CAR_Public/160520.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, May 20, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 101



                            Headlines


AARGON AGENCY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Kelly" Suit Claims
AB-INBEV: Beer Retailers Fined Over Alleged Price-Fixing Scheme
ADVANCED MICRO: "Hatamian" May Not Produce Interview Notes
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Attempt to Moot Class Action Rejected
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Baskette" Suit Over Carmike Merger

ANTHEM INC: Faces "Conley" Class Suit Over Privacy Breach
ARIZONA CARDINALS: Factors for Evaluating Class Settlement
ART FASHION: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Breach
AUSTRALIA: Class Action Over Palm Island Riots Enters Final Phase
BANK OF AMERICA: "McLeod" Suit Seeks Expense Reimbursement

BANKERS LIFE: Court Won't Certify New Class in "David" Suit
BLS LIMOUSINE: Faces "Singley" Class Suit in Calif. Court
BLUE BUFFALO: Paid $32MM Settlement into Escrow
BLUE BUFFALO: Faces Ontario Suit Over Pet Food Ads
BLUE CROSS: "McGill" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Ala.

BUFFALO WILD WINGS: "Langford" Seeks to Recover Minimum Pay
CANADA: Settles Residential School Class Action for $50MM
COACH: Settles Unpaid Overtime Class Action for $1.75MM
DAIKIN NORTH: Dermatology Specialists File Suit Over Aircon Defect
DAIRYAMERICA INC: Exhibit in "Carlin" Discovery Dispute Sealed

DAVIS & DEVORE GROUP: "Barros" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
DESIGNER FRAGRANCES: Faces "Gomez" Suit Over ADA Violation
DIRECTORY DISTRIBUTING: "Krawczyk" Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
DIRECTV INC: Class Action Over Early Termination Fees May Proceed
DITECH FINANCIAL: "Kinnamon" Sues Over Illegal Cellphone Calls

DIVERSIFIED RESTAURANT: Seeking Indemnity from A Sure Wing
DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces "Wood" Suit in North. Dist. New York
DOLLAR TREE: 4,300 Plaintiffs Remain in 2011 Class Action
DOLLAR TREE: Faces Wage Suit in Calif. by Assist. Store Managers
DOLLAR TREE: Hourly Non-Exempt Employees Sue in Florida

DOLLAR TREE: 10 Plaintiffs Remain in North Carolina MDL
DOLLAR TREE: Suit Over Discriminatory Pay Still Ongoing
DOLLAR TREE: Massachusetts Suit Over Unpaid OT Pending
DOLLAR TREE: Customer Class Suit Over Text Spam Pending
DOLLAR TREE: Bag Checking Suit Pending in Calif. Court

DOLLAR TREE: Employee Class Suit Over Seating Remains Pending
DOLLAR TREE: Background Checks Class Suit in Virginia Pending
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: July 5 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline
FAMILY BENEFIT LIFE: Opposes Policy Holders' Class Cert. Bid
FIFTH STREET: Oklahoma Police, Labaton Firm Lead Class Suit

FIFTH STREET: Dismissal of "Craig" Action in Delaware Sought
FIFTH STREET: Defending Securities Class Suits in New York
FLORIDA: Citrus Canker Class Action Goes to Trial
FORGIATO INC: Faces "Quiroz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
FUSHA 311: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

GENENTECH INC: Sued Over Failure to Pay Employees Overtime Wages
GIBCO MOTOR EXPRESS: "Stell" Suit Remanded to Ill. State Court
GREENER GROUP: Faces "Sanchez" Class Suit in Massachusetts
GROUPON INC: July 13 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
HANNIBAL, IL: BPW Faces Class Action Over Water Quality Issues

HIH INSURANCE: Shareholders Get Favorable Ruling in Class Action
HOME PROPERTIES: Court Denies Jarzyna's Bid for Reconsideration
INTOUCH MOBILE: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
IRSA INVERSIONES: Sued in Penn. Over Misleading Financial Reports
J.G. WENTWORTH: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss

J. SALERNO: "Gonzales" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
J.M. HOLM: Faces "Arredondo" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
JAMIE'S WHALING: Responds to Whale-Watching Accident Class Action
JUST LUNCH: Customer Files Class Action Against Houston Franchise
LANGSTON CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Employees OT, Action Claims

LG ELECTRONICS: Sued in Minnesota Over False Product Labels
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Class Action Over Bamboo Flooring
MARYLAND: Silver Spring Residents Sue Over Purple Line Route
MAXPOINT INTERACTIVE: Seeks Dismissal of IPO Class Suit
MDL 1203: Court Awards Atty. Fees, Expenses to Levin Fishbein

MDL 2357: Court Rules on Zappos' Bid to Dismiss
MEDSTAR HEALTH: Court Narrows Plaintiffs in Hospital Staff Suit
MERCY HEALTH: "Grasle" Sues over Underfunded Retirement Fund
MICROFIBRES INC: Trustee Seeks Dismissal of WARN Act Suit
MILES ENTERPRISES: "Jabrani" Suit to Recover Minimum Pay

MISTRAS GROUP: Settlement Approval Bid in "Viceral" Due June 2
NEW YORK: Two Plaintiffs Withdraw Marathon Claims
PACIFIC BELL: Order Striking "Rel" Class Allegations Reversed
PADUCAH, KY: "Youngblood" Suit Dismissed
PAYPAL INC: Court Strikes Objection to "Zepeda" Settlement

PETRO RIVER: Donelson-Friend Suit Dismissed
PORTAL HEALTHCARE: Cyber Claim Insurance Coverage Affirmed
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Summary Judgment for Magee & Peterson Granted
PREMIER FOODS: Court to Hear Victims' Bread Cartel Claims
PUSHPIN HOLDINGS: "Johnson" Complaint Dismissed With Prejudice

RBC CAPITAL: Dragged in N.Y., Canadian Suits v. FX Dealers
REDFIN CORP: Bid for Curative Notice in "Cruz" Denied
ROCK CREEK: "Baldwin" Amended Complaint Dismissed
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings Denied
SHUTTERFLY: Settles Class Action Over Facial Recognition Tech

SNYDER'S LANCE: Judge Denies Motion to Stay "Crocker" Discovery
SPRINT CORP: Time to Respond to "Bekkerman" Suit Moved to June 6
SQUARE INC: "Levin" Action Goes to Arbitration
STARBUCKS CORP: "Crittenden" Sues Over Under-filled Espresso
STATE FARM: Bid to Vacate or Suspend Discovery Order Denied

STERICYCLE: Faces Class Action Over Service Fee Hike
SUNEDISON INC: Case Management Conference Set for Aug. 25
SUNRUN INC: July 5 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
TICKETMASTER: Provides Details on Class Action Settlement
TORRAHOP INC: "Corrales" Suit Alleges Cal. Labor Law Violation

TOSHIBA AMERICA: Award of $3,200 in Costs to Sklar Affirmed
TRADE STREET: Motion to Dismiss 2nd Amended Suit Underway
TRIAD GUARANTY: 30% of Settlement Fund Awarded to Lead Counsel
TRICKEY'S SERVICE: Faces Class Action Over Tow Service Fees
TRISTAR PRODUCTS: Faces Ohio Suit Over Defective Pressure Cookers

TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Trump Attorney Opposes Unsealing of Documents
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Settlement Sidesteps Core Issue
VECTOR MARKETING: Supplemental Briefing Due May 20 in "Woods"
WAL-MART STORES: Bid to Dismiss "Leal" Suit Denied
WESTCONSIN CREDIT: Court Rules on Bid for Protective Order


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M's Bid to Exclude Bevis Testimony Granted
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Compel Subpoena Compliance Granted
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. High Court Rules on Jurisdisction Issue
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers OK'd to Amend 3rd-Party Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Remands "Sawyer" to Maryland State Court

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Directs Review of Workers' Claims Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment in "McKenzie" Reversed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Circuit Remands "Davidson" to State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Reverses Summary Judgment in "Finerty"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Loses Bid to Dismiss "Bazor"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Silver Loses Bids for Acquittal, New Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss Reckless Conduct Claim Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deal Inked in Non-Occuptational Exposure Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Take Home Death Nets $7-Mil. Verdict
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal for Info After Mans Dies from Cancer

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in 3 Cumberland Schools
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Timebomb Linked to Death of Worker
ASBESTOS UPDATE: High School Shuts Down Over Asbestos Concerns
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family Seeks Answers for Man's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Bid to Strike Expert Disclosures

ASBESTOS UPDATE: AG Files Criminal Charges Against Hotel


                            *********


AARGON AGENCY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Kelly" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maziar Kelly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Aargon Agency, Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-01141-SDM-TGW
(M.D. Fla., May 10, 2016), seeks to put an end to the Defendant's
practice of making unsolicited calls to consumer's wireless
telephone.

Aargon Agency, Inc. owns and operates a debt collection agency in
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bret Leon Lusskin Jr., Esq.
      BRET LUSSKIN, PA
      Suite 302, 20803 Biscayne Blvd.
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (954) 454-5841
      Facsimile: (954) 454-5844
      E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com

         - and -

      Douglas J. Campion, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS J. CAMPION
      17150 Via Del Campo, Ste. 100
      San Diego, CA 92127
      Telephone: (619) 299-2091
      Facsimile: (619) 858-0034

         - and -

      Scott David Owens, Esq.
      SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
      3800 S Ocean Dr Ste 235
      Hollywood, FL 33019-2930
      Telephone: (954) 589-0588
      Facsimile: (954) 337-0666
      E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com

         - and -

      Seth Lehrman, Esq.
      FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, PL
      Suite 2, 425 N Andrews Ave
      Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 524-2820
      Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
      E-mail: seth@pathtojustice.com

AB-INBEV: Beer Retailers Fined Over Alleged Price-Fixing Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia Chamlee, writing for Eater, reports that German beer
retailers have been slapped with big fines after being caught
colluding with beer giant AB-InBev in a price-fixing scheme.

According to the Wall Street Journal, "Germany's Federal Cartel
Office has fined several retailers a combined total of EUR90.5
million ($103.2 million)" over the price-fixing scandal. WSJ
reports that the news comes at an especially embarrassing time for
the country, which is currently celebrating the 500th anniversary
of the Reinheitsgebot, or beer purity law, which is meant to
protect consumers from inflated beer prices.

The retailers were found to have colluded with the German
subsidiary of AB-InBev to fix beer prices -- specifically for its
Beck's, Hasseroeder and Franziskaner brands -- between 2006 and
2009.  AB-InBev itself was not fined, as its cooperation helped
authorities in the inquiry.

The probe also fined one German retailer for fixing the price of
Haribo candy and another for fixing the price of coffee.

This isn't the first time AB-InBev has faced criticism over its
"German" beers recently.  Last year, the company was paid out
millions of dollars following a class-action lawsuit claiming it
tricked consumers into thinking Beck's, which has been made in St.
Louis since 2012, was brewed in Germany.


