergphoenix.com --
SANDBERG PHOENIX, P.C..

Borg-Warner Morse TEC LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew M.
Voss, GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER, PC, Lizabeth M. Conran,
GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER, PC, Michael C. Pagan, GREENSFELDER AND
HEMKER, PC & Shannon R. Summers, GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER PC.

Burnham Commerical Boilers, Defendant, represented by Dennis J.
Graber, HINSHAW AND CULBERTSON & Trevor Alan Sondag, HINSHAW AND
CULBERTSON.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel G. Donahue,
FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P. & Michael R. Dauphin, FOLEY AND
MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P..

Certain-Teed Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gregory C.
Flatt, HEYL AND ROYSTER & Kent L. Plotner, HEYL AND ROYSTER.

Cleaver Brooks Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy A. McGuire,
Esq. -- tmcguire@otmblaw.com -- O'CONNELL AND TIVIN, LLC.

Crown Cork & Seal Company Inc., Defendant, represented by Stephen
J. Maassen, HOAGLAND AND FITZGERALD.

Cummins, Inc., Defendant, represented by Nathan Lindsey, Esq. --
nlindsey@rwdmlaw.com -- RASMUSSEN AND MOORE LLC & Virginia M.
Giokaris, Esq. -- vgiokaris@rwdmlaw.com -- RASMUSSEN AND WILLIS.

Daimler Trucks North America LLC, Defendant, represented by
Gregory C. Flatt, HEYL AND ROYSTER & Kent L. Plotner, HEYL AND
ROYSTER.

Federal Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, Defendant,
represented by Lindsay A. Dibler, Esq. -- ldibler@kslfllc.com --
KUROWSKI SCHULTZ.

Flowserve Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ashley E.
Benoist, SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE, LTD & James Russell Williams,
SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE, LTD.

Gardner Denver, Inc., Defendant, represented by William R. Irwin,
SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE.

General Gasket Corporation, Defendant, represented by Agota
Peterfy, Esq. -- apeterfy@bjpc.com -- BROWN AND JAMES, P.C. &
Albert J. Bronsky, Esq. -- ajbronsky@bjpc.com -- BROWN AND JAMES,
P.C..

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Graber,
HINSHAW AND CULBERTSON & Trevor Alan Sondag, HINSHAW AND
CULBERTSON.

Greene Tweed & Co Inc., Defendant, represented by Ashley E.
Benoist, SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE, LTD & James Russell Williams,
SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE, LTD.

Honeywell International Inc., Defendant, represented by Anthony L.
Springfield, Esq. -- aspringfield@polsinelli.com -- POLSINELLI PC.

IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew R. Fields,
Esq. -- Fields@archcitylawyers.com -- JACOBSON AND PRESS, P.C..

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Carl J. Geraci,
HEPLER BROOM & Benjamin John Wilson, HEPLER BROOM.

John Crane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Agota Peterfy, BROWN
AND JAMES, P.C. & Albert J. Bronsky, BROWN AND JAMES, P.C..

JP Bushnell Packing Supply Company, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Patrick M. Grand, MATUSHEK, NILLES & SINARS, L.L.C..

Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Nathan
Lindsey, RASMUSSEN AND MOORE LLC & Virginia M. Giokaris, RASMUSSEN
AND WILLIS.

Kelsey Hayes Co., Defendant, represented by Andrew M. Voss, Esq. -
- amv@greensfelder.com -- GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER, PC, Edward S.
Bott, Jr., Esq. -- esb@greensfelder.com -- GREENSFELDER AND
HEMKER, PC & Shannon R. Summers, Esq. -- ssummers@greensfelder.com
-- GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER PC.

Lamons Gasket Company, Defendant, represented by Paul B. Lee, Esq.
-- plee@nlpc-law.com -- NELSEN & LEE, P.C. & Leo W. Nelsen, Jr.,
Esq. -- lnelsen@nlpc-law.com -- NELSEN & LEE, P.C..

Maremont Corporation, Defendant, represented by David W. Ybarra,
GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER PC.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Charles L. Joley, JOLEY AND OLIVER & Georgiann Oliver, JOLEY AND
OLIVER.

Paccar, Inc., Defendant, represented by Earl B. Thames, HAWKINS
AND PARNELL, LLP & Jacob A. Flint, FLINT AND ASSOCIATES LLC.

Pneumo Abex Corporation, Defendant, represented by Matthew E.
Pelikan, WILLIAMS AND VENKER, LLC, Ross S. Titzer, WILLIAMS AND
VENKER, LLC & Thomas L. Orris, WILLIAMS AND VENKER, LLC.

Riley Power, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory C. Flatt,
HEYL AND ROYSTER, Kent L. Plotner, HEYL AND ROYSTER & Philip M.
Eisele, HEYL AND ROYSTER.

Taco, Inc., Defendant, represented by Benjamin Daniel Woodard,
STINSON AND LEONARD LLP, Jon A. Santangelo, STINSON AND LEONARD
LLP & Neal B. Griffin, STINSON AND LEONARD LLP.

Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company, Defendant, represented by
Daniel G. Donahue, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P. & William C.
Foote, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P..

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by Anita Maria Kidd,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP,
Melanie R. King, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP & Raymond R. Fournie,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP.

Western Auto Supply Company, Defendant, represented by April A.
Vesely, SWANSON AND MARTIN, LLP.

Young Group Ltd., Defendant, represented by Benjamin Daniel
Woodard, STINSON AND LEONARD LLP.

Young Insulation Group of St. Louis, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Benjamin Daniel Woodard, STINSON AND LEONARD LLP.

Zurn Industries, LLC, Defendant, represented by William R. Irwin,
SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling on Improper Venue Exceptions Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RUFUS BLOW, JR., v. ONEBEACON AMERICA
INSURANCE COMPANY, No. 2016-C-0301 (La. App.), the Court of
Appeals of Louisiana for the Fourth Circuit, in an April 20, 2016,
opinion available at http://is.gd/Mht3Gsfrom Leagle.com, amended
the judgment of the district court sustaining the exceptions of
improper venue brought by OneBeacon America Insurance Company, in
its capacities as insurer of John Chantry, John Cole, James
O'Donnell, Ollie Gatlin, George Kelmell, and Peter Territo to
delete the decretal language "dismissed without prejudice."

As amended, the Court of Appeals otherwise affirm the judgment and
remanded the matter to the district court to transfer the
plaintiffs' survival actions against OneBeacon in its capacities
as insurer of the just named executive officers to a proper venue
or venues, and, at the same time, set a deadline for the
transfer(s) and tax the cost of the transfer(s) to the appropriate
party or parties.

Mickey P. Landry, Frank J. Swarr, Philip C. Hoffman, Matthew C.
Clark, LANDRY & SWARR, LLC, 1010 Common Street, Suite 2050, New
Orleans, Louisiana 70112, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/RELATOR.

Samuel M. Rosamond, III, Esq. -- srosamond@twpdlaw.com -- Adam D.
deMahy, Esq. -- ademahy@twpdlaw.com -- TAYLOR, WELLONS, POLITZ &
DUHE, APLC, 1515 Poydras Street, Suite 1900, New Orleans,
Louisiana 70112, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT, ONEBEACON
AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GATX Had 79 Asbestos Cases at Jan. 31
------------------------------------------------------
As of January 31, 2016, there were 79 asbestos-related cases
pending against GATX Corporation and its subsidiaries, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2015.

The Company states, "Several of our subsidiaries have also been
named as defendants or co-defendants in cases alleging injury
caused by exposure to asbestos. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified
amount of damages based on common law, statutory, or premises
liability or, in the case of ASC, the Jones Act, which provides
limited remedies to certain maritime employees. As of January 31,
2016, there were 79 asbestos-related cases pending against GATX
and its subsidiaries. Of the total number of pending cases, 63 are
Jones Act claims, most of which were filed against ASC before the
year 2000. During 2015, 5 new cases were filed, and 26 cases were
dismissed without payment or otherwise settled for an immaterial
amount. In addition, demand has been made against GATX for
asbestos-related claims under limited indemnities given in
connection with the sale of certain of our former subsidiaries. It
is possible that the number of these cases or claims for indemnity
could begin to grow and that the cost of these cases, including
costs to defend, could correspondingly increase in the future."

GATX Corporation (GATX) leases, operates, manages and remarkets
assets, primarily in the rail and marine markets. The Company
operates through four primary business segments: Rail North
America, Rail International, American Steamship Company (ASC) and
Portfolio Management. Rail North America segment consists of its
wholly owned operations in the United States, Canada, and Mexico,
as well as two affiliate investments. Rail International segment
consists of its wholly owned European operations (Rail Europe) and
an established railcar leasing business in India (Rail India), as
well as one development stage affiliate in China. ASC segment
operates a fleet of Unied States flagged vessels on the Great
Lakes, providing waterborne transportation of dry bulk commodities
such as iron ore, coal, limestone aggregates, and metallurgical
limestone. Portfolio Management segment provides leasing,
shipping, asset remarketing and asset management services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IPALCO Still Faces Asbestos Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------
IPALCO Enterprises, Inc., continues to face asbestos litigation,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2015.