ADVANCED MICRO: "Hatamian" May Not Produce Interview Notes
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BABAK HATAMIAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-cv-
00226-YGR (JSC) (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied
the defendants' motion to compel the interview notes and reports
and witness communications.  The judge also declined to order the
production of the plaintiffs' counsel's confidential witness
interview policies and procedures as they are not relevant.

In the securities fraud class action, the plaintiffs contended
that Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. ("AMD") made misrepresentations
regarding the launch of its "Llano" microprocessor, and in
particular, misstatements regarding the Llano manufacturing
plant's chip yield.  As is the practice in such actions in which
the plaintiffs must satisfy the heightened pleading standard of
the PSLRA, the operative complaint relies upon statements from
"confidential witnesses" who are generally identified by job
title, employer, and dates of employment, but are not named.  The
confidential witnesses are mostly former employees of AMD and of
the entity that produces the Llano chip at issue.  The plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint after one confidential witness (CW1)
recanted his earlier statements.

The defendants subsequently moved to strike certain complaint
allegations based on evidence that other confidential witnesses
had recanted their earlier statements.  In their opposition to the
defendants' motion to strike, the plaintiffs referenced, among
other things, the plaintiffs' counsel's investigator's notes and
interview reports of confidential witnesses in support of their
argument that they had a good faith basis to make the complaint
allegations.  The district court denied the motion to strike.

The parties then filed a joint letter brief regarding a discovery
dispute pertaining to three categories of documents.  The
defendants sought an order compelling the plaintiffs to produce
(1) communications with the confidential witnesses referenced in
the plaintiffs' complaints; (2) contemporaneous notes of
interviews with the confidential witnesses, including "Interview
Reports"; and (3) the plaintiffs' policies and procedures
governing such interviews.  The plaintiffs' written response did
not dispute the relevance of the documents or contend that
proportionality considerations render the discovery inappropriate.
Instead, they contended that the documents at issue are shielded
from disclosure as attorney work product.

Having considered the parties' submissions, and having had the
benefit of oral argument on May 5, 2016, Judge Corley declined to
compel production of the witness interview notes, reports and
communications as they are protected work product, the plaintiffs
have not waived the protection, and the defendants have not
demonstrated substantial need for the documents.  Judge Corley
also declined to compel production of the policies and procedures
because, while not work product, they are not relevant to the
merits of the case.

A full-text copy of Judge Corley's May 6, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/M675nP from Leagle.com.

Babak Hatamian, Lussu Dennj Salvatore, Plaintiffs, represented by
Joy Ann Kruse -- jkruse@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP.

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., Rory P. Read, Thomas J. Seifert,
Lisa T. Su, Richard A. Bergman, Defendants, represented by Patrick
Edward Gibbs -- pgibbs@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Jason C. Hegt --
jason.hegt@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Kala Sherman-Presser --
kala.sherman-presser@lw.com -- Latham and Watkins LLP, Matthew
Rawlinson -- matt.rawlinson@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP,
Melanie Marilyn Blunschi -- melanie.blunschi@lw.com -- Latham and
Watkins LLP & Ming M Zhu -- ming.zhu@lw.com -- Latham and Watkins
LLP.

KBC Asset Management NV, Movant, represented by Carol C. Villegas
-- cvillegas@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, Michael J
Pendell -- mpendell@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Sharon
Maine Lee -- slee@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein,
William S. Norton -- bnorton@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC,
James Michael Hughes -- jhughes@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC,
Joy Ann Kruse -- jkruse@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, Katherine Collinge Lubin, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, Max Nikolaus Gruetzmacher --
mgruetzmacher@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Meredith B.
Miller -- mbmiller@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, William H.
Narwold -- bnarwold@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC & Jonathan
Gardner -- jgardner@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP.

Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, Movant,
represented by Michael M. Goldberg, Goldberg Law PC.

Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, Movant, represented by Alec T
Coquin -- acoquin@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, Carol C.
Villegas, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Jonathan Gardner, Labaton Sucharow
LLP, Paul J Scarlato, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Sharon Maine Lee,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, Yah E. Demann --
ydemann@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, Katherine Collinge
Lubin, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Nicole Catherine
Lavallee -- nlavallee@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio &
William S. Norton, Motley Rice LLC.

Christopher Hamilton, David Hamilton, Movants, represented by
Willem F. Jonckheer -- wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com -- Schubert
Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP.

Jake Ha, Movant, represented by Avraham Noam Wagner --
avi@thewagnerfirm.com -- The Wagner Firm & Kara M Wolke --
kwolke@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Attempt to Moot Class Action Rejected
---------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas F. McDaniel, Esq. -- nmcdaniel@schiffhardin.com -- of
Schiff Hardin LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that last March, the United States Supreme Court held that
a putative class action is not mooted when a defendant offers the
named plaintiff complete relief but the plaintiff does not accept
the offer. Campbell-Ewald Company v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016).
That decision left open the question of whether a settlement offer
-- coupled with an actual tender of complete relief -- would moot
the action. The Ninth Circuit has now answered: it does not.

In Chen v. Allstate Insurance Co., the Ninth Circuit held that the
named plaintiff's individual claims were not mooted even though
the defendant had offered complete relief and placed the funds in
escrow for the plaintiff pending entry of final judgment.  The
Ninth Circuit held that a plaintiff's individual claims are not
mooted unless the plaintiff "actually receives" complete relief.
The Ninth Circuit further held that even if a named plaintiff's
individual claims were mooted by a judgment affording complete
relief, the plaintiff would still be entitled to a "fair
opportunity" to seek class certification.

Chen is an important development because it rejects one possible
technique to dismiss class actions by "picking off" class
representatives.  Class defendants outside the Ninth Circuit will
likely test the limits of Campbell-Ewald by tendering offers of
complete relief to named plaintiffs.  In fact, some defendants
have successfully employed the technique noted in Campbell-Ewald.
Class defendants in the Ninth Circuit, on the other hand, face an
even greater challenge post-Chen.

Background

In Chen, the named plaintiffs alleged that Allstate had violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act -- the same statute at issue
in Campbell-Ewald -- by making several unsolicited automated calls
to them.  Before the plaintiffs moved for class certification,
Allstate made an offer of judgment under Rule 68 for complete
monetary and injunctive relief.  One plaintiff accepted the offer;
the other did not.  After the unaccepted offer lapsed, Allstate
moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The
district court denied the motion, and Allstate appealed.

While Allstate's interlocutory appeal was pending in the Ninth
Circuit, the Supreme Court decided Campbell-Ewald.  Although the
Supreme Court rejected the defendant's pick-off attempt in that
case, the Court left open the possibility that a case could be
mooted if the settlement funds are deposited into an account for
the plaintiff, and judgment entered for the plaintiff in that
amount.

Testing the hypothetical posed by Campbell-Ewald, Allstate
deposited $20,000 in a bank escrow account pending entry of a
final judgment that would direct payment to the plaintiff and
enter the injunction.

The Ninth Circuit's Decision

Allstate argued that (1) the proposed judgment afforded the
plaintiff complete relief on his individual claims; (2) the
district court should be required to enter judgment on those
terms, and after final judgment is entered, the plaintiff's claims
would become moot; and (3) once the individual claims are moot,
the existence of class allegations alone would not preserve a live
controversy, and the entire action should be dismissed. The Ninth
Circuit agreed with Allstate on the first point, but rejected
Allstate's other arguments.

First, the Ninth Circuit agreed that Allstate's offer of judgment
would provide complete relief.  The plaintiff argued that the
offer did not provide complete relief because it did not include
an admission of liability.  The Ninth Circuit rejected that
argument, reasoning that the complaint sought only damages and
injunctive relief, not an admission or declaration of liability.
The court also rejected the plaintiff's argument that only
nationwide injunctive relief would be sufficient to address the
alleged harms.  The court held that the plaintiff had not
demonstrated that the proffered injunctive relief would be
inadequate, or that he could obtain broader relief after a trial
on the merits.

Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit held that Allstate's offer of
complete relief did not moot the plaintiff's individual claims.
The court interpreted Campbell-Ewald and prior Ninth Circuit
decisions as holding that an individual claim becomes moot only
when a plaintiff "actually receives" the relief sought.  In this
case, the court determined that the named plaintiff did not
actually receive the relief, because the district court did not
enter a final judgment requiring Allstate to relinquish its
interest in the deposited funds.


AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Baskette" Suit Over Carmike Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
RAY BASKETTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. JAMES A. FLEMING, ROLAND C. SMITH, S.
DAVID PASSMAN III, JEFFREY W. BERKMAN, PATRICIA A. WILSON, MARK
R. BELL, SEAN T. ERWIN. AMC ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS, INC. and
CONGRESS MERGER SUBSIDIARY, INC., Case 4:16-cv-00170-CDL (M.D.
Ga., May 10, 2016), was filed as a result of a definitive merger
agreement pursuant to which AMC will acquire all of the
outstanding shares of Carmike Cinemas, Inc. for $30.00 per share,
in a transaction valued at approximately $1.1 billion.

AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. is a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, including AMC Entertainment
Inc., American Multi-Cinema, Inc. and its subsidiaries, is engaged
in the theatrical exhibition business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
     JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
     40 Powder Springs Street
     Marietta, GA 30064
     Phone: (770) 200-3104
     Fax: (770) 200-3101
     E-mail: michaelf@johnsonandweaver.com

        - and -

     Shane T. Rowley
     Stephanie A. Bartone
     LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
     733 Summer Street, Suite 304
     Stamford, CT 06901
     Phone: 203-992-4523
     Fax: 212-363-7171


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Conley" Class Suit Over Privacy Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Joan Conley, for herself and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Anthem, Inc. and Anthem Health Plans Of New Hampshire,
Inc. d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, Case No. 5:16-cv-02475-
LHK (D.N.H., May 9, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to adequately secure the Plaintiff's and other insureds'
sensitive personal identifying information including, inter alia,
social security numbers, names, dates of birth, addresses, phone
numbers, email addresses and employment information.

Anthem, Inc. is the largest for-profit managed health care company
in the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association.

Anthem Health Plans of New Hampshire, Inc. provides individual and
group health insurance policies to consumers throughout New
Hampshire.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward K. O'Brien, Esq.
      O'BRIEN LAW FIRM, PC
      77 Sundial Avenue, Ste 148W
      Manchester, NH 03103
      Telephone: (603) 672-3800
      E-mail: eobrien@ekoblaw.com


ARIZONA CARDINALS: Factors for Evaluating Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge William Alsup issued a notice regarding factors to be
evaluated for any proposed class settlement in the case captioned
ETOPIA EVANS, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. ARIZONA CARDINALS FOOTBALL
CLUB, ET AL., Defendants, No. C 16-01030 WHA (N.D. Cal.).

Judge Alsup advised counsel to review the Procedural Guidance for
Class Action Settlements, which is available on the website for
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California at www.cand.uscourts.gov/ClassActionSettlementGuidance.

Judge Alsup also reminded counsel that the main focus will be on
what is in the best interest of absent class members.

A full-text copy of Judge Alsup's May 9, 2016 notice is available
at https://is.gd/i3qt4A from Leagle.com.