The Company states, "We may be subject to material litigation,
regulatory proceedings, administrative proceedings, audits,
settlements, investigations and claims from time to time which may
require us to expend significant funds to address. There can be no
assurance that the outcome of these matters will not have a
material adverse effect on our business, results of operations,
financial condition and cash flows. Asbestos and other regulated
substances are, and may continue to be, present at our facilities.
We have been named as a defendant in asbestos litigation, which at
this time is not expected to be material to us. The presence of
asbestos and other regulated substances at these facilities could
result in additional litigation being brought against us, which
could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations,
financial condition and cash flows."

IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. is a transmission system owner member of
MISO (Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.), a regional
transmission organization that maintains functional control over
the combined transmission systems of its members and manages one
of the largest energy and ancillary services markets in the U.S.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selective Insurance Has $23.2MM A&E Reserves
-------------------------------------------------------------
Selective Insurance Group, Inc.'s asbestos claims constituted 29%
of its $23.2 million net asbestos and environmental reserves,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2015.

The Company states, "Our general liability, excess liability, and
homeowners reserves include exposure to asbestos and environmental
claims. Our exposure to environmental liability is primarily due
to: (i) landfill exposures from policies written prior to the
absolute pollution endorsement in the mid 1980s; and (ii)
underground storage tank leaks mainly from New Jersey homeowners
policies. These environmental claims stem primarily from insured
exposures in municipal government, small non-manufacturing
commercial risks, and homeowners policies.

"The total carried net losses and loss expense reserves for these
claims were $23.2 million as of December 31, 2015 and $23.0
million at December 31, 2014. The emergence of these claims occurs
over an extended period and is highly unpredictable. For example,
within our Standard Commercial Lines book, certain landfill sites
are included on the National Priorities List ("NPL") by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA"). Once on the NPL,
the USEPA determines an appropriate remediation plan for these
sites. A landfill can remain on the NPL for many years until final
approval for the removal of the site is granted from the USEPA.
The USEPA has the authority to re-open previously closed sites and
return them to the NPL. We currently have reserves for nine
customers related to six sites on the NPL.

"Asbestos claims" are claims for bodily injury alleged to have
occurred from exposure to asbestos-containing products. Our
primary exposure arises from insuring various distributors of
asbestos-containing products, such as electrical and plumbing
materials. At December 31, 2015, asbestos claims constituted 29%
of our $23.2 million net asbestos and environmental reserves,
compared to 32% of our $23.0 million net asbestos and
environmental reserves at December 31, 2014.

"Environmental claims" are claims alleging bodily injury or
property damage from pollution or other environmental contaminants
other than asbestos. These claims include landfills and leaking
underground storage tanks. Our landfill exposure lies largely in
policies written for municipal governments, in their operation or
maintenance of certain public lands. In addition to landfill
exposures, in recent years, we have experienced a relatively
consistent level of reported losses in the homeowners line of
business related to claims for groundwater contamination from
leaking underground heating oil storage tanks in New Jersey. In
2007, we instituted a fuel oil system exclusion on our New Jersey
homeowners policies that limits our exposure to leaking
underground storage tanks for certain customers. At that time,
existing customers were offered a one-time opportunity to buy back
oil tank liability coverage.  The exclusion applies to all new
homeowners policies in New Jersey. These customers are eligible
for the buy-back option only if the tank meets specific
eligibility criteria.

"Our asbestos and environmental claims are handled in our
centralized and specialized asbestos and environmental claim unit.
Case reserves for these exposures are evaluated on a claim-by-
claim basis. The ability to assess potential exposure often
improves as a claim develops, including judicial determinations of
coverage issues. As a result, reserves are adjusted accordingly.

"Estimating IBNR reserves for asbestos and environmental claims is
difficult because of the delayed and inconsistent reporting
patterns associated with these claims. In addition, there are
significant uncertainties associated with estimating critical
assumptions, such as average clean-up costs, third-party costs,
potentially responsible party shares, allocation of damages,
litigation and coverage costs, and potential state and federal
legislative changes. Normal historically-based actuarial
approaches cannot be applied to asbestos and environmental claims
because past loss history is not indicative of future potential
loss emergence. In addition, while certain alternative models can
be applied, such models can produce significantly different
results with small changes in assumptions. As a result, we do not
calculate an asbestos and environmental loss range. Historically,
our asbestos and environmental claims have been significantly
lower in volume, with less volatility and uncertainty than many of
our competitors in the commercial lines industry. Prior to the
introduction of the absolute pollution exclusion endorsement in
the mid-1980's, we were primarily a personal lines carrier and
therefore do not have broad exposure to asbestos and environmental
claims. Additionally, we are the primary insurance carrier on the
majority of these exposures, which provides more certainty in our
reserve position compared to others in the insurance marketplace."

Selective Insurance Group, Inc., is a holding company for
insurance subsidiaries, which offers property and casualty
insurance products and services. It operates in two segments:
Insurance Operations, which sells property and casualty insurance
products and services, and Investments, which invests the premiums
collected by the Insurance Operations. It derives its income in
three ways: underwriting income from Insurance Operations, net
investment income from Investments, and net realized gains and
losses on investment securities from the Investments segment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dayton Power Continues to Defend Asbestos Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
DPL Inc. and The Dayton Power and Light Company continue to defend
asbestos lawsuits, according to the Companies' Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2015.

The Companies state, "We may be subject to material litigation,
regulatory proceedings, administrative proceedings, audits,
settlements, investigations and claims from time to time which may
require us to expend significant funds to address. There can be no
assurance that the outcome of these matters will not have a
material adverse effect on our business, results of operations,
financial condition and cash flows. Asbestos and other regulated
substances are, and may continue to be, present at our facilities.
We have been named as a defendant in asbestos litigation, which at
this time is not expected to be material to us. The continued
presence of asbestos and other regulated substances at these
facilities could result in additional litigation being brought
against us, which could have a material adverse effect on our
results of operations, financial condition and cash flows."

The Dayton Power and Light Company is a public utility
incorporated in 1911 under the laws of Ohio. The Dayton, Ohio-
based Company sells electricity to residential, commercial,
industrial and governmental customers in a 6,000-square-mile
area of West Central Ohio. DP&L is the principal subsidiary of
DPL Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: OfficeMax Retains Asbestos Proceedings
-------------------------------------------------------
OfficeMax retained asbestos-related proceedings, according to
Office Depot, Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 26, 2015.

On November 5, 2013, the Company completed its merger with
OfficeMax Incorporated in an all-stock transaction.

OfficeMax is named a defendant in a number of lawsuits, claims,
and proceedings arising out of the operation of certain paper and
forest products assets prior to those assets being sold in 2004,
for which OfficeMax agreed to retain responsibility. Also, as part
of that sale, OfficeMax agreed to retain responsibility for all
pending or threatened proceedings and future proceedings alleging
asbestos-related injuries arising out of the operation of the
paper and forest products assets prior to the closing of the sale.
The Company has made provision for losses with respect to the
pending proceedings. Additionally, as of December 26, 2015, the
Company has made provision for environmental liabilities with
respect to certain sites where hazardous substances or other
contaminants are or may be located. For these environmental
liabilities, the Company's estimated range of reasonably possible
losses was approximately $10 million to $25 million. The Company
regularly monitors its estimated exposure to these liabilities. As
additional information becomes known, these estimates may change,
however, the Company does not believe any of these OfficeMax
retained proceedings are material to the Company's business.

Office Depot, Inc., including consolidated subsidiaries, is a
global supplier of office products and services. The Company
currently operates under the Office Depot(R) and OfficeMax(R)
banners and utilizes proprietary Company and product brand
names. In August 2014, the Company completed the sale of its 51%
capital stock interest in Grupo OfficeMax S. de R.L. de C.V.,
the former OfficeMax, Incorporated business in Mexico, to its
joint venture partner.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Berkley Has $33MM A&E Reserves at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Berkley Corporation's net reserves for losses and loss
expenses relating to asbestos and environmental claims was $33
million at December 31, 2015, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2015.

The Company's net reserves for losses and loss expenses relating
to asbestos and environmental claims was $33 million at December
31, 2015 and $36 million at December 31, 2014. The Company's gross
reserves for losses and loss expenses relating to asbestos and
environmental claims were $51 million and $56 million at December
31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. Net incurred losses and loss
expenses for reported asbestos and environmental claims decreased
approximately $2 million in 2015 and increased by approximately $4
million and $5 million in 2014 and 2013, respectively. Net paid
losses and loss expenses for asbestos and environmental claims
were approximately $2 million in 2015, $3 million in 2014 and $3
million in 2013. The estimation of these liabilities is subject to
significantly greater than normal variation and uncertainty
because it is difficult to make an actuarial estimate of these
liabilities due to the absence of a generally accepted actuarial
methodology for these exposures and the potential effect of
significant unresolved legal matters, including coverage issues,
as well as the cost of litigating the legal issues. Additionally,
the determination of ultimate damages and the final allocation of
such damages to financially responsible parties are highly
uncertain.

W. R. Berkley Corporation (W. R. Berkley) is an insurance holding
company. The Company operates in the three segments of the
property casualty insurance business: Insurance-Domestic,
Insurance-International and Reinsurance-Global. The Company's
Insurance -Domestic operating units underwrite specialty risks
within the excess and surplus lines market and on an admitted
basis. The Company through its Insurance-International operating
units writes business in almost 40 countries across the world,
with branches or offices in 15 locations outside the United
States, including the United Kingdom, Continental Europe, South
America, Canada, Scandinavia, and Australia. The Company provides
other insurance companies and self-insureds with assistance in
managing their net risk through reinsurance on either a portfolio
basis, through treaty reinsurance, or on an individual basis,
through facultative reinsurance.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. Va. Court Remands Asbestos Action
-----------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a West Virginia federal
court has remanded an asbestos case, concluding that the removing
defendant had asserted a federal defense to claims that "simply do
not exist."

In the April 29 order, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia wrote that since the plaintiffs had
disclaimed any claims relating to the plaintiff's military
service, General Electric had no grounds for removal.

The plaintiffs brought the claims on behalf of Roy A. Siders,
contending that he developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure
to asbestos-containing products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Confirms Asbestos at Glory Days Site
---------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Vanno, writing for Utica Observer-Dispatch, reported
that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has confirmed that
the debris from the razed Glory Days building contains asbestos
that the agency will assist in cleaning up.

In an email sent to village Mayor Anthony Brindisi Tuesday, EPA
Regional Administrator Judith Enck said that samples of the
building materials that were collected by a third party prior to
the demolition of the former hotel "were analyzed by (the) EPA and
found to contain asbestos."

Enck said in the email that finding makes the 248 N. Main St. site
eligible for cleanup under its Superfund program.

"EPA seeks to have polluters pay for cleanups and will contact the
owner of the hotel property to determine if she can pay for or
conduct the cleanup," Enck said in the email. "If the property
owner is unable or unwilling to do so, EPA will conduct the
cleanup."

Part of the roof and third floor of the building collapsed in July
2014 and it was torn down in June 2015 to the tune of $50,000,
which was billed to the property's owner -- Glory Ventures LLC of
New Jersey.

Brindisi said the estimated cost to haul the debris from the site
-- which has been covered in tarps in order to contain any
possible contamination -- is about $500,000.

U.S. Senator Charles Schumer D-N.Y. visited the site in December
and assisted in the matter by writing to the EPA on behalf of the
village.

"This means that the cleanup will be taken care of at no cost to
us or the taxpayers," said Brindisi, who hopes the process will
[start] in the coming months. "We couldn't be happier to hear
this."

The Glory Days building, formerly the General Herkimer Hotel, is
where 64-year-old Kurt Myers holed up in March 2013 after killing
four people and wounding two others in a shooting spree in Mohawk
and Herkimer.

Myers was killed March 14, 2013, during a shootout with police
inside the vacant building, after a tactical unit raided the
building.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Naval Ship Asbestos Removal to Cost EUR500K
------------------------------------------------------------
Sean O'Riordan, writing for Irish Examiner, reported that the
taxpayer will have to foot the near EUR0.5m bill for removing
potentially-lethal asbestos from Naval Service ships, but the
final cost could be far higher.

Civilian and naval personnel who worked on the asbestos-
contaminated ships will have to be medically screened for the rest
of their lives as asbestosis symptoms can take up to 40 years to
manifest.

The Department of Defence has confirmed that the total cost of
cleaning up and disposing of asbestos on ships and workshops at
the navy's headquarters at Haulbowline Island was EUR447,000.

In 2000, navy chiefs ordered a full survey to be carried out on
the fleet amid concerns asbestos could be onboard some of the
ships which were built in the 1980s.
advertisement

At the time of construction the substance was considered the best
and most cost-effective insulating material and was also fire-
resistant. It was especially used to contain fires in engine
rooms.

A private company was hired to carry out the survey on the eight-
strong fleet and gave it a clean bill of health.

It therefore came as a major shock to the navy's top brass when
asbestos starting turning up on some of the ships during routine
maintenance.

The taxpayer will have to foot this bill because the
Carrigtwohill-based company which carried out the survey has since
gone out of business.

First LE Aoife was found to have asbestos in a gasket in its
engine room and the substance was also detected in LE Eithne's
forward pump room.

However, far larger quantities of the asbestos were then found in
the LE Ciara and LE Orla during routine maintenance.

It took several months to remove the asbestos on both of those
vessels and it had to be transported to Germany for safe disposal.

In one case, a number of servicemen and civilian employees of the
Department of Defence were unknowingly exposed to asbestos fibres
for up to three weeks as the worked onboard without sufficient
personal protection clothing.

The Health & Safety Authority (HSA) decided late last year that it
wouldn't prosecute the Naval Service for the asbestos incidents,
primarily because it had been told by the private company that no
asbestos was onboard the ships.

The Naval Service had, in the meantime, introduced new protocols
to mitigate against exposure to asbestos.

It's unlikely that any of the material is present on the newer
ships.

PDforra, the organisation which represents enlisted men in the
navy, said it wasn't happy with the HSA investigation.

A spokesman for PDforra said up to 100 of its members could have
been exposed to asbestos both onboard the ships and in workships
where the asbestos present in some exhausts was being ground down.

It's expected PDforra will shortly write to the HSA asking how
many of its members were interviewed by the HSA investigating
team, because the representative association believes it didn't
speak to enough of them compared to the civilian workers who were
also put at risk of exposure.

It's believed that more than 50 civilian employees based in
Haulbowline at the time could have been at risk.

The PDforra spokesman added that his organisation will insist that
all personnel get regular screening for asbestos symptoms, not
just while they are employed by the Naval Service, but when
they're retired.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Teacher's Death Linked to Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------
Wakefield Express reported that former colleagues of a man who
died from asbestos-related cancer are being urged to help with an
investigation into how he came into contact with the harmful
substance.

David Clegg, a former teacher and factory worker from Knottingley,
was diagnosed with mesothelioma just a week before he died in
February, aged 58.

His wife Susan, 59, has instructed industrial disease experts at
law firm Irwin Mitchell to investigate how he may have come into
contact with deadly asbestos dust which causes the illness.

Irwin Mitchell said Mr Clegg worked at Pollards Bearings in
Ferrybridge for eight weeks over the summer while he was at
University in the 1970s.

He also worked at Goole Grammar School between 1979 and 1980 and
Featherstone High School from 1980 to 2000.

Mum-of-two Mrs Clegg appealed for former colleagues to come
forward.

She said: "David and I were shocked and devastated by the
diagnosis. We had no time to come to terms with it. We had made
plans for our retirement together and now I am facing that future
alone."

Mr Clegg had described scraping out a fibrous material he believed
was asbestos from the inside of furnaces at Pollards Bearings.

His family also have concerns that exposure could have happened in
classrooms at the two schools.

Mr Clegg was also a keen writer who had work published by
Stairwells in York before his death.

Ian Toft, head of the industrial disease team at Irwin Mitchell's
Leeds office, representing Mrs Clegg, said: "It's important that
we now help Susan and her family get answers about his exposure to
the deadly dust.

"Mesothelioma is an aggressive and incurable cancer which causes
so much distress for people like Susan and her family.

"On this occasion, the disease took David's life within only one
week of his diagnosis.

"Sadly, many employers did not do enough to manage the risks of
asbestos exposure, despite knowing how dangerous it is."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Husband's Clothes Exposed Woman to Asbestos
------------------------------------------------------------
North Devon Journal reported that a woman has died after she was
exposed to asbestos while washing her former husband's clothes at
her North Devon home.

Yvonne Smalldon, 75, of Buckland Brewer, was diagnosed with
mesothelioma after being exposed to the deadly dust.

During an inquest hearing, a statement was read out from Mrs
Smalldon's GP Dr Andrew Clarke, who said she had not been directly
exposed to asbestos while working as an auxillery nurse.

MORE: Drug death leads to investigation at North Devon GP surgery

However, he said he believed she contracted the disease as a
result of cleaning her former husband's clothes between 1960 and
1975, due to his involvement in the building trade.

A verdict of asbestos-related death was made.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractors Target Homeless People
---------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Dixon, writing for Detroit Free Press, reported that Bay
City contractor Roy Bradley Sr.  recruited workers at a homeless
shelter and paid them cash to remove pipes wrapped in insulation
made with asbestos.

The workers had no training, no protective gear, no water to wet
the crumbly asbestos and no leak-proof bags in which to dispose of
it. Some did the work dressed in flip-flops, T-shirts and shorts.

Bradley's crew included an ex-con, a drug addict, and at least six
residents of the Good Samaritan Rescue Mission, located across a
parking lot from the job site. At one point during the project --
the renovation of a church for a charter school -- a ceiling with
asbestos rained down dust, thick as snow.

At Bradley's federal trial on charges of improper asbestos
abatement, assistant U.S. attorney Janet Parker told jurors that
promising the men cash "was a convenient way of getting workers to
do work that was very unpleasant, very difficult, very hazardous
at times."

"The workers were people who were very desperate for a job," she
said. "They were desperate for any kind of money."

Across the country, the Free Press found other examples of
contractors like Bradley, who prey on vulnerable people to take
material containing asbestos out of aging buildings: immigrants,
ex-cons, day laborers, homeless people and teenagers.

Experts say documenting the extent of the problem is difficult
because workers may be afraid to complain or may not know who to
call. In many cases, they don't speak English.

Craig Gestring, an assistant U.S. attorney in Rochester, N.Y.,
said he has prosecuted several cases that involved workers who
were "unskilled, unknowledgeable and are basically patsies and
it's always done to save a buck."