NFL Clubs, Defendant, represented by Rebecca Ariel Jacobs --
rjacobs@cov.com -- Covington and Burling LLP & Benjamin C. Block
-- bblock@cov.com -- Covington and Burling LLP, pro hac vice.

Etopia Evans, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Francis Murphy, Jr.
-- josephmurphy@mdattorney.com -- Silverman Thompson Slutkin and
White LLC, Stephen G. Grygiel -- sgrygiel@mdattorney.com --
Silverman Thompson Slutkin White, Steven Donald Silverman --
ssilverman@mdattorney.com -- Silverman Thompson Slutkin and White
LLC, William Nelson Sinclair -- bsinclair@mdattorney.com --
Silverman Thompson Slutkin White, LLC, Alexander Williams, Jr. --
awilliams@mdattorney.com -- Silverman Thompson Slutkin and White,
Andrew C White -- awhite@mdattorney.com -- Silverman Thompson
Slutkin and White LLC,Mark Dearman, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd
LLP, pro hac vice, Mark J. Dearman -- mdearman@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd Llp, Mel T Owens -- mowens@nbolaw.com
-- Namanny Byrne and Owens, pro hac vice, Phillip J. Closius --
pclosius@mdattorney.com -- Silverman Thompson Slutkin White, LLC,
pro hac vice, Stuart A. Davidson -- sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice.

Robert Massey, Troy Sadowski, Christopher Goode, Darryl Ashmore,
Jerry Wunsch, Eric King, Alphonso Carreker, Steven Lofton, Duriel
Harris, Jeffrey Graham, Mel Renfro, Cedric Killings, Plaintiffs,
represented by Joseph Francis Murphy, Jr., Silverman Thompson
Slutkin and White LLC, Stephen G. Grygiel, Silverman Thompson
Slutkin White, Steven Donald Silverman, Silverman Thompson Slutkin
and White LLC, William Nelson Sinclair, Silverman Thompson Slutkin
White, LLC, Alexander Williams, Jr., Silverman Thompson Slutkin
and White, Andrew C White, Silverman Thompson Slutkin and White
LLC,Mark J. Dearman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd Llp, Mel T
Owens, Namanny Byrne and Owens, pro hac vice, Phillip J. Closius,
Silverman Thompson Slutkin White, LLC, pro hac vice & Stuart A.
Davidson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Arizona Cardinals Football Club, LLC, Atlanta Falcons Football
Club, LLC, Baltimore Ravens Limited Partnership, Buffalo Bills
Inc., Panthers Football, LLC, d/b/a Carolina Panthers, The Chicago
Bears Football Club, Inc., Cincinnati Bengals, Inc., Cleveland
Browns Football Company LLC, Dallas Cowboys Football Club LTD.,
PDB Sports, Ltd, The Detroit Lions, Inc., Green Bay Packers, Inc.,
Houston Holdings, LP, Indianapolis Colts, Inc., Jacksonville
Jaguars, LLC, Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, Inc, Miami
Dolphins LTD, Minnesota Vikings Football Club, LLC, New England
Patriots, LLC, New Orleans Louisiana Saints, LLC, New York
Football Giants, Inc., New York Jets LLC, The Oakland Raiders,
LLP, Philadelphia Eagles, LLC, Pittsburgh Steelers, LLC, The St.
Louis Rams LLC, Chargers Football Company, LLC, Forty Niners
Football Company LLC, Football Northwest LLC, d/b/a Seattle
Seahawks, Buccaneers Limited Partnership, Tennessee Football,
Inc., Pro-Football Inc, Defendant, represented by Benjamin C.
Block, Covington and Burling LLP, pro hac vice.


ART FASHION: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andres Gomez, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all other
individuals similarly situated v. Art Fashion Corporation
d/b/a Roberto Cavalli and/or www.robertocavalli.com, Case No.
1:16-cv-21637-KMM (S.D. Fla., May 10, 2016), is brought against
the Defendant for violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Art Fashion Corporation operates a Roberto Cavalli Clothing Store
in Miami Dade, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:


      Scott Richard Dinin, Esq.
      SCOTT R. DININ, P.A.
      4200 NW 7th Avenue
      Miami, FL 33127
      Telephone: (786) 431-1333
      Facsimile: (786) 513-7700
      E-mail: srd@dininlaw.com


AUSTRALIA: Class Action Over Palm Island Riots Enters Final Phase
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Chen, writing for ABC, reports that the man convicted of
inciting riots on Palm Island in north Queensland in 2004 hopes
his class action against the State Government will improve the
treatment of Indigenous people in custody.

The Federal Court case is entering into its final stages after
beginning hearings last September.

The court has heard from residents and police officers on the
events leading up to the death in custody of Cameron Doomadgee
more than a decade ago and the following riots.

Lex Wotton, who is suing the State Government for its handling of
the situation, said he hoped the case would highlight the
treatment of Indigenous people in custody.

"That's where the politicians need to respond to that, all you can
do is put up the idea and hopefully things will happen in that
area," he said.

"Hopefully things will happen in that area, we can try and address
the over representation of the Indigenous population within the
correction and justice system."

He said if he won the case, the Palm Island community would
benefit.

"Everyone wants a good outcome in the sense, whether it's
financial or material gains, the state would have to compensate,
and then hopefully it would help the state to address the
underlying issues of what has taken shape [on Palm Island]," he
said.

The next hearings in Townsville will run for three days.

Chris Ronalds SC, representing Mr Wotton, told the court police
had violated the human rights of Palm Island residents by failing
to provide a proper investigation into the death of
Mr. Doomadgee.

"Competent investigations into deaths in custody are vital to the
protection of the public," he told the court in Townsville.

"[The police] didn't try, they didn't engage in providing services
to Palm Island."


BANK OF AMERICA: "McLeod" Suit Seeks Expense Reimbursement
----------------------------------------------------------
Gina McLeod, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Bank of America, N.A. and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. RG16814887 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 9, 2016),
seeks to recover reimbursement tor business expenses, and interest
thereon, declaratory relief, equitable relief, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs under California Labor Code.

Bank of America, N.A. is a multinational banking and financial
services corporation headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aaron Kaufmann, Esq.
      David Pogrel, Esq.
      Elizabeth Gropman, Esq.
      LEONARD CARDER, LLP
      1330 Broadway, Suite 1450
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 272-0169
      Facsimile: (510) 272-0174
      E-mail: akaufmann@leonardcarder.com
              dpogrel@leonardcarder.com

         - and -

      Edward J. Wynne, Esq.
      WYNNE LAW FIRM
      100 Drakes Landing Road, Ste. 275
      Greenbrae, CA 94904
      Telephone: (415) 461-6400
      Facsimile: (415) 461-3900
      E-mail: ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com


BANKERS LIFE: Court Won't Certify New Class in "David" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CHRISTINE DAVID AND RODNEY CLURE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. BANKERS LIFE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant, No.
C14-766RSL (W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert S. Lasnik denied the
plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of new agents.

The defendant, Bankers Life and Casualty Co., is an insurance
company that contracts with insurance sales agents to sell its
products.  The plaintiffs claim that Bankers agents are employees,
entitled to overtime pay pursuant to the Washington Minimum Wage
Act (MWA) 49.46.

Prior to removal to the district court, the state court certified
a class defined as: "All individuals who worked as agents for
Bankers Life and Casualty Company in the State of Washington at
any time between June 16, 2008 and December 2, 2013 and who were
classified as independent contractors."

On Bankers' motion, the district court decertified the class,
finding that the class certification requirements of predominance
and superiority were not met with respect to the economic-
dependence test and the outside sales exception.

The plaintiffs moved to certify a more limited class, defined as:
"All persons hired by Bankers who worked as Agents (or in similar
job classifications) during the three years prior to filing of the
complaint and thereafter whom Bankers classified as independent
contractors, whose first year with the Company (or any portion
thereof) occurred (a) during the class period and (b) while
working in [the] Seattle Region under Regional Manager Al Hawks."

Judge Lasnik concluded that for the newly-defined class, common
issues did not predominate and that a class action was not a
superior method for adjudicating the controversy.

A full-text copy of Judge Lasnik's May 6, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/5s4xva from Leagle.com.

Christine David, Rodney Clure, Plaintiffs, represented by Adam J
Berger -- berger@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER,
Lindsay Halm -- halm@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER &
Martin S Garfinkel -- garfinkel@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK
& BENDER.

Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Defendant, represented by
Joanna Marie Silverstein -- jsilverstein@littler.com -- LITTLER
MENDELSON, Ryan Paul Hammond -- rhammond@littler.com -- LITTLER
MENDELSON & Daniel L Thieme -- dthieme@littler.com -- LITTLER
MENDELSON.


BLS LIMOUSINE: Faces "Singley" Class Suit in Calif. Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Ramon Singley, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BLS Limousine Service of Los Angeles, Inc.,
and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC619822 (Cal. Super.
Ct., May 9, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to provide accurate wage statements.

BLS Limousine Service of Los Angeles, Inc. operates a
transportation company in Los Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Howard L. Magee, Esq.
      Larry W. Lee, Esq.
      Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq.
      DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, PC
      550 South Hope Street, Suite 2655
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 488-6555
      Facsimile: (213) 488-6554


BLUE BUFFALO: Paid $32MM Settlement into Escrow
-----------------------------------------------
Blue Buffalo Pet Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company has paid
a $32.0 million class action settlement into an escrow account
pending final court approval of the deal.

The Company is defending a lawsuit by Nestle Purina Petcare
Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, alleging that Blue Fuffalo engaged in false
advertising, commercial disparagement, unfair competition, and
unjust enrichment.  Nestle Purina asserts that, contrary to Blue
Buffalo's advertising and labeling claims, certain of its products
contain chicken or poultry by-product meals, artificial
preservatives and/or corn and that certain products in the grain-
free lines contain grains.  Nestle Purina also sued Blue's wholly-
owned subsidiary Great Plains Leasing LLC.  The Company has filed
a counter suit against Nestle Purina.

According to Blue, "A number of related putative consumer class
action lawsuits were filed in various states in the U.S. making
allegations similar to Nestle Purina's and seeking monetary
damages and injunctive relief. We also brought damages and
indemnity claims against our former ingredient supplier and broker
with respect to the class action lawsuits.

"In December 2015, we entered into a settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs to resolve all of the U.S. class action lawsuits (the
"Settlement"). Under the terms of the Settlement, which have
received preliminary court approval and are still subject to final
court approval, we agreed to pay $32.0 million into a settlement
fund.  Any attorneys' fees awarded by the court and all costs of
notice and claims administration will be paid from the settlement
fund.

"On January 8, 2016, we paid this $32.0 million into an escrow
account pending final court approval. The amount that each class
member who submits a claim for reimbursement will receive will
depend on the total amount of Blue Buffalo products purchased by
the claimant during the class period and certain other conditions
including whether the claimant has a proof of purchase. The
Settlement value does not take into account any potential recovery
from insurance or from our former ingredient supplier or broker,
against whom we will continue to pursue our claims for indemnity
and other damages."

The cases have been consolidated under IN RE: BLUE BUFFALO
COMPANY, LTD., MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION, No. MDL
2562, before the District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, pursuant to an October 17, 2014, Order by the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, a copy of which
is available at https://is.gd/fMPEDG from Leagle.com.

Blue Fuffalo is a pet food company in the United States, selling
dog and cat food made with whole meats, fruits and vegetables, and
other high-quality, natural ingredients.


BLUE BUFFALO: Faces Ontario Suit Over Pet Food Ads
--------------------------------------------------
Blue Buffalo Pet Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in February 2016, a
putative class action was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice in Ottawa, Ontario, seeking damages and injunctive relief
based on allegations similar to those made in the U.S. consumer
class actions.

"We believe the claims are without merit and plan to vigorously
defend ourselves," the Company said.

Blue Fuffalo is a pet food company in the United States, selling
dog and cat food made with whole meats, fruits and vegetables, and
other high-quality, natural ingredients.


BLUE CROSS: "McGill" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Ala.
--------------------------------------------------------
Rochelle and Brian McGill and Sadler Electric, v. Blue Cross Blue
Shield Association and Affiliates, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-
00742-RDP (D. Neb., April 7, 2016) has been transferred to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
on May 10, 2016, and assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-00147.

Defendants are into health care insurance and are accused of
dividing the market amongst its member affiliates, thus
artificially inflating premium costs.

Plaintiffs represented by:

      Jason G. Ausman, Esq.
      AUSMAN LAW FIRM
      1015 North 98th Street, Suite 102
      Omaha, NE 68114
      Tel: (402) 933-8140
      Fax: (402) 718-9423
      Email: jason@ausmanlawfirm.com

           - and -

      Michael J. Fleming
      FORBES LAW GROUP
      6900 College Blvd., Suite 840
      Overland Park, KS 66211
      Tel: (913) 341-8600
      Fax: (913) 341-8606
      Email: mfleming@forbeslawgroup.com

           - and -

      Patrick W. Pendley, Esq.
      PENDLEY BAUDIN & COFFIN LLP
      24110 Eden Street
      Plaquermine, LA 70765
      Tel: (225) 687-6396
      Fax: (225) 687-6398
      Email: pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com


BUFFALO WILD WINGS: "Langford" Seeks to Recover Minimum Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lorri Langford, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Buffalo Wild Wings
International, Inc., Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. and Blazin Wings,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00209-M-LDA (D. R.I., May 10,
2016) seeks compensatory and liquidated damages, attorney fees,
litigation expenses, and equitable relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Rhode Island Minimum Wage Act.

Defendants own and operate Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants located
in 400 Bald Hill, Suite E107, Warwick, Rhode Island where
Plaintiff was hired as a server, compensated at a sub-minimum wage
rate and tip-credit wage.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      V. Edward Formisano, Esq.
      FORMISANO & COMPANY, P.C.
      100 Midway Place,  Suite 1
      Cranston, RI 02920-5707
      Tel: (401) 944-9691
      Fax: (401) 944-9695
      Email: edf@formisanoandcompany.com


CANADA: Settles Residential School Class Action for $50MM
---------------------------------------------------------
Ariana Kelland and Mark Quinn, writing for CBC News, report that a
$50-million settlement has been reached for hundreds of
residential school survivors in Newfoundland and Labrador who have
been involved in a lengthy class action with the federal
government.

Former students also will receive an undetermined amount of money
for reconciliation and healing.

They learned of the settlement in Newfoundland and Labrador
Supreme Court on May 10.

Lawyers expect 750 to 900 people will be compensated.

Plantiff Toby Obed, who went to school in North West River, kept
repeating the words "this is over" outside the courthouse on
May 10.

"This is real.  This is really happening.  It's over.  I don't
have to go to court no more.  I don't have to testify no more,"
Mr. Obed said, choking back tears.

Mr. Obed said it's now time to "let this rest."

"I can let my inner child go. I can let my inner child rest."

Although lawyers can't bind Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to
apologize for the abuses students endured while in the schools,
many expect he will.

About a third of the settlement amount is expected to be paid to
lawyers for the plaintiffs from three law firms.

"Over the next few months, class counsel will be visiting Labrador
communities to provide information about the compensation
distribution plan and answer questions," said lawyer Ches Crosbie,
in a news release on May 10.

The case that was launched almost a decade ago went to trial last
fall.  Twenty-nine survivors testified.

The settlement is for students who were residents at the schools
between 1949 and 1979.

Four of the schools were located in Labrador and St. Anthony.

Class-action lawyers say federal lawyers fought every step of the
way until the Liberals were elected last fall.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs had argued the federal government
failed to live up to its responsibilities to Indigenous people in
the province after Newfoundland and Labrador joined Canada in
1949.

The federal government argued that Canada did not set up or
operate the schools, so couldn't be held responsible for what
happened to students.

Former students passed away

Cindy Dwyer testified she was physically and sexually abused as a
student in Labrador.

Ms. Dwyer, an Inuk from Nain who went to a school in North West
River, said appearing in court triggered her post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD).

"I want to recover from all of this. I want to start my life all
over and I hope and pray that everyone in this class action group
can do the same," Ms. Dwyer said on May 9, prior to news a
settlement had been reached.

Ms. Dwyer also wants an apology from Mr. Trudeau.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs say dozens of former students have died
since 2007.

"I keep thinking of all the people that can't be here, all the
ones that passed away . . . to hear this news," Mr. Obed said.

Justice Robert Stack will rule in late September if the court
accepts the out-of-court settlement.


COACH: Settles Unpaid Overtime Class Action for $1.75MM
-------------------------------------------------------
The Fashion Law reports that Coach has agreed to settle a multi-
million dollar class action lawsuit, in which it was accused of
deliberately failing to compensate store employees for the time
they spent getting their bags checked after the completion of
their shifts.  In the lawsuit, which was filed over a year ago in
California federal court, former Coach employee Eve Miranda
alleged that the American fashion brand failed to provide her and
more than 7,300 non-exempt Coach employees in California with
legally-required meal and rest breaks, overtime compensation, and
itemized wage statements.

Coach, which has finally begun to regain some of its coolness
factor under the direction of creative head Stuart Vevers after
years of significant financial decline, agreed to terms to settle
the lawsuit out of court and before trial.  The luxury retailer
and the plaintiffs resolved the suit in a "compromise that both
sides agreed was fair and reasonable," but that certainly falls
short of the lawsuit's original demand for $7.25 million in
damages.   The fashion house, instead, agreed to pay out $1.75
million to Miranda and her fellow class members. The other terms
of the lawsuit are confidential.

Proposed class action suits alleging companies' failures to
provide store employees with meal and rest breaks, and overtime
compensation are running rampant through the fashion industry --
with defendants ranging from high fashion houses to purely mass
market retailers.  Over the past few years alone, Chanel, Gucci,
Michael Kors, Cole Haan, J. Crew, H&M, Abercrombie & Fitch, Gap,
and Urban Outfitters, among others have been named in similar
suits, with the plaintiffs seeking millions.


DAIKIN NORTH: Dermatology Specialists File Suit Over Aircon Defect
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dermatology Specialists of Augusta, Inc., on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Daikin Industries,
Ltd., Daikin Applied Americas Inc., and Daikin North America, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00058-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga., May 10,
2016), seeks general, special, exemplary and/or punitive damages,
injunctive relief, attorney fees, costs of suit incurred,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other relief
resulting from breach of express/implied warranty of
merchantability, negligence and violation of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act.

Daikin air conditioning units contain evaporator coils made of
copper tubing that allegedly corrode and leak refrigerant well
before the expiration of their useful life. Plaintiff purchased
and installed 19 units at its medical offices located in Evans,
Georgia.

Daikin Industries, Ltd. is a Japanese multinational corporation
based in Osaka, Japan that designs, manufactures, sells, and
distributes heating, ventilation, and air conditioner products
worldwide.

Daikin Applied Americas Inc. is a Minnesota corporation with its
corporate headquarters at 13600 Industrial Park, Blvd.,
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441.

Daikin North America, LLC is a Texas corporation with its
corporate headquarters at 10787 Clay Road, Houston, Texas 77041.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      N. Kirkland Pope, Esq.
      Michael L. McGlamry, Esq.
      Kimberly J. Johnson, Esq.
      POPE McGLAMRY KILPATRICK MORRISON & NORWOOD, P.C.
      3391 Peachtree Rd. NE, Suite 300
      P.O. Box 191625 (31119-1625)
      Atlanta, GA 30326
      Tel: (404) 523-7706
      Fax: (404) 524-1648
      Email: efile@pmkm.com

           - and -

      Kenneth S. Kasdan, Esq.
      KASDAN LIPPSMITH WEBER TURNER LLP
      1900 MacArthur Blvd, Suite 850
      Irvine, CA 92612
      Tel: (949) 851-9000
      Fax: (949) 833-9455
      Email: KKasdan@kasdancdlaw.com

           - and -

      Graham B. LippSmith, Esq.
      Jaclyn L. Anderson, Esq.
      Frank A. Perez, Esq.
      KASDAN LIPPSMITH WEBER TURNER LLP
      500 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1310
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Tel: (213) 254-4800
      Fax: (213) 254-4801
      Email: glippsmith@klwtlaw.com


DAIRYAMERICA INC: Exhibit in "Carlin" Discovery Dispute Sealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case GERALD CARLIN, JOHN RAHM, PAUL ROZWADOWSKI and DIANA
WOLFE, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DAIRYAMERICA, INC., and
CALIFORNIA DAIRIES, INC. Defendants, Case No. 1:09-cv-00430-AWI-
EPG (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean granted
Plaintiffs' Request to Seal Document.  The Court said Exhibit 1
attached to Attachment A of the Joint Statement of Discovery
Dispute (Doc. 300-1) shall be sealed. The Court has forwarded the
document to be sealed to the Clerk's Office.

A copy of the Court's May 13, 2016 Order is available at
https://is.gd/OzV3YJ from Leagle.com.

Gerald Carlin, et al. represented by Aidan Chowning Poppler --
cpoppler@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio, Anthony David
Phillips, Berman DeValerio, Benjamin Doyle Brown --
bbrown@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
Brent W. Johnson -- bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein
Hausfeld and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Cari C. Laufenberg --
claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac
vice, Christopher Heffelfinger --
cheffelfinger@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio, George F.
Farah, Cohen Milstein Hausfeld and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Juli
E. Farris, Keller Rohrback LLP, Justin N. Saif, Berman DeValerio,
pro hac vice & Ryan McDevitt, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac
vice.

DairyAmerica, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles M. English -
- chipenglish@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, pro hac vice,
E. John Steren -- ejsteren@ober.com -- Ober Kaler, pro hac vice,
Joseph Michael Marchini -- jmarchini@bakermanock.com -- Baker,
Manock & Jensen, Wendy M. Yoviene -- wyoviene@ober.com -- Ober
Kaler, pro hac vice, Allison Ann Davis -- allisondavis@dwt.com --
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP & Sanjay Mohan Nangia --
sanjaynangia@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.