He said he believes it is a growing problem as more and more older
buildings are demolished or renovated and contractors cut corners.

The Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency both investigated Bradley.
MIOSHA cited his company, Thunder Builders, for several violations
-- none involving asbestos -- and levied $300 in penalties. The
EPA got a four-count indictment against Bradley and a conviction
on all charges after an eight-day jury trial. His sentence: five
years.

Bradley's estranged brother-in-law, Roy Richard Jr., said in an
interview at his Bay City home that he was facing prison time for
home invasion when he worked on Bradley's crew at the church and
"just about everybody had some form of charge" against them, such
as domestic violence or drunk driving, or had a drug or alcohol
problem.

Bradley "capitalized on everybody's misfortune," he said.

Matthew Scherret also worked on the crew. Scherret, who didn't
have a job or a home when he first arrived in Bay City in 2010
from Huron County, told a grand jury he was "living at the
homeless shelter because I moved down here because my girlfriend
was pregnant and he (Bradley) had an opening for a construction
job. I went and got it."

How did he learn about the job?

"I got told from some people that was living there with me at the
homeless shelter," Scherret said.

He said workers typically started the day at a motorcycle shop
that Bradley owned before they were dispatched to various work
sites, including the church that became a building for Bay City
Academy.

In an interview at his home in Bad Axe in Michigan's Thumb,
Scherret said Bradley paid him cash, $50 a day, and he usually
worked seven days a week. He said he wore no protective gear when
cutting pipes and the surrounding insulation went into regular
garbage bags.

Scherett said he returned to his childhood home after getting into
a fight with another Bradley crew member. He's now a farmworker.

Workers exposed

From court and OSHA records and a conversation with a federal
prosecutor, the Free Press found other examples of contractors
targeting vulnerable workers:

An owner of a warehouse in Rochester, N.Y., used a 16-year-old,
his mother and several other people who had done odd jobs for him
to remove asbestos from an industrial dumpster outside his
building. He paid them cash and did not provide proper masks and
protective suits. Anastasios Kolokouris of Avon, N.Y., pleaded
guilty to one count of violating the federal Clean Air Act and
faces up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine when
sentenced in June.

A contractor exposed 50 to 60 workers to asbestos while scrapping
a former hospital complex in Rochester, N.Y. "He basically hired a
bunch of workers who didn't speak English or were ex-convicts or
had other issues. They're not going to call the cops first off,"
said Gestring, the assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted the case
in federal court. The contractor, Keith Gordon-Smith, was
sentenced in 2011 to 72 months in prison and ordered to pay
$302,887 in restitution. Gestring said asbestos-containing
insulation was "coming down like snow" and the work went on for
months. The workers had no protective gear.

A construction company exposed at least eight workers, many of
them brought into the U.S. on temporary visas, to asbestos when
they removed floor tiles and insulation at a former elementary
school in Okawville, Ill. Federal OSHA investigated the case and
said some of the workers spoke only Spanish, were not trained to
work with asbestos and did not have basic equipment such as hard
hats, eye wear and protective clothing. In 2015, OSHA proposed
penalties of $1.8 million against Joseph Kehrer and Kehrer
Brothers Construction. The case remains open.

Blackstone Business Enterprises, a metal fabricator, exposed four
laborers hired through an employment agency in 2008 to remove
steam pipes that contained asbestos insulation at at its plant in
Jamestown, N.Y. Federal OSHA investigated and got $205,000 in
penalties. Company president Daniel Black was sentenced to 12
months in prison after pleading guilty to filing a false tax
return and one asbestos charge.

Dan Somenauer, business manager of Taylor-based Abatement Workers
Regional Local 207, which represents asbestos-abatement workers in
20 states east of the Mississippi, said some of his members told
him that before joining the union they worked for companies that
paid substandard wages and hired homeless workers, undocumented
immigrants and college students.

Acting on a tip from union members, Somenauer said officials of
his local visited a job site in Detroit where they suspected
undocumented immigrants were removing asbestos. They reportedly
had been brought in by a company based in the South, were housed
in a large home in Detroit, and shuttled to their work site by a
van. The union tried to persuade the owner of the property to stop
using the workers, but he refused. The incident happened a little
more than two years ago. Somenauer said he didn't contact
authorities because he wasn't 100% sure they were illegal
immigrants.

He said the union checks the credentials of anyone who wants to
join and often finds workers who were "hired off the streets,"
then given cursory training. His union requires its members to get
proper federally approved training and certification from the
state where they work.

He estimates 40% of abatement projects are done with improperly
trained and equipped workers.

Following a tip

The EPA was tipped to the situation at the church in Bay City in
2011 and launched a criminal investigation of Bradley that
culminated in his 2014 trial in U.S. District Court in Bay City.
One of Bradley's employees, Jason Walbecq,  told jurors he wore
his "normal clothes" and a dust mask during asbestos removal. He
should have had a respirator and worn disposable coveralls, a hood
and shoe covers.

He and another member of the crew, Peanut, removed pipes from the
building and sawed them into smaller pieces without wetting the
insulation. Walbecq said he was paid $350 a week in cash, and
worked 10 or 11-hour days.

He said another worker, John John, ripped up floor tiles and
didn't wet them either.

Scherret said he also scraped up floor tiles, and some of them
shattered. They were tossed into regular garbage bags or a
Dumpster.

"I always had dust in my nose," Walbecq testified. He also
acknowledged that: "I don't know nothing about asbestos."

Both the pipe insulation and some floor tiles that broke apart
contained asbestos fibers.

Richard said Bradley told him to remove a large ceiling. Using a
hammer, "I started beating it. It come down like snow. It just
come down so thick. It was brutal." He said workers just swept or
shoveled up the dust.

He said Bradley assured him that the ceiling had been tested and
came back negative for asbestos. But two days later, he said
Bradley told him not to come to work the next day because "MIOSHA
wants to know who tore that ceiling out because it was asbestos."

"I should have stood up and said, 'This is not happening,'"
Richard said. But he said he needed the money.

Richard, who spent 29 months in prison, said he has had eye
problems since his work on the school. Cancer from the asbestos,
he said, "it's just a matter of time."

At Bradley's sentencing, his lawyer, Mark Satawa, asked for a
sentence of no more than 24 months.

In March 2015, U.S. District Judge Thomas Ludington gave him 60
months. He was also ordered to pay restitution of $14,600 to cover
medical testing for four of his victims.

Satawa was hired as Bradley's lawyer after his conviction. In
early April, he asked Ludington to hold a hearing on his claims
that Bradley's trial attorney, Elias Escobedo Jr., provided an
ineffective defense, "without calling a single witness or
introducing a single exhibit," according to a court filing.

"I don't believe all of the important and pertinent facts came out
during my client's trial," Satawa said in an interview. "Roy's
lawyer did not call certain witnesses and did not present the
defense that Roy wanted presented."

Escobedo declined comment, citing attorney-client privilege.

MIOSHA told the Free Press it got no employee complaints or
referrals from outside agencies about asbestos abatement at the
time of Bradley's project, and when its inspectors visited the
site in 2011 they did not observe asbestos abatement activity.

But, according to court testimony, MIOSHA inspector Steven
Flannery collected a sample of pipe insulation during his
inspection and fellow inspector Cindy Zastrow submitted it for
analysis. MIOSHA's lab found it contained asbestos.

Zastrow testified at Bradley's trial that during her inspection
she saw workers who did not have proper respiratory protection
"performing manual demolition and renovation using hand tools
which disturbs ... anything from lead and cadmium-containing paint
to asbestos. So there was definite disturbance of different
building materials that was a concern to me."

She said she asked Bradley during the inspection whether his
workers had received asbestos-awareness training and he said they
had not. But she acknowledged that she did not recommend that
management in Lansing shut down the project. She testified that
she was aware of just one job site that had been ordered to close
in 20-30 years.

"It pretty much takes an act of God," Zastrow testified. "You have
to prove that there is immediate danger to life and health ... and
then the call has to be made to Lansing. The legal department
within MIOSHA gets involved and they have to go before a judge
..."

Following Flannery and Zastrow's inspections, MIOSHA supervisors
cited Bradley for minor violations, collecting $300 in fines.

MIOSHA said it could not address specifics of the case because it
no longer has the records. Zastrow and Flannery have left the
agency.

MIOSHA also did not cite Bradley's company for another violation:
failing to give the agency 10 days notice before starting asbestos
abatement, which could have cost him up to $10,000.

Celeste Monforton, a former federal OSHA official, said MIOSHA had
red flags. It had an asbestos sample and a contractor who hadn't
notified the agency before abatement. "That tells you that you
have a rogue operation and you should swoop in and hold the
contractor accountable and make sure the workers and the community
are protected."

Dan Streeter, executive director of Rescue Ministries of Mid-
Michigan, which runs the Good Samaritan Rescue Mission, said "it's
a shame" that some of the residents "have been preyed upon. ...
You're preying upon people who are in a vulnerable spot."

Streeter said he was not aware that Bradley had hired shelter
residents. He said it tries to place residents with reputable
contractors who do work properly.

But the shelter couldn't stop Bradley from offering jobs to men
who needed the cash.