California Dairies, Inc., Defendant, represented by:

     Lawrence Michael Cirelli, Esq.
     Shannon Marie Nessier, Esq.
     Megan Oliver Thompson, Esq.
     Hanson Bridgett LLP
     425 Market Street, 26th Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94105
     Tel: 415-777-3200


DAVIS & DEVORE GROUP: "Barros" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fernando Espino Barros, on behalf of himself, and other similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff, v. Davis & Devore Group, LLC, Jared
Lozupone and Scott Da Vis, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02356
(E.D. N.Y., May 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law and
the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a food preparation
helper and dishwasher. He claims to have been denied overtime pay
and did not receive paystubs.

Davis & Devore Group, LLC, owned by Jared Lozupone and Scott
Davis, operate Teddy's Bar and Grill with a principal place of
business at 96 Berry Street, Brooklyn, New York 11249.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter H. Cooper
     CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
     708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Telephone (212) 209-3933
     Facsimile (212) 209-7102
     Email: pcooper@jcplaw.com


DESIGNER FRAGRANCES: Faces "Gomez" Suit Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Andres Gomez, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all other
individuals similarly situated v. Designer Fragrances & Cosmetics
Company d/b/a Kiehl's Since 1851, Case No. 1:16-cv-21638-FAM (S.D.
Fla., May 10, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Designer Fragrances & Cosmetics Company operates a cosmetics &
beauty shop in Miami Dade, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott Richard Dinin, Esq.
      SCOTT R. DININ, P.A.
      4200 NW 7th Avenue
      Miami, FL 33127
      Telephone: (786) 431-1333
      Facsimile: (786) 513-7700
      E-mail: srd@dininlaw.com


DIRECTORY DISTRIBUTING: "Krawczyk" Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Krawczyk, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Directory Distributing Associates, Inc.,
and AT&T Corp. Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-02531-DMR (N.D. Cal.,
May 10, 2016) seeks unpaid back wages at the applicable overtime
rates, liquidated damages and penalties, reasonable attorney fees,
costs and expenses, prejudgment interest and such other and
further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants hired Plaintiff to deliver AT&T telephone directories,
and misclassified him as an independent contractor thus denying
him overtime pay.

Directory Distributing Associates, Inc. is a Missouri corporation
with principal office located at 1324 Clarkson Center 0310, Suite
348, Ellisville, Missouri.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark C. Molumphy, Esq.
      Alexandra P. Summer, Esq.
      COTCHETT PITRE & McCARTHY LLP
      San Francisco Airport Office Center
      840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
      Burlingame, CA 94010
      Tel: 650.697.6000
      Fax: 650.697.0577
      Email: mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com
             asummer@cpmlegal.com

           - and -

      Richard Mithoff, Esq.
      Janie Jordan, Esq.
      MITHOFF LAW
      One Allen Center - Penthouse
      500 Dallas Street
      Houston, TX 77002
      Tel: 713.654.1122
      Fax: 713.739.8085
      Email: rmithoff@mithofflaw.com
             jjordan@mithofflaw.com

           - and -

      Judith Sadler, Esq.
      Cynthia Diggs, Esq.
      Rachel A. Smith, Esq.
      HOLMES, DIGGS, EAMES & SADLER
      5300 Memorial Drive, Suite 900
      Houston, TX 77007
      Tel: 713.802.1777
      Fax: 713.802.1779
      Email: jsadler@holmesdiggs.com
             cdiggs@holmesdiggs.com
             rsmith@holmesdiggs.com

           - and -

      Russell Post, Esq.
      BECK REDDEN
      1221 McKinney Street, Suite 4500
      Houston, TX 77010-2010
      Tel: 713.951.3700
      Fax: 713.951.3720
      Email: rpost@beckredden.com


DIRECTV INC: Class Action Over Early Termination Fees May Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Watchdog on May 9 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
against DIRECTV in 2008 in Los Angeles Superior Court by
California consumers who were forced to pay unlawful early
termination fees of up to $480 may proceed, the California Court
of Appeal has decided.

The Court ordered the case back to Superior Court to determine
whether DIRECTV waived its right to enforce its fine-print
arbitration agreement barring class action lawsuits.  It's the
same arbitration agreement that the United States Supreme Court
upheld last December as enforceable in DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia.
If DIRECTV in fact waived its right to enforce the agreement, as
consumer advocates say, DIRECTV customers will be able to go
forward with their claims on a class action basis.

"DIRECTV took advantage of the civil justice system when it suited
the company, but then wants to kick consumers out of the courts.
It can't have it both ways," said Harvey Rosenfield. "This is an
issue that the US Supreme Court did not decide, but it's a crucial
point.  And we are proud to say that our battle to protect
California consumers will continue."

The decision comes as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
(CFPB), an independent agency of the United States government, on
May 9 ruled that banks can no longer use forced arbitration
clauses to ban consumers from joining together in class action
lawsuits.  The CFPB recognized, after a long period of careful
study, that forced arbitration by financial companies such as
banks have had a profoundly negative impact on customers' rights,
in that they effectively extinguished consumers' ability to seek
meaningful relief and isolated wrongdoers from liability by
blocking class claims, leaving consumers with no forum to seek
justice.  This new rule restores bank customers' access to
justice, the same access to justice that DIRECTV's customers are
seeking.

Controversial Arbitration Agreement At Center of Controversy Over
Unlawful Fees

The eight-year battle to win justice for California consumers who
DIRECTV overcharged -- sometimes by withdrawing the unlawful fees
directly out of consumers' checking accounts with no notice -- was
on its way to a trial in 2010.

At the time, DIRECTV's arbitration clause stated that it was
"unenforceable" if "the law of your state" forbids customers from
joining together in a class action even in arbitration.  In
California state court, DIRECTV acknowledged that under California
state consumer protection laws, its arbitration clause was not
enforceable, and the state Superior Court certified the case as a
class action in May, 2011.

But DIRECTV reversed its position after the United States Supreme
Court's Concepcion decision in April 2011 required courts to
enforce the highly-controversial arbitration agreements, even
those clearly unfair to consumers and employees.  DIRECTV asked
the courts to stop the pending trial and enforce its arbitration
clause to prevent the case from going forward as a class action.
DIRECTV sought to force every consumer to arbitrate against it on
an individual basis -- or to drop their claims, and let DIRECTV
keep the unlawful profits.  The California Court of Appeal
declined to allow DIRECTV to do so.  The company appealed to the
US Supreme Court.

On December 14, 2015, the United States Supreme Court handed a
victory to DIRECTV, reversing the California Court of Appeal's
decision on a 6 to 3 vote.

As Justice Ginsburg explains in her dissent, "It has become
routine, in a large part due to this Court's decisions, for
powerful economic enterprises to write into their form contracts
with consumers and employees no- class-action arbitration clauses.
. . . Acknowledging the precedent so far set by the Court, I would
take no further step to disarm consumers, leaving them without
effective access to justice."

To this day, DIRECTV continues to employ the illegal practices.
Its arbitration clause no longer contains an exception based on
state law.

Arbitration clauses are becoming increasingly controversial.  On
May 9, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) ruled that
banks can no longer use forced arbitration clauses to ban
consumers from joining together in class action lawsuits.  This
new rule restores bank customers' access to justice, the same
access to justice that DIRECTV's customers are seeking.

Consumer Fight Began in 2008

DIRECTV, now part of AT&T, is the largest satellite TV provider in
the U.S. with over 16 million customers.

The Imburgia case comprises two consolidated class action cases
filed in state courts in California in 2008.

According to the class action complaint:

DIRECTV imposes a mandatory service term of eighteen to twenty
four months; few customers are aware of this condition prior to
signing up.  The company routinely extends this "contractual
obligation," often without notice, by another year or two if
malfunctioning equipment needs to be replaced, or the customer
decides to make a change to programming or other services.

Customers who terminate service are charged an "early cancellation
fee" of up to $480, regardless of the reason, plus a "deactivation
fee."  Customers are forced to pay these penalties even if their
equipment could not be installed, they moved and DIRECTV service
isn't available in the new location, or the equipment simply
stopped working.

DIRECTV often charges these cancellation fees directly to their
customers' credit cards, or even takes the funds out of their
checking accounts, without the knowledge or approval of the
customer.  Many customers who were victimized by this practice
incurred substantial additional bank fees as a result.  Many
others could not afford the fee and were locked into poor or no
service for years as a result.

Similar suits were filed in federal courts throughout the country.
But the federal cases were dismissed in December 2013 after the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal ordered that plaintiffs in those
cases had to comply with DIRECTV's arbitration clause.

                      About the Legal Team

Consumer Watchdog -- http://www.consumerwatchdog.org-- is a
non-profit, non-partisan public interest organization established
in California in 1985.  The organization fights to protect
consumer rights in the courts, in the legislature, and through
public education.  It has offices in Los Angeles and Washington,
D.C.

Evans Law Firm, Inc. -- http://www.evanslaw.com-- is a
San Francisco-based plaintiff's firm that has a special interest
and focus in litigating class action and consumer fraud lawsuits,
as well as elder abuse (financial and physical), and Qui Tam/false
claims actions.  Founding Attorney Ingrid M. Evans has
successfully represented thousands of fraud victims in class
actions against large corporations and has been named as a
finalist for CA Consumer Attorney of the Year in 2009, 2012, and
2015.  Ms. Evans commented, "This decision represents another
denial of justice by the recent pro-business US Supreme Court.  It
will hurt consumers and will allow corporations to continue
overcharging and imposing illegal and undisclosed penalties and
charges upon its customers, while evading liability and
accountability."

FEM Law Group -- http://www.femlawgroup.com-- (formerly the Law
Offices of F. Edie Mermelstein), based in Southern California, is
a boutique firm focusing on consumer fraud, financial elder abuse,
civil litigation, and appellate law.  Ms. Mermelstein has built a
reputation as a tenacious advocate representing the vulnerable and
under-served in an effort to level the playing field in pursuit of
justice.  The firm is led by F. Edie Mermelstein, who said, "Class
actions have gotten a lot of bad press.  Most people do not
understand that the class action vehicle is a way to level the
playing field for the little guy when big businesses such as
DIRECTV hatch schemes to make hundreds of millions of dollars a
few bucks at a time with little or no fear of being stopped.
That's what happened in this case
-- the legalization of theft."

Paul Stevens -- http://www.stevenslc.com-- of Stevens, LC, argued
the case at the California trial court and California Court of
Appeal.  He has served as lead counsel on behalf of consumers in
more than 50 certified class action cases.


DITECH FINANCIAL: "Kinnamon" Sues Over Illegal Cellphone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Kinnamon, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiff v. Ditech Financial LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 4:16-cv-00646-JAR (E.D. Mo., May 10, 2016), seeks
injunction, actual, statutory and treble damages, attorney fees,
litigation expenses and costs of suit, and other relief pursuant
to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Ditech Financial, LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and
is a national provider of home loan origination and loan servicing
with offices throughout the country. Plaintiff accuses the
Defendant of calling her mobile phone using an automatic telephone
dialling system without her prior consent.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy J. Sostrin, Esq.
      Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
      KEOGH LAW, LTD.
      55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3390
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: 312.726.1092
      Fax: 312.726.1093
      Email: tsostrin@keoghlaw.com
             keith@keoghlaw.com

           - and -

      Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
      LEMBERG LAW LLC
      43 Danbury Road
      Wilton, CT 06897
      Tel: 203.653.2250 Ext. 5500
      Fax: 203.653.3425
      Email: slemberg@lemberglaw.com

           - and -

      John Hein, Esq.
      SAUERWEIN HEIN, P.C.
      147 North Meramec Ave.
      St. Louis, MO 63105
      Tel: 314.863.9100
      Fax: 314.863.9101
      Email: jjh@sauerwein.com


DIVERSIFIED RESTAURANT: Seeking Indemnity from A Sure Wing
----------------------------------------------------------
Diversified Restaurant Holdings said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 27, 2015, that the Company has
filed an indemnity claim against A Sure Wing, LLC and has received
a reciprocal indemnity claim from A Sure Wing, LLC, related to a
collective lawsuit by tipped workers.

On December 18, 2015, a collective action was filed against AMC
Wings, Inc., and the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois by plaintiffs, David, et al.  A Sure
Wing, LLC, the seller of the 18 St. Louis BWW restaurants acquired
by the Company on June 29, 2015, was also named as a defendant.

Plaintiffs primarily allege that former and current tipped workers
at the above-mentioned companies were assigned to perform tasks
outside the scope of their tipped positions, in violation of
Illinois and federal law. The defendant companies filed their
answers to the complaint on February 22, 2016, and the next status
hearing was scheduled for March 18, 2016. At this stage in the
process, plaintiffs have not specified the amount of their damages
claim.

The Company has filed an indemnity claim against A Sure Wing, LLC
and has received a reciprocal indemnity claim from A Sure Wing,
LLC. A Sure Wing, LLC and the Company have agreed to toll their
respective indemnity claims pending resolution of the matter.
This case is in the early stages and the plaintiffs have not
specified the amount of damages, the Company is unable to
reasonably estimate a possible loss or range of loss.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces "Wood" Suit in North. Dist. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Dollar General
Corporation and Dolgencorp, L.L.C.

The case is captioned Jason Wood and Roger Barrows, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Dollar General
Corporation and Dolgencorp, L.L.C., Case No. 3:16-cv-00534-GLS-DEP
(N.D.N.Y., May 10, 2016).

The Defendants operate a chain of variety stores headquartered in
Goodlettsville, Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell M. Breit, Esq.
      SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC
      112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 784-6400
      Facsimile: (212) 213-5949
      E-mail: mbreit@simmonsfirm.com


DOLLAR TREE: 4,300 Plaintiffs Remain in 2011 Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that approximately 4,300
plaintiffs remain in a class action lawsuit filed in 2011 by an
assistant store manager.

In April 2015, a former store manager filed a class action in
California state court alleging store managers were improperly
classified as exempt employees and, among other things, did not
receive overtime compensation and meal and rest periods and
alleging PAGA claims on behalf of all store employees, including
claims for failure to provide accurate wage statements.

Dollar Tree is an operator of discount variety stores.  The stores
operate under the names of Dollar Tree, Family Dollar, Dollar Tree
Canada, Deals and Dollar Tree Deals.  On July 6, 2015, Dollar Tree
completed the purchase of Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and its more
than 8,200 stores.


DOLLAR TREE: Faces Wage Suit in Calif. by Assist. Store Managers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that the Company was served in
November 2015 in a PAGA representative action under California law
in California state court on behalf of former assistant store
managers alleging defective wage statements.

Dollar Tree is an operator of discount variety stores.  The stores
operate under the names of Dollar Tree, Family Dollar, Dollar Tree
Canada, Deals and Dollar Tree Deals.  On July 6, 2015, Dollar Tree
completed the purchase of Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and its more
than 8,200 stores.


DOLLAR TREE: Hourly Non-Exempt Employees Sue in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that the Company was served in
February 2016 in a putative collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act in Florida federal court. The pleadings allege
overtime violations on behalf of all hourly non-exempt employees.

Dollar Tree is an operator of discount variety stores.  The stores
operate under the names of Dollar Tree, Family Dollar, Dollar Tree
Canada, Deals and Dollar Tree Deals.  On July 6, 2015, Dollar Tree
completed the purchase of Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and its more
than 8,200 stores.


DOLLAR TREE: 10 Plaintiffs Remain in North Carolina MDL
-------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that there are 10 named
plaintiffs in the remaining cases in a Multi-District Litigation
involving Family Dollar.

In 2008, a Multi-District Litigation forum ("MDL") was created in
North Carolina federal court to handle cases alleging Fair Labor
Standards Act violations against the Company. In the first two
cases, the court entered orders finding the plaintiffs were not
similarly situated and, therefore, neither nationwide notice nor
collective treatment under the FLSA was appropriate. Since that
time, the court has granted 60 summary judgments ruling Store
Managers are properly classified as exempt from overtime.

Presently, there are 10 named plaintiffs in the remaining cases in
the MDL, for which the North Carolina Federal Court has not
decided the class certification or summary judgment issue. The
plaintiffs have signed an agreement with the Company to settle all
remaining cases. The settlement must be approved by the court and
the proposed settlement amount has been fully accrued.

Dollar Tree is an operator of discount variety stores.  The stores
operate under the names of Dollar Tree, Family Dollar, Dollar Tree
Canada, Deals and Dollar Tree Deals.  On July 6, 2015, Dollar Tree
completed the purchase of Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and its more
than 8,200 stores.


DOLLAR TREE: Suit Over Discriminatory Pay Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that Family Dollar remains a
defendant in an employee suit over discriminatory pay.

In 2008, a complaint was filed alleging discriminatory pay
practices with respect to the Company's female store managers.
This case was pled as a putative class action or collective action
under applicable statutes on behalf of all Family Dollar female
store managers. The plaintiffs seek recovery of back pay,
compensatory and punitive money damages, recovery of attorneys'
fees and equitable relief. The case was transferred to North
Carolina Federal Court in November 2008. The parties are
proceeding with limited discovery and the outcome of this matter
cannot be determined at this time. The Company believes the case
is fully insured.

Dollar Tree is an operator of discount variety stores.  The stores
operate under the names of Dollar Tree, Family Dollar, Dollar Tree
Canada, Deals and Dollar Tree Deals.  On July 6, 2015, Dollar Tree
completed the purchase of Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and its more
than 8,200 stores.


DOLLAR TREE: Massachusetts Suit Over Unpaid OT Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that Family Dollar remains a
defendant in an employee class action over unpaid overtime.

In 2013, plaintiffs filed a claim in Massachusetts state court
seeking unpaid overtime for a class of current and former
Massachusetts Store Managers whom plaintiffs claim are not
properly classified as exempt from overtime under Massachusetts
law. The Company then removed the case to Federal District court
in Massachusetts.

In 2014, the case was remanded to state court. The plaintiffs have
signed an agreement with the Company to settle the class action.
The settlement must be approved by the court and the proposed
settlement amount has been fully accrued.

Dollar Tree is an operator of discount variety stores.  The stores
operate under the names of Dollar Tree, Family Dollar, Dollar Tree
Canada, Deals and Dollar Tree Deals.  On July 6, 2015, Dollar Tree
completed the purchase of Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and its more
than 8,200 stores.


DOLLAR TREE: Customer Class Suit Over Text Spam Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that Family Dollar remains a
defendant in a customer class action over text message
advertisements.

In 2014, the Company was served with a putative class action in
Missouri Federal Court alleging the Company sent customers Short
Message Service ("SMS") text message advertisements, without
providing appropriate express written consent in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The plaintiff has signed an
agreement with the Company to settle the class action. The
settlement must be approved by the court and the proposed
settlement amount has been fully accrued.

Dollar Tree is an operator of discount variety stores.  The stores
operate under the names of Dollar Tree, Family Dollar, Dollar Tree
Canada, Deals and Dollar Tree Deals.  On July 6, 2015, Dollar Tree
completed the purchase of Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and its more
than 8,200 stores.


DOLLAR TREE: Bag Checking Suit Pending in Calif. Court
------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that Family Dollar remains a
defendant in an employee suit over the checking of bags.

In 2014, a putative class action was filed in a California Federal
Court by a former employee alleging that the Company had a policy
of requiring employee bag checks while the employees were not
clocked in for work. As a result of those actions, the employee
alleges the Company violated California law by failing to provide
meal periods and rest breaks, failing to pay regular and overtime
wages for work performed off the clock, failing to provide
accurate wage statements, failing to timely pay all final wages
and by engaging in unfair competition. He has also alleged PAGA
claims. While employed by the Company, the plaintiff agreed to
arbitrate matters related to his employment. Accordingly, the
Company filed a motion to compel arbitration and is awaiting the
court's ruling on that motion.

Dollar Tree is an operator of discount variety stores.  The stores
operate under the names of Dollar Tree, Family Dollar, Dollar Tree
Canada, Deals and Dollar Tree Deals.  On July 6, 2015, Dollar Tree
completed the purchase of Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and its more
than 8,200 stores.


DOLLAR TREE: Employee Class Suit Over Seating Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that Family Dollar remains a
defendant in a 2014 employee class action over seating.

In 2014, a former employee brought a putative class action and
asserted claims under PAGA alleging the Company failed to provide
suitable seating to its California store employees. The case has
been stayed pending a ruling by the California Supreme Court on
whether a drug store retailer has an obligation to provide
suitable seating to drug store cashiers.

Dollar Tree is an operator of discount variety stores.  The stores
operate under the names of Dollar Tree, Family Dollar, Dollar Tree
Canada, Deals and Dollar Tree Deals.  On July 6, 2015, Dollar Tree
completed the purchase of Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and its more
than 8,200 stores.


DOLLAR TREE: Background Checks Class Suit in Virginia Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that Family Dollar is
defending a 2014 employee class action filed in Virginia.

In 2014, a former employee filed a nationwide class action in
federal court in Virginia alleging the Company violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act by failing to comply with its requirements to
give an individual proper notice and a reasonable time to
challenge the results of a background check before taking action
to deny the person employment (or terminate existing employment).
The plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 per
violation.

Dollar Tree is an operator of discount variety stores.  The stores
operate under the names of Dollar Tree, Family Dollar, Dollar Tree
Canada, Deals and Dollar Tree Deals.  On July 6, 2015, Dollar Tree
completed the purchase of Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and its more
than 8,200 stores.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: July 5 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, a national investor-rights law
firm, alerts Express Scripts Holding Company investors to the
newly filed class action lawsuit and the July 5, 2016 lead
plaintiff deadline.