David Uhlmann, a law professor at the University of Michigan who
spent 17 years at the U.S. Justice Department, seven as chief of
the environmental crimes section, said: "Preying on homeless
people by exposing them to asbestos is unconscionable and more
than justifies a five-year prison term. A $300 fine, on the other
hand, is absurdly inadequate."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Michigan Didn't Issue Fines in Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that Michigan's state worker safety
agency didn't issue fines in the majority of asbestos abatement
cases where it found serious violations during the past seven
years, and not one company was fined the maximum $7,000, a
newspaper reports.

Fines weren't issued in two-thirds of the more than 4,000
violations that the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health
Administration closed between February 2009 and February 2016, the
Detroit Free Press reported.

The newspaper also found that 96 percent of safety violations
resulted in penalties of $1,000 or less.

MIOSHA spokeswoman Tanya Baker took issue with the report that
two-thirds of the violations weren't fined, saying the newspaper
looked at each violation individually. She said the agency grouped
related violations and assigned a penalty to just one of them. She
also said the penalties are meant to correct violations and deter
others.

John Newquist, a former top official in the federal Occupational
Safety and Health Administration's regional office in Chicago,
which oversees Michigan, said he "never grouped asbestos
violations." Celeste Monforton, a former OSHA policy analyst, said
if MIOSHA wants "to use penalties as a deterrent effect, you
wouldn't be grouping them."

Both said each violation should be treated separately.

Monforton, who spent 12 years at OSHA and at the Mine Safety and
Health Administration, said MIOSHA's penalties overall are so
minimal that they don't serve as an effective deterrent. He said
weak enforcement encourages "fly-by-night operations who risk
people's health because they may get away with it."

Monforton, now a lecturer at the School of Public Health at George
Washington University, also took issue with MIOSHA's assertion
that it uses penalty reductions to encourage employers to remedy
hazards quickly, noting that with asbestos, "exposure has already
happened and there's no way to abate that."

Newquist said states that choose to oversee worker safety rather
than have the federal government do it tend to go easier on
employers.

MIOSHA Director Martha Yoder, who recently retired, told the
newspaper last year that her asbestos inspectors could not monitor
all abatement projects in Michigan. The agency has four inspectors
this year, down from five in fiscal 2015.

"Our job is to do spot-checking," Yoder said.

Yoder said MIOSHA sees quicker abatement "as more advantageous
than collecting a larger penalty."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Starts Proceedings Over Asbestos
-------------------------------------------------------
David Sedgwick, writing for News Guardian, reported that a widow
is looking for answers after her husband developed terminal cancer
mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos.

Alan Cook, a former laboratory technician from Dudley, was
diagnosed with the disease in March 2015 but died on September 26,
2015, aged 68.

Before his death he instructed lawyers at Irwin Mitchell to
investigate how he was exposed to the deadly material.

Since his death, his widow, Jennifer, has continued to fight for
answers, issuing formal legal proceedings at the High Court
against Tioxide, the company where Alan believed he was exposed to
asbestos dust and fibres.

He worked at the company's Billingham site between 1965 and 1970.

Before his death he said that he and his colleagues would use two
types of asbestos rope during the experiments.

Jennifer is now appealing for Alan's former colleagues from
Tioxide to come forward with crucial information on the presence
of asbestos at the company's Billingham site and the safety
measures, if any, implemented.

Jennifer said: "Alan's diagnosis was a terrible shock to us all
and it was terrible to see him in so much distress and losing so
much weight."

"We are still struggling to come to terms with his death and while
we know nothing can ever bring him back we feel we need to get
some answers for Alan and ensure those responsible for exposing
him to this dreadful substance are held to account for failing to
protect him and those he worked alongside.

"He told me he was never warned of the dangers of asbestos while
working for Tioxide or provided with any sort of protection from
the asbestos he handled on a daily basis."

Alan told his legal team at Irwin Mitchell that the ropes would
release dust and fibres into the atmosphere and that his work
clothes were often covered in asbestos dust by the end of the day.

He also recalled the pipework at the facility being lagged with
asbestos and repair work taking place while he was present, which
led to further dust and fibres being released into the working
atmosphere.

Roger Maddocks, a Partner and expert industrial disease lawyer at
Irwin Mitchell, said: "Asbestos dust and fibres can be extremely
dangerous when inhaled or ingested and can cause a number of
serious and sometimes fatal diseases, but all too often we see
instances where employees were not given the correct information
or protective equipment to prevent their exposure to the deadly
material.

"Alan's diagnosis had a huge impact on his life and he wanted to
know why he was exposed to asbestos dust and fibres without any
warnings about the risks the material posed.

"His family are still determined to understand how he was exposed
and we have now issued High Court proceedings in a bid to get them
the answers they deserve about Alan's death.

"We would like to hear from anyone who worked at Tioxide in the
1960s and 70s as they may have crucial information that will help
Alan's his family understand what happened and begin to provide
them with some closure concerning his death."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former William Press Worker Dies of Mesothelioma
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Bucks Herald reported that a devastated family is appealing to
former workers from William Press & Sons Ltd in the Aylesbury area
to help them find out where their father was exposed to deadly
asbestos.

John Nicklen died from aggressive mesothelioma in December 2013 at
the age of 73 after being exposed to asbestos dust and fibres.

Since John's death his daughter and son, Daniela Taylor and
Tristan Nicklen, have taken up their father's fight for justice.

His family now need the help of former William Press & Sons Ltd
employees who may have worked with John or know about the use of
asbestos products by the public works contractor. During the 1970s
the firm was involved in converting the UK's housing stock from
town gas to natural gas.

Tristan said: "Dad was employed by William Press between 1965 and
1966, and again between 1971 and 1973. He was involved in laying
pipes in the countryside in and around Aylesbury. The pipes were
made with asbestos and dad had to cut them to size to be laid.
There was no doubt in his mind that the dust and fibres from
cutting the asbestos pipes caused his lung cancer."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Optical Hit with $16-Mil. Verdict
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eric Needs, writing for Legal Reader, reported that a California
jury rules that American Optical Corporation must pay a former
machinist who developed mesothelioma $16 million, along with
possible punitive damages after finding the manufacturer of the
respiratory equipment knew its product could not prevent dangerous
exposure to asbestos and hid that fact from purchasers.

The 12-member jury reached a verdict in favor of the plaintiff
after one day of deliberating, determining that American Optical
acted with "malice, fraud or oppression" in conduct that was a
substantial factor for the 62-year-old plaintiff, Louis William
Tyler.

The award includes past and future economic damages and medical
expenses for Tyler and his wife Becky. It will also cover
compensation for his pain, loss of enjoyment of life and mental
suffering, and will provide her with past and future loss of love,
companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, moral
support and sexual relations.

The six men and six women of the jury are scheduled to begin
deliberating of possible punitive damages.

After Tyler was diagnosed with mesolthelioma last year, he sued
American Optical for negligence, strict product liability,
negligent failure to warn, concealment of intention
misrepresentation, among other causes of action.

The jury found through a 32-question verdict form that the
American Optical Corporation  respirator provided to Tyler at the
foundry where he worked did not provide the protection an ordinary
consumer would expect and that the company concealed the defects.

During closing arguments on Thursday, Jospeh Satterly of Kazan
McClain Satterly & Greenwood said his client was enduring a "slow,
painful death."

The defective respirator made by American Optical Corporation that
was used by Tyler while working with materials containing asbestos
as a machinist at a foundry in Southern California is responsible
for substantial blame for that death sentence, said Satterly.

"This is a very sad and very difficult story," said Sharla J.
Frost of Tucker Ellis LLP. "This is the story of William Tyler. As
a 19-year-old, he went into this workplace, Foundry Service &
Supplies, and at that point the last chapter of his life was
written."

Pictures of the machine shop from the early 1970s were put on
display to the jury, which shows Tyler and other employees at
work, some with and without respirators, with no one wearing
protective clothing. A close-up photo shows an open soda can in
the work area.

Frost said the owners of the foundry did not adequately control
dust in their shop and failed to measure asbestos levels. The
attorney added that much more could have been done to make the
shop a safer place for workers, adding that a respirator should be
the "last level of defense."

Satterly blasted American Optical for trying to shift the blame.

"They're charging Foundry, this little 2,000-square-foot
operation, as being negligent because they didn't have a
respirator program and they didn't have the proper dust collection
systems and they didn't do certain things," Satterly said.
"Foundry Service & Supplies wasn't doing anything worse than any
other entity in the '70s and '80s."

Satterly said there is no evidence that Tyler was not wearing his
work-issued respirator, which was used by workers to protect them
from asbestos. The product from American Optical showed signs of
"leakage" that allowed the deadly microscopic fibers to get inside
the worker's lungs.

"What they sold for many, many years through this product was a
false sense of security," said Satterly. "They sold a product to
make people think they'd be ok."

The model of respirator was neither designed nor sold for asbestos
protection, said Frost. She reminded jurors that Foundry was not
using American Optical products for the first few years on the
job, but used a face mask manufactured by 3M Co.

Company documents showed that American Optical was aware its
customers were using the R2090 in asbestos worksites, and no
significant efforts were made to stop that, said Satterly.

When jurors were asked who was mostly responsible for Tyler
devloping mesothelioma, they found American Optical was 70 percent
to blame, with 20 percent to Foundry Service & Supplies, and 5
percent culpability to both Tyler himself and 3M.

The damages totaling $15.96 million imposed American Optical
reflects the 70 percent proportion of the overall damages
collected. The Foundry and 3M were not defendants in the trial.

The California jury slammed the American Optical Corporation with
an additional $10 million in punitive damages, adding to the $22
million in compensatory damages awarded to Tyler and his wife.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Woman Claims Exposure Led to Husband's Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
Molly English-Bowers, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record,
reported that a man's widow who is the administrator of his estate
is suing over allegations that his death was tied to asbestos
exposure.

Joanne Walsh, individually and as special administrator of the
estate of Charles Walsh, filed the suit April 20 in Madison County
Circuit Court against 3M Co., alleging negligence and other
counts.

From 1964 to 1996, the deceased was allegedly exposed to asbestos-
containing products while on the job. Those products allegedly
include pumps, valves, gaskets, HVAC equipment and pipes, among
others.

On Dec. 26, 2012, the deceased was diagnosed with lung cancer,
wrongfully caused by asbestos exposure, according to the
complaint, and he died July 5, 2013.

The suit says his death is attributable to the alleged negligence
of the defendant in the following ways, among others: it included
asbestos in its products, it failed to provide adequate warnings
to those working with the products, and it failed to test the
products to determine any hazards from working with them.

As a result, according to the complaint, the deceased was exposed
to, inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers.
Before he died, he paid large sums of money for medical care,
experienced great physical pain, and could not perform his normal
course of employment so his family was deprived of his monetary
support, the suit says. The plaintiff seeks damages for the loss
of consortium of her husband.

She seeks judgment of at least $50,000 for each count plus other
relief the court deems appropriate. She is represented by Eric D.
Jackstadt and Napoli Shkolnik of Napoli Shkolnik PLLC in
Edwardsville.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 16-L-546


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Justices Deny Rehearing Statute of Repose Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Roberts, writing for The Indiana Lawyer, reported that the
Indiana Supreme Court issued an order declining to rehear a case
that ended the statute of repose on prolonged asbestos cases by a
3-2 vote Thursday, with the same justices who voted to end the
statute of repose voting against the rehearing.

The court combined three appeals in its original ruling, which
said section 2 of the Indiana Product Liability Act contained a
constitutionally impermissible distinction between asbestos
plaintiffs who mined and sold raw asbestos and asbestos plaintiffs
who were injured by defendants not in that category. Justices
Brent Dickson, Steven David and Robert Rucker voted against the
rehearing, just as they voted to amend IPLA and strike section 2.

David wrote a one-page opinion affirming the decision in which
Dickson and Rucker concurred. Justice Mark Massa wrote a six-page
decision dissenting from the denial of rehearing, in which Chief
Justice Loretta Rush concurred.

In his dissent, Massa wrote that because the Indiana attorney
general was not notified in the case, it should be remanded to the
trial court so he can participate. He cited Sendak v. Denbro, a
case from 1976  in which the attorney general was not served in a
case challenging the constitutionality of a state statute. The
court there remanded the case to the trial court because serving
the attorney general helps the will of the people be heard in
decisions that threaten statutes, and ruled all cases that
threaten statutes should have the attorney general notified.

Massa also wrote on the merits of the case, which hinged on stare
decisis and whether the Supreme Court had covered the same ground
in Allied Signal v Ott from 2003, "although the majority went to
such great pains to say it was not ignoring precedent, in so
doing, it has given us a new framework that will prove difficult
to apply."

Later he wrote, "If distinguishing between asbestos plaintiffs
injured by defendants who both mined and sold raw asbestos and
asbestos plaintiffs who were injured by defendants outside that
category is constitutionally impermissible, many other
classifications the legislature has deemed appropriate can and
will be challenged. The costs of massaging classifications for a
desired result will soon multiply."

David replied to Massa's opinion by writing the attorney general
did participate in the decision by briefing the matter in an
amicus brief and had not asked for rehearing. David cited M&M
Investment Group LLC v Ahlemeyer Farms Inc. 994N.E.2d1108, 1112
(Ind. 2013)  in which the Supreme Court upheld a decision that was
challenged because the attorney general was not served, but did
write an amicus brief.

"We can address the constitutional issue as a matter of law,"
David said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WVU Coliseum Closed Due to Potential Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Quinn, writing for Charleston Gazette-Mail, reported that the
West Virginia University Coliseum in Morgantown was closed after
workers renovating the structure found some material that may
contain asbestos.

In university news releases, John Principe, WVU's director of
environmental health and safety, said the Coliseum was closed
immediately "so that we can assess the situation properly." He
said contractors and athletic department staff were in the
building at the time.

Principe and several of his subordinates didn't return the
Gazette-Mail's requests for comment.

WVU spokesman John Bolt said the concourse area ringing the
Coliseum arena has been undergoing renovations since shortly after
the final men's basketball home game March 2, with the hope the
concourse would be ready for the start of the next basketball
season this fall. A March WVU news release said the arena itself
would be unaffected during this renovation phase.

Bolt said he didn't immediately know the exact kind of material
that may contain asbestos.

"I'm still trying to get confirmation on how widespread it might
be," he said. He said Principe called him about the issue between
12:30 p.m. and 1 p.m. Friday, though he didn't know who initially
discovered the material.

"The suspect asbestos containing material discovered was
encapsulated in an inaccessible area above ceilings in entrances
to the restrooms ringing the concourse, and did not pose a health
hazard to any individuals within the building," Principe stated in
a news release. He stated it was only exposed by the renovation
work.

Asbestos is a generic term for six naturally occurring fibrous
materials that were commonly used in buildings because they are
resistant to heat and most chemicals. Breathing asbestos can cause
asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma, an incurable and fatal
form of cancer that develops in the chest cavity and encases and
grows into the lungs.

Typically, asbestos in old buildings in the United States -- the
Coliseum is 46 years old -- is left alone unless it begins to
deteriorate into fibers that can be inhaled.

Bolt said that a Pittsburgh lab is testing the material, and that
WVU hopes to have results from the test by the end of Saturday.

WVU has planned to hold multiple graduation ceremonies for
different constituent colleges in the Coliseum starting May 13.
When asked whether any asbestos-containing material confirmation
would mean cancellation of these events, Bolt said "that'll be a
question that will have to be addressed when we find out the
answer to whether it is or is not."

During the 1999-2000 basketball season, WVU closed the Coliseum
when federal regulators demanded a massive cleanup of asbestos in
the building's ceiling. Asbestos covered the inside of the
building's huge dome.

A WVU employee had complained to the EPA that the university had
ignored asbestos problems in the Coliseum.

The WVU men's basketball team played its "home" games in
Charleston, Wheeling and Fairmont during the 1999-2000 season.

The controversy contributed to a WVU employee class-action lawsuit
against the university that resulted in a $3 million settlement
meant to provide university employees lung tests and other exams
to detect the early signs of asbestos-related lung diseases. WVU
agreed to the deal to resolve the five-year-old lawsuit by
employees who alleged the university wrongly exposed them to
dangerous levels of asbestos in campus buildings.

Bolt said previous asbestos abatement was to a different part of
the Coliseum. The work currently ongoing -- estimated to cost $15
million -- at the Coliseum is part of Phase I of planned
renovations to the structure.

"Phase I will entail more than doubling of restrooms, the near
doubling of points of sale for concessions, the widening of the
concourse for ingress and egress, exterior access to the
Mountaineer Ticket Office and Team Store, new concession options
such as a 'Mountaineer Cafe,' 'Country Roads Pit Stop,' 'Almost
Heaven Bistro and Wild & Wonderful Canteen,' improved graphics,
and, eventually, four times more [seating for disabled
individuals] than is currently offered during the second phase of
Coliseum renovations tentatively slated for 2017," WVU stated in a
March news release.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Little Hulton Man Dies of Mesothelioma
-------------------------------------------------------
Tom Rodgers, writing for Salford News, reported that the family of
an electrician from Little Hulton who died from terminal cancer is
appealing for his work colleagues to come forward and help with a
probe into possible asbestos exposure.

Barry Walker was 71 when he passed away in July 2015.

He was diagnosed with mesothelioma -- a cancer of the body's cell
linings -- just a few months before his death.

The condition is usually associated with prolonged exposure to
asbestos dust or fibres.

His children Jacquelyn Whale and Steven Walker launched a case
with industrial disease lawyers at Irwin Mitchell's Manchester
office to investigate whether steps could have been taken to
prevent his death.

Solicitors are investigating whether their late father was exposed
to asbestos while employed with CWS Engineering between 1965 and
1967.

The law firm are also searching for former colleagues to gather
evidence on their working conditions.

Katrina London, an expert industrial disease lawyer at Irwin
Mitchell, said: "Mesothelioma is an aggressive form of cancer
which is nearly always caused by asbestos exposure.

"The dangers of asbestos have been known for some time now and
protective measures should always be taken when workers come into
contact with this hazardous material.

"We are asking for his former colleagues to come forward to
provide information about the working conditions and asbestos at
CWS Engineering. We are looking to speak to anyone who worked
there between 1965 and 1967, particularly anyone who remembers
asbestos being present."

Barry's daughter, Jacquelyn, said: "My dad's death from this
horrible illness was extremely difficult for him and our family.