If you suffered significant losses because of your purchases of
Express Scripts between February 24, 2015 and March 21, 2016 or
have information that will help our investigation contact Hagens
Berman Partner Reed Kathrein, who is leading the firm's
investigation by calling 510-725-3000, emailing ESRX@hbsslaw.com
or visiting https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/ESRX

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York and investors have until July 5, 2016 to move
the court to participate as a lead plaintiff.

The litigation asserts Express Scripts' relationship with its most
important client -- Anthem, Inc., -- was rapidly deteriorating, in
contrast with Defendants' public statements otherwise.  Unknown to
investors, on February 16, 2015 and on April 1, 2015 Anthem served
Express Scripts with a notice of default arising from material
operational breaches, yet publicly Express Scripts represented
"we've got a great relationship with Anthem . . . . The
relationship is very, very solid."

On January 12, 2016, Anthem publicly threatened to end its
relationship with Express Scripts unless it would renegotiate its
agreement with Anthem to deliver more than $3 billion in annual
savings.  As a result, the price of Express Scripts shares fell 7%
to close at $79.69 on January 13, 2016.

On March 21, 2016, Anthem sued Express Scripts, claiming that
Express Scripts breached its contractual duties to negotiate price
terms in good faith and perform operational duties in a "prudent
and expert manner".  As a result, the price of Express Scripts
shares fell 2.6% to close at $67.52 on March 22, 2016.

"Public companies are required to disclose material known risks to
their business rather than generally disclaiming them," said
Hagens Berman partner Reed Kathrein.  "The notices of default
appear contrary to the representations of a very strong
relationship."

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Express Scripts should consider their options to help in the
investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program.
Under the new SEC whistleblower program, whistleblowers who
provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30
percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC.  For more
information, call Reed Kathrein at 510-725-3000 or email
ESRX@hbsslaw.com

                        About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is headquartered in
Seattle, Washington with offices in 10 cities.  The Firm
represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation.


FAMILY BENEFIT LIFE: Opposes Policy Holders' Class Cert. Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
First Trinity Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Family
Benefit Life Insurance Company ("FBLIC") is opposing a motion for
class certification of a lawsuit by policy holders.

Prior to its acquisition by Trinity Life Insurance Company
("TLIC"), FBLIC developed, marketed, and sold life insurance
products known as "Decreasing Term to 95" policies. On January 17,
2013, FBLIC's Board of Directors voted that, effective March 1,
2013, it was not approving, and therefore was not providing, a
dividend for the Decreasing Term to 95 policies. On November 22,
2013, three individuals who owned Decreasing Term to 95 policies
filed a Petition in the Circuit Court of Greene County, Missouri
asserting claims against FBLIC relating to FBLIC's decision to not
provide a dividend under the Decreasing Term to 95 policies.

On June 18, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended petition. Like the
original Petition, the amended Petition asserts claims for breach
of contract and anticipatory breach of contract, and alleges that
FBLIC breached, and will anticipatorily breach, the Decreasing
Term to 95 policies of insurance by not providing a dividend
sufficient to purchase a one year term life insurance policy which
would keep the death benefit under the Decreasing Term to 95
policies the same as that provided during the first year of
coverage under the policy. It also asserts claims for negligent
misrepresentation, fraud, and violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"). It alleges that during its
sale of the Decreasing Term to 95 policies, FBLIC represented that
the owners of these policies would always be entitled to dividends
to purchase a one-year term life insurance policy and that the
owners would have a level death benefit without an increase in
premium.

The main difference between the original Petition and the amended
Petition is that the amended Petition also seeks equitable relief
based on two new theories: that the Decreasing Term to 95 policies
should be reformed so that they will provide a level death benefit
for a level premium payment until the policyholder reaches 95
years of age; and alternatively, Count VIII of the amended
Petition asks the Court to (1) find that the dividend provisions
in the Decreasing Term to 95 policies violate Missouri law,
specifically, Sec. 376.360 RSMo.; (2) order that the policies are
void ab initio; and (3) order that FBLIC return all premiums
collected under these policies. FBLIC has moved to dismiss Count
VIII of the amended Petition. No hearing has been held or ruling
made on this Motion.

FBLIC denies the allegations in the amended Petition and will
continue to defend against them.

On February 1, 2016, the plaintiffs asked that the Court certify
the case as a class action. With their motion, Plaintiffs filed an
affidavit from an actuary stating the opinion that FBLIC has
collected at least $2,548,939 in premiums on the Decreasing Term
to 95 policies. This presumably is the amount that Plaintiffs will
seek to be refunded to policyholders if the policies are declared
void.

FBLIC intends to oppose the request for class certification, as
well as to defend vigorously against the individual allegations.
The Company is unable to determine the potential magnitude of the
claims in the event of a final certification and the plaintiffs
prevailing on this substantive action.

First Trinity Financial Corporation (the "Company" or "FTFC") is
the parent holding company of Trinity Life Insurance Company
("TLIC"), Family Benefit Life Insurance Company ("FBLIC") and
First Trinity Capital Corporation ("FTCC"). The Company was
incorporated in Oklahoma on April 19, 2004, for the primary
purpose of organizing a life insurance subsidiary.


FIFTH STREET: Oklahoma Police, Labaton Firm Lead Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Street Asset Management Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Oklahoma
Police Pension and Retirement System and the law firm of Labaton
Sucharow LLP have been named as as lead plaintiff and lead
counsel, respectively, in a consolidated securities class action
lawsuit.

The Company has been named as a defendant in three putative
securities class-action lawsuits arising from our role as
investment adviser to FSC. The first lawsuit was filed on October
1, 2015, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York and is captioned Howard Randall, Trustee,
Howard & Gale Randall Trust FBO Kimberly Randall Irrevocable Trust
UA Feb 15, 2000 v. Fifth Street Finance Corp., et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-07759-LAK. The second lawsuit was filed on October 14,
2015, in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut and is captioned Lynn Waters-Cottrell v. Fifth Street
Finance Corp., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01488. The case was later
transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, where it is pending as Case No. 16-cv-00088-
LAK. The third lawsuit was filed on November 12, 2015, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
and is captioned Robert J. Hurwitz v. Fifth Street Finance Corp.,
et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-08908-LAK. The defendants in all three
cases are Leonard M. Tannenbaum, Bernard D. Berman, Alexander C.
Frank, Todd G. Owens, Ivelin M. Dimitrov, and Richard Petrocelli,
FSC, and the Company.

The lawsuits allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of
investors who purchased FSC common stock between July 7, 2014, and
February 6, 2015, inclusive. The lawsuits allege in general terms
that defendants engaged in a purportedly fraudulent scheme
designed to artificially inflate the true value of FSC's
investment portfolio and investment income in order to increase
FSAM's revenue, which FSAM received as the asset manager and
investment advisor of FSC.

For example, the lawsuits allege that FSC improperly delayed the
write-down of five of its investments until the fiscal quarter
ending in December 31, 2014, after FSAM conducted its IPO in
October 2014, when FSC purportedly should have taken the write-
down before FSAM's IPO. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages
and attorneys' fees and costs, among other relief, but have not
specified the amount of damages being sought in any of the
actions.

On February 1, 2016, the court appointed Oklahoma Police Pension
and Retirement System as lead plaintiff and the law firm of
Labaton Sucharow LLP as lead counsel. The parties proposed that
lead plaintiff file its consolidated complaint by April 1, 2016.


FIFTH STREET: Dismissal of "Craig" Action in Delaware Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Street Asset Management Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
Company has been named as a defendant in a putative class action
lawsuit filed by a purported stockholder of FSC on January 29,
2016, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The case
is captioned James Craig v. Bernard D. Berman, et al., C.A. No.
11947-VCG. The defendants in the case are Bernard D. Berman, James
Castro-Blanco, Ivelin M. Dimitrov, Brian S. Dunn, Richard P.
Dutkiewicz, Byron J. Haney, Sandeep K. Khorana, Todd G. Owens,
Douglas F. Ray, Fifth Street Management LLC, FSAM, FSC, and Fifth
Street Holdings L.P.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to FSC stockholders by, among other things, issuing an
incomplete or inaccurate preliminary proxy statement that
purportedly attempted to mislead FSC stockholders into voting
against proposals presented by another shareholder (RiverNorth
Capital Management) in a proxy contest in connection with FSC's
2016 annual meeting. The competing shareholder proposals sought to
elect three director nominees to FSC's Board and to terminate the
Investment Advisory Agreement between FSC and FSAM.

The complaint also charges that the director defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by perpetuating and failing to terminate
the Investment Advisory Agreement and by seeking to entrench
themselves as directors and FSAM affiliates as FSC's manager. The
FSAM entities are charged with breaching their duties as alleged
controlling persons of FSC and with aiding and abetting the FSC
directors' breaches of duty.

The complaint seeks, among other things, an injunction preventing
FSC and its board of directors from soliciting proxies for the
2016 annual meeting until additional disclosures are issued; a
declaration that the defendants have breached their fiduciary
duties by refusing to terminate the Investment Advisory Agreement
and by acting to have the FSC board of directors and Fifth Street
Management LLC remain in place; a declaration that any shares
repurchased by FSC after the record date of the 2016 annual
meeting will not be considered outstanding shares for purposes of
the FSC stockholder approvals sought at the annual meeting; and
awarding plaintiff costs and disbursements. The plaintiff moved
for expedited proceedings and for a preliminary injunction.

Defendants opposed plaintiff's motion for expedited proceedings
and moved to dismiss the case. FSC also filed another amendment to
the preliminary proxy statement, making additional disclosures
relating to issues raised by plaintiff and RiverNorth.

On February 16, 2016, plaintiff informed the Delaware court that
the basis for his injunction motion had become moot and that he
was withdrawing his motions for a preliminary injunction and
expedited proceedings.

On February 18, 2016, FSC announced that it had entered into an
agreement with RiverNorth pursuant to which RiverNorth would
withdraw its competing proxy solicitation.

The Company believes that, with respect to itself and its related
entities, all of the claims in the lawsuits are without merit, and
it intends to vigorously defend against such claims.


FIFTH STREET: Defending Securities Class Suits in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Street Asset Management Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
Company has been named as a defendant in two putative securities
class-action lawsuits filed by purchasers of the Company's shares.
The suits are related to the securities class actions brought by
shareholders of FSC, for which Fifth Street Management serves as
investment advisor.

The first lawsuit by the Company's shareholders was filed on
January 7, 2016, in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut and is captioned Ronald K. Linde, etc. v.
Fifth Street Asset Management Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-
00025. The defendants are the Company, Leonard M. Tannenbaum,
Bernard D. Berman, Alexander C. Frank, Steven M. Noreika, Wayne
Cooper, Mark J. Gordon, Thomas L. Harrison, and Frank C. Meyer.
The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of a putative class of
persons and entities who purchased common stock in or pursuant to
the Company's IPO. The complaint alleges that the defendants
engaged in a fraudulent scheme and course of conduct to
artificially inflate FSC's assets and investment income and, in
turn, the Company's valuation at the time of its IPO, thereby
rendering the Company's IPO Registration Statement and Prospectus
materially false and misleading. The plaintiffs have not
quantified their claims for relief.