"It is extremely upsetting to hear that his death could have been
prevented. I can only hope that my dad's former work mates come
forward with any information they have".


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New York Judge Trims $25-Mil. Award
----------------------------------------------------
Karen Freifeld, writing for Reuters, reported that a New York
judge refused to set aside a verdict holding the manufacturer of a
brake grinding machine liable for a mechanic's exposure to
asbestos, though she cut the jury's $25 million award by more than
half.

In a decision, Justice Cynthia Kern of state Supreme Court in
Manhattan rejected Hennessy Industries Inc's argument that it had
no legal duty to warn mechanic Walter Miller, now 64, about the
dangers of asbestos in auto brakes. Hennessy owns the Ammco brand
that manufactured grinders, but did not make the brakes
themselves.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baton Rogue Man Arrested for Filing False Docs
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Advocate reported that a Baton Rouge man was arrested and is
accused of filing a false asbestos supervisor training certificate
with the state Department of Environmental Quality.

Randy Gabriel Dobard, 49, was arrested by the East Baton Rouge
Parish Sheriff's Office and the DEQ Criminal Investigation
Division after he filed the certificate on April 18. Investigation
by DEQ showed that the document had a false certification number,
false signatures and false training dates, according to a press
release from DEQ.

The trainer listed on the document, Southern Center for
Environmental Justice, Inc., verified that no asbestos supervisor
training class had been taught on the days listed on the document
sent in by Dobard.

"The training provided by these contractors, and accredited by
DEQ, is designed to protect both the workers and the public from
asbestos exposures during renovations and structure demolitions,"
Chuck Carr Brown, DEQ secretary, said. "Submitting false training
credentials to an agency tasked with protecting human health and
the environment compromises the integrity of the program."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nearly 100 Cos. in Bankruptcy Due to Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas LoSavio, Esq. -- tlosavio@lowball.com -- at Low, Ball &
Lynch, in an article for JD Supra, wrote that when asbestos
litigation became extremely costly to defend, to settle and to pay
judgments, companies began filing for protection under the
Bankruptcy laws. In the three decades since Johns Manville and UNR
Industries filed the first asbestos bankruptcy cases, nearly 100
companies have filed for bankruptcy protection due, in part, to
asbestos litigation.

The vast majority of these companies utilized section 524(g) to
reorganize and establish a bankruptcy trust to pay current and
future asbestos claimants and channel claims away from the
reorganized company. Today, many of these companies have emerged
from the 524(g) bankruptcy process, leaving in their place dozens
of trusts funded with tens of billions in assets to pay claims.
Since 2006 more than 30 trusts have been created through
bankruptcy reorganization, funding the trust system with an
additional $20 billion in assets. From 2006 through 2012 the
entire trust system has paid out over $15 billion to asbestos
claimants, with remaining assets as of year-end totaling over $18
billion.[2] In addition, there is approximately $11 to $12 billion
in proposed funding from bankruptcies still pending confirmation.

The asbestos trusts operate in parallel with the traditional tort
system and offer only rudimentary reports on the claims they
receive and pay. As a result, plaintiffs' attorneys are sometimes
able to hide the fact that a single individual is making multiple
claims, citing different and contradictory exposure facts, against
multiple trusts and solvent companies. This "double dipping"
exposes innocent businesses to abusive lawsuits and draws down the
trusts' funds intended for other claimants.

The Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency (FACT) Act of 2015 was
introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Rep. Blake
Farenthold of Texas on January 26, 2015 and assigned to the House
Judiciary Committee. A hearing on the FACT Act was held on
February 4, 2015 by the United States House Judiciary Subcommittee
on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law. On May 14, the
bill was voted out of the Judiciary Committee, 19-9, and was sent
to be voted on by the full House of Representatives. In December
2015, the FACT Act was added onto another U.S. House bill, H.R.
1927 (the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act), and became
Section 3 of H.R. 1927. The bill was renamed the "Fairness in
Class Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency
Act of 2016." On January 8, 2016, the U.S. House of
Representatives passed H.R. 1927 by a vote of 211 to 188. The vote
was largely along party lines, with no Democrats voting for it and
sixteen Republicans voting against it. As of January 11, 2016, the
Bill had been received in the Senate and referred to the Committee
on the Judiciary.

According to a Statement of Administration Policy, issued by the
Office of Management and Budget on January 6, 2016, "The [Obama]
Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 1927 because
it would impair the enforcement of important federal laws,
constrain access to the courts, and needlessly threaten the
privacy of asbestos victims." It continues, "if the President were
presented with H.R.1927, his senior advisers would recommend that
he veto the bill."

Similar versions of the FACT Act legislation have been passed the
House of Representatives in previous Republican-controlled
sessions, including in 2013. In 2013, although the bill passed the
House, it was never voted on by the Senate.

In addition, several states have proposed legislation or changes
to court rules that would mandate greater transparency for trust
claims. In 2012, Ohio became the first state in the nation to
enact a law that requires plaintiffs to file and disclose trust
claims before proceeding to trial. Arizona, Oklahoma, Tennessee,
Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin have enacted similar
laws. The American Legislative Exchange Council ("ALEC") has a
Model Asbestos Claims Transparency Act which can be found here:
https://www.alec.org/model-policy/asbestos-claims-transparency-
act/.

In California, trial courts in some jurisdictions require
plaintiffs to disclose bankruptcy trust claims during discovery
and some do not.  Plaintiff attorneys are able to game the system
by filing trust claim "shells" with little or no substantive
exposure information.  Another way plaintiffs avoid double-dipping
is by filing bankruptcy trust claims after the lawsuit resolves.
This deprives the court of jurisdiction over defense discovery
meant to uncover offsets due to trust payments.

California Assemblyman Ken Cooley (D-Rancho Cordova) introduced
Assembly Bill No. 597, the Asbestos Tort Claim Trust Transparency
Act, which if passed would have required asbestos plaintiffs to
disclose all asbestos bankruptcy trust claim documents in asbestos
tort actions. These mandated disclosures would include "any
communications between the plaintiff and an asbestos trust and all
proof of claims forms and supplementary or supporting materials
submitted to or required by an asbestos trust." Plaintiffs would
be required to submit a sworn statement identifying the status of
each claim, including all monies requested and received. Under the
proposed legislation requiring such unilateral disclosures, it
would have been no longer necessary for defendants to seek
discovery of relevant materials regarding any claim made by
plaintiffs to an asbestos trust. Any materials disclosed by
plaintiffs would be potentially admissible evidence to prove
alternate causation or to apportion fault for plaintiffs'
injuries. However, after a major lobbying effort by the
plaintiffs' asbestos bar, the legislation was withdrawn without a
vote.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sunderland Father Dies of Mesothelioma
-------------------------------------------------------
Michael Muncaster, writing for Chronicle Live, reported that the
heartbroken widow of a joiner who died after being exposed to
deadly asbestos dust is appealing for help to trace his former
colleagues.

David Givens died from mesothelioma -- a terminal asbestos-related
cancer -- in August last year, aged 63.

His wife, Pamela, 58, and their children Kelly, Christopher, Mark
and David are calling for help to find out how came to be
diagnosed with the disease.

Mr Givens, from Sunderland , was a joiner and worked as a shop
fitter from 1980 until his death.

Mrs Givens said: "Nothing is going to bring David back to us but
asbestos has claimed two members of our family now and we just
want answers."

Mesothelioma is a type of cancer that most often starts in the
covering of the lungs but can also start in the abdomen and it is
commonly associated with exposure to asbestos.

According to Cancer Research there were here were 2,667 new cases
of mesothelioma diagnosed in the UK in 2013 and is most common
among males aged 60 and over.

The Givens family instructed Irwin Mitchell to investigate how Mr
Givens came to be diagnosed with the asbestos-related cancer.

Roger Maddocks, an expert asbestos-related disease lawyer at Irwin
Mitchell, said: "Mesothelioma is a terrible terminal disease which
ravages the sufferer in a short space of time.

"David had just three years left with his family after his
diagnosis and they are still coming to terms with their loss.

"What they want now is to find out how David came into contact
with asbestos.

"Any information could prove vital in helping David's family to
get the answers they deserve."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Missouri Court Bars Illinois Claims
----------------------------------------------------
In Wolfe, et al. v. Armstrong Int'l, Inc., et al., Cause No. 1522-
CC11026 (Div. No. 4), the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis,
22nd Circuit, entered an April 11, 2016, Order dismissing certain
defendants from an asbestos lawsuit on the basis that the claims
made against those defendants were barred by the Illinois wrongful
death statute of limitations (740 ILCS 180.2), notwithstanding the
fact that the plaintiffs had purportedly brought the action in
Missouri court under the Missouri wrongful death statute (Section
537.080 RSMo).

The plaintiffs' petition stated that the decedent had suffered his
injury in Illinois, where he was a resident, and where all the
plaintiffs reside.  The claim was brought in Missouri court under
the Missouri wrongful death statute, which provides for a three-
year statute of limitations.  Conversely, the Illinois wrongful
death statute of limitations provides a two-year limit (which had
expired in relation to the plaintiffs' claims).

Certain defendants then moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims on
the basis that the claims were properly considered to be made
under the Illinois wrongful death statute and that, pursuant to
the Missouri borrowing statute, Section  516.190 RSMo. (providing
"Whenever a cause of action has been fully barred by the laws of
the state, territory or country in which it originated, said bar
shall be a complete defense [in Missouri courts]"), the two-year
Illinois wrongful death statute applied to preclude the
plaintiffs' claims.

In response, plaintiffs contended that Section  516.300 RSMo.
(providing "The provisions of sections 516.010 to 516.370
[including Section 516.190 RSMo., i.e., the borrowing statute]
shall not extend to any action which is or shall be otherwise
limited by statute; but such action shall be brought within the
time limited by such statute") applied to prevent the application
of the borrowing statute because Missouri's wrongful death statute
contained a built-in, specific statute of limitations for wrongful
death actions (similar to that of Illinois), and therefore the
claim was "otherwise limited by statute" for purposes of Section
516.300 RSMo.   Accordingly, the plaintiffs asserted that
Missouri's three-year wrongful death statute of limitations
applied, not Illinois' two-year statute of limitations.

Following the analysis in Thompson v. Crawford, 833 S.W.2d 868
(Mo. Banc. 1992), the Circuit Court ruled that notwithstanding the
plaintiffs' assertion to the contrary, the plaintiffs' claim was
properly brought pursuant to the Illinois wrongful death statute
and that the two-year Illinois statute of limitations barred the
plaintiffs' claim.

The Court explained that where a wrongful death statute contains a
built-in statute of limitations, like that of the Illinois
wrongful death statute, the Court conducts a traditional conflicts
of laws analysis under the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of
Laws (1971). Id. at 4.  Here, under that analysis, the Illinois
wrongful death statute, including its built-in statute of
limitations, applied to bar the plaintiffs' claim.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Seeks Workers' Heirs for Payouts
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that a northeast Ohio court
disbursing payouts from legal claims is looking for heirs to
hundreds of rubber workers who died or became very ill because of
exposure to asbestos.

The Akron Beacon Journal reports Summit County Probate Court has
about $2 million to distribute. Heirs have been found for many of
the deceased workers with pending claims, but heirs of about 850
workers still haven't been located. The list has been posted on
the court's website.

An $80 million fund was created in 2004 after insurance giant
Travelers Cos. settled with lawyers for thousands of workers who
had asbestos-related claims.

That means payouts for about 19,000 cases around the country.
Summit County has the most, with about 6,000.

Heirs were located in about half of the county's pending cases.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pittsburgh Corning Emerges from Ch. 11
-------------------------------------------------------
Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (www.pghcorning.com), a global
manufacturer of sustainable, high performance glass based products
for the building, energy and industrial markets, announces that
its Modified Third Amended Plan of Reorganization ("POR" or
"Plan") has become effective as of April 27, 2016, and the Company
has emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Pittsburgh Corning has
operated under asbestos-related Chapter 11 protection since April
16, 2000.

The Pittsburgh Corning Modified Third Amended POR establishes the
Pittsburgh Corning Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust.
Scheduled to receive assets valued in excess of $3.5 billion, the
Trust will be among the largest asbestos trusts in the country. It
assumes all asbestos-related liabilities related to Pittsburgh
Corning and resolves all asbestos personal injury claims,
including those filed in the future. The Trust is to be funded by
contributions of Pittsburgh Corning, its shareholders (PPG
Industries Inc. and Corning Incorporated) and participating
insurance carriers. Prior to emergence from Chapter 11, Pittsburgh
Corning and Pittsburgh Corning Europe were equity affiliates of
PPG Industries, Inc. and Corning, Inc. Effective today,
Pittsburgh Corning Corporation will be owned by the Pittsburgh
Corning Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust. Pittsburgh
Corning Europe was not subject to Chapter 11, but its shares will
be contributed to the Trust as part of the Company's Plan of
Reorganization by early June 2016.

Pittsburgh Corning Corporation is the foremost global supplier of
premium quality, cellular glass insulation, with a unique
combination of properties that make it one of the highest
performing insulations materials available. The Company's
FOAMGLAS(R) Insulation is used around the world as protection in
commercial building envelopes and in critical industrial
processes, including piping for oil and gas production and as the
foundations for liquid natural gas storage tanks.  The Company
also produces glass block products and windows for the residential
and architectural markets in the United States.

The Company's Modified Third Amended Plan of Reorganization was
confirmed by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania on May 24, 2013, and affirmed by the U.S. District
Court of Pennsylvania on September 30, 2014. Appeals were finally
resolved on January 7, 2016, which allowed consummation of the
Plan.

Between 1962 and 1972, Pittsburgh Corning manufactured, marketed
and sold Unibestos, an asbestos pipe insulation product it
acquired from Union Asbestos and Rubber Company. The Company was
named as a defendant in asbestos-related lawsuits, defending and
resolving more than 200,000 claims. Pittsburgh Corning sought
Chapter 11 protection in 2000, when it became apparent that
defending and settling an additional 235,000 pending claims would
exhaust Company resources before they could be resolved.

Pittsburgh Corning emerges from Chapter 11 protection having
reinvented its business. Since its inception almost 80 years ago,
the privately held Pittsburgh Corning has grown to serve customers
globally. Together with Pittsburgh Corning Europe, the Company
operates today as a single worldwide enterprise that is the
world's largest producer of environmentally advanced cellular
glass insulation and systems. It operates insulation manufacturing
facilities in Sedalia, Missouri; Fresno, Texas; Tessenderlo,
Belgium; Klasterec, Czech Republic, and recently, began production
at its new, wholly owned state-of-the-art facility in Yantai,
China.  Glass block products are produced in Port Allegany,
Pennsylvania.

"During Chapter 11, Pittsburgh Corning operated with two major
objectives. For the first five years, when emergence seemed to be
a few years in the offing, the Company focused on protecting and
preserving the assets, which would become part of the Asbestos
Trust. When it became apparent that Pittsburgh Corning's time in
bankruptcy was going to be extended, our focus expanded to include
strategic actions designed to reinvent our business to better
serve customers worldwide and create a platform for sustained
profitable growth for our future shareholders," said James R.
Kane, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Pittsburgh Corning
Corporation. "Today, Pittsburgh Corning has achieved both goals.
After 16 years of operating under Chapter 11, the Asbestos
Personal Injury Settlement Trust can begin helping people and
families.  The Company has performed well and is eager to move
past Chapter 11 and toward a promising future."

Pittsburgh Corning has implemented strategic initiatives that have
improved service to customers and created shareholder value.
Significant capital investments have been made at plants in the
United States and Europe to improve safety and productivity and
reduce delivery time and costs. With the addition of the new
operation in China, the Company's base of operations has expanded
to be closer to its customers on three continents.

"Pittsburgh Corning customers, employees, shareholders, suppliers
and business partners have been instrumental in keeping the
Company stable, competitive and growing during the past 16 years,"
said Kane.  "We're grateful for all of our stakeholders, whose
unfaltering support has allowed Pittsburgh Corning to become a
world leader in the production of high performance, sustainable,
glass-based building materials that conserve energy, protect the
environment and enhance safety for millions of people around the
world."

Pittsburgh Corning FOAMGLAS(R) Insulation, in addition to its
energy-conserving characteristics, offers exceptional strength, is
waterproof and will not burn. Billions of feet of FOAMGLAS(R)
Insulation have been installed throughout the world in thousands
of buildings and industrial plants.  Pittsburgh Corning offers a
full range of FOAMGLAS(R) products and technical consulting
services for building and industrial applications, including
blocks in numerous densities, boards for various building
applications, fabricated and tapered components, complex
assemblies and a range of adhesives, coatings, clips and jackets
that create complete insulation systems. The Company provides
customer support, including technical experts and training
centers, on every continent.

             About Pittsburgh Corning Corporation
               and Pittsburgh Corning Europe, N.V.

Pittsburgh Corning consists of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Pittsburgh Corning Europe N.V. in
Tessenderlo, Belgium. With headquarters in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania; European headquarters in Tessenderlo, Belgium, and
Asian headquarters in Yantai, China, the Companies operate
worldwide under a global management team committed to a common set
of corporate values. Pittsburgh Corning Corporation is owned by
the Pittsburgh Corning Asbestos Personal Injury Trust.  Pittsburgh
Corning Europe will be contributed to the Trust by the current
shareholders in June 2016.

The companies produce sustainable, high-performance cellular glass
FOAMGLAS(R) Insulation products for commercial and residential
buildings and energy and industrial applications. FOAMGLAS(R)
Insulation offers a unique combination of properties, making it
one of the highest performing insulation materials available.
Billions of board feet of FOAMGLAS(R) have been installed
throughout the world in thousands of buildings and industrial
plants. Pittsburgh Corning also offers a wide range of
complementary accessory products including sealants, adhesives,
and jacketing.  The Company is the only United States manufacturer
of premium glass block products and specialized architectural
window systems for commercial, institutional, government and
residential buildings. Pittsburgh Corning's products keep people
safe and provide lasting protection for homes, offices, public
facilities and processing operations.

Additional information about Pittsburgh Corning Corporation is
available at www.pghcorning.com and www.foamglas.com.

MEDIA CONTACT:
Jeannine F. Addams or Kristin Wohlleben
J. Addams & Partners, Inc.
404.231.1132 phone
jfaddams@jaddams.com
kwohlleben@jaddams.com





                            *********

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  * * *