On February 25, 2016, the court granted the Company's unopposed
motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, where the case can be
coordinated with the securities class actions filed by FSC
shareholders.

On March 7, 2016, the other putative class action by the Company's
shareholders was filed, in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York. The case is captioned Joyce L.
Trupp Agreement of Trust v. Fifth Street Asset Management Inc., et
al., No. 1:16-cv-01711. The defendants are the same as in the
Linde case, and the complaint is a virtual clone of the Linde
complaint.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends
vigorously to defend itself against the plaintiffs' allegations.


FLORIDA: Citrus Canker Class Action Goes to Trial
-------------------------------------------------
Jay Weaver, writing for Miami Herald, reports that at the height
of the citrus canker wars 16 years ago, state agriculture
inspectors deployed crews with chainsaws to mow down hundreds of
thousands of orange, grapefruit and key lime trees -- even if they
showed no signs of infection.

Ever since, outraged Florida property owners have been struggling
to be compensated by the state for their losses.

On May 9, a Miami-Dade County couple finally had their day in
court.

For decades, Brian Patchen and his wife, Bunny, enjoyed the bounty
of fruits picked from the half-dozen robust citrus trees growing
on their Miami Beach property.  Then, without warning, the state
chopped them all down to stumps in the fall of 2000.

"On Halloween, our trees got tricked instead of treated,"
Mr. Patchen, a longtime Miami attorney, testified on May 9.

Mr. Patchen is the lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit
representing an estimated 100,000 property owners in Miami-Dade
who believe they were wronged by the state.  Depending on the
outcome of the class trial, they could be eligible for more than
$120 million in damages from the state of Florida for having cut
down about 250,000 of their citrus trees at the height of the
canker wars between 2000 and 2006.

In that period, the state Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services removed any residential citrus tree that came within
1,900 feet of a canker-infected tree -- even if they didn't have
any telltale lesions on their leaves or fruit.  Agriculture
officials expanded that distance, which was initially limited to
125 feet, as they battled the wind-whipped spread of a bacterial
disease the said threatened Florida's prized citrus industry.

Florida officials maintain that the private property takings
served a greater public interest, and that those who lost their
citrus trees were already compensated under statewide settlements.

All these years later, many Florida property owners are still
simmering over the loss of their beloved citrus trees.  Miami-Dade
residents are only the latest to take their class-action case to
court.  Others who lost hundreds of thousands of citrus trees to
the state's eradication program have already won multimillion-
dollar jury awards for their losses in Broward, Palm Beach, Orange
and Lee counties.

Agriculture officials already provided some compensation to
property owners whose citrus trees were chopped down because of
canker fears -- with the state issuing $55 checks as well as
Walmart gift cards for each lost tree. But the various county
lawsuits have sought damages far beyond those amounts, with state
officials and their lawyers fighting them every step of the way.

On May 9, plaintiffs attorneys Robert Gilbert and Joseph Serota
began their long-awaited trial against the state in Miami-Dade
Circuit Court.  Judge Thomas Rebull will determine whether the
state should be held liable for damages, then, if necessary, a
jury would be convened to decide damages.

Mr. Patchen's testimony set the stage for trial, as he detailed
his rude awakening to the state's policy.  He testified that he
and his wife, a former flight attendant, were never notified by
the state about its stepped-up eradication policy or its decision
to target the half-dozen citrus trees in the couple's yard on
North Bay Road.

Mr. Patchen said that he and his wife felt blindsided by the
state's destruction. "The trees were green," he testified.  "The
fruit was unmarked."

Mr. Patchen, who happens to specialize in property takings as a
lawyer, said the couple only learned about the reason for the
state's action to cut down their trees after they were reduced to
stumps.  He found out that there was a citrus canker infestation
on Sunset Islands, less than 1,900 feet from this Miami Beach
home.

Asked how much he should be compensated for each of his half-dozen
lost citrus trees: "several thousands dollars," Mr. Patchen said,
noting their maturity. He also said he and his wife never received
a $55 check or Walmart gift card as a settlement from the state.

An expert witness who had worked as a senior state agriculture
official for 40 years defended the eradication program, saying the
absence of canker lesions on leaves and fruit didn't mean a tree
was not diseased.

"It's difficult to detect citrus canker in the early stages," said
Richard Gaskalla, former director of the state Division of Plant
Industry, which oversaw the program.  Mr. Gaskalla said that as he
directed the eradication program, he was looking out for not only
the interests of the citrus industry but those of property owners.

"I gave them equal weight in my mind," he testified.

But pressed further on cross examination, Mr. Gaskalla admitted
that the orange was featured on the Florida license plate.  "It's
the iconic crop," he said. "It's an important part of our life-
support system."

Mr. Gaskalla acknowledged that while the state is responsible for
the taking of private property to serve a public interest, he said
the ultimate legal question boils down whether they received "full
compensation" for their losses.

If the judge rules for Mr. Patchen and the other Miami-Dade
property owners, a jury would answer that question.


FORGIATO INC: Faces "Quiroz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Juan Quiroz, for himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Forgiato, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, Case
No. BC619818 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 9, 2016), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the California Labor Code.

Based in Los Angeles, California, Forgiato, Inc., designs and
builds luxury wheels for performance cars.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justian Jusuf, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIAN JUSUF, APC
      17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900
      Huntington Beach, CA 92647
      Telephone: (714) 274-9815
      Facsimile: (714) 362-3148


FUSHA 311: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Martin Garcia and Obdulio Garcia, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Fusha 311 West Inc. d/b/a
Fusha Japanese Restaurant, Sushi Time East Inc. d/b/a Sushi Time,
Amber 80  Inc., Amber 3rd Ave. Inc., Amber 221 West Inc. all
d/b/a Amber, Pui Yan Ho, Lin Xi, and/or any other entities
affiliated with or controlled by Fusha 311 West Inc. d/b/a Fusha
Japanese Restaurant, Sushi Time East Inc. d/b/a Sushi Time, Amber
80  Inc., Amber 3rd Ave. Inc., and Amber 221 West Inc. all d/b/a
as Amber, Pui Yan Ho and Lin Xi, Case No. 1:16-cv-03434 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 9, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime
compensation, and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants own and operate Fusha, Sushi Time and Amber
restaurants in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Leonor H. Coyle, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
      E-mail: lcoyle@vandallp.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
      Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Telephone: (516) 873-9550
      E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
              bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com


GENENTECH INC: Sued Over Failure to Pay Employees Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Comanche County Memorial Hospital, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Genentech Inc., Roche Holding AG,
Roche Holding Ltd., and Roche Holdings, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-
02498 (N.D. Cal., May 9, 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 biotechnology company
headquartered in San Francisco, California.

Comanche County Memorial Hospital is a pro se plaintiff.


GIBCO MOTOR EXPRESS: "Stell" Suit Remanded to Ill. State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David R. Herndon granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand
the case captioned JOHN STELL and CHARLES WILLIAMS, JR., on behalf
of themselves individually and as class representatives on behalf
of similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs, v. GIBCO MOTOR
EXPRESS, LLC, Defendant, No. 3:15-cv-1105-DRH-DGW (S.D. Ill.).

Judge Herndon remanded the action to the Circuit Court of the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois, for lack
of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of Judge Herndon's May 9, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/HZpoJo from Leagle.com.

On August 28, 2015, John Stell and Charles Williams, Jr., on
behalf of themselves individually and as class representatives on
behalf of similarly situated employees, filed a putative class
action against Gibco Motor Express, LLC.  The plaintiffs alleged
Gibco failed to pay its employees overtime wages at time and a
half for all hours worked over 40 hours a week in violation of the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act and in breach of Gibco's
Employee Handbook.  The plaintiffs estimate the class includes
approximately 150 employees with aggregate damages amounting to
approximately $400,000.  Stell and Williams are citizens of the
State of Illinois.  Gibco is a citizen of the state of Indiana.
On October 6, 2015, Gibco removed the case to federal court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. sections 1332(a) and 1441.  The plaintiffs
moved to remand to state court.

John Stell, Charles Williams, Jr., Plaintiffs, represented by
Kevin J. Dolley -- kevin@dolleylaw.com -- Law Offices of Kevin J.
Dolley LLC.

Gibco Motor Express, LLC, Defendant, represented by Yvette M.
Boutaugh -- yboutaugh@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw Culbertson LLP &
Terese A. Drew -- tdrew@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw Culbertson LLP.


GREENER GROUP: Faces "Sanchez" Class Suit in Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Jeremy L.
McSorley and Greener Group, LLC.

The case is captioned Roberto Sanchez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Jeremy L. McSorley and Greener
Group, LLC, Case No. 1681CV01324 (Mass. Super. Ct., May 10, 2016).

The Defendants own and operate a landscaping business located at
123 Bolt St Lowell, MA 01852.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Davis, Esq.
      DAVIS & DAVIS PC
      North Reading, MA
      Telephone: (978) 276-9051
      E-mail: pdavis@davisanddavispc.com


GROUPON INC: July 13 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

In re GROUPON, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION

Master File No. 12 C 2450
Hon. Charles R. Norgle

This Document Relates To:
ALL ACTIONS.

NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS
MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION.

TO:     ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED SHARES
OF GROUPON'S CLASS A COMMON STOCK, PAR VALUE $0.0001 PER SHARE
(THE "COMMON STOCK"), IN OR TRACEABLE TO GROUPON'S INITIAL PUBLIC
OFFERING BETWEEN NOVEMBER 4, 2011 AND MARCH 30, 2012, BOTH DATES
INCLUSIVE ("THE CLASS PERIOD"), AND WERE OR MAY HAVE BEEN DAMAGED
THEREBY.

- AND -

ALL SUCH PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED SHARES OF
COMMON STOCK BETWEEN FEBRUARY 9, 2012 AND MARCH 30, 2012, BOTH
DATES INCLUSIVE ("THE SUBCLASS PERIOD") AND WERE OR MAY HAVE BEEN
DAMAGED THEREBY.

Excluded from the Class are (1) Defendants and Former Underwriter
Defendants and their immediate families; (2) any entity in which
Defendants or Former Underwriter Defendants have or had a majority
interest; (3) past and present Officers and Directors of Groupon,
Inc.; and (4) the legal representatives, heirs, successors, or
assigns of any excluded party.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court, Northern District of Illinois (the "Court") of a
proposed $45 million Settlement in the above-captioned action (the
"Action").  Plaintiffs estimate there were approximately 40.25
million shares of the Common Stock traded during the Class Period
that may have been damaged.  If all such shares were in fact
damaged and elect to participate in the Settlement, the average
recovery per share could be $1.118 before deduction of any fees,
expenses, costs, and awards described herein.  The actual amount
disbursed to members of the Class who participate in the
Settlement may be more or less than this figure.

A hearing will be held on July 13, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. before
Honorable Charles R. Norgle in Courtroom 2341 of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Everett
McKinley Dirksen Building, United States Courthouse, 219 South
Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604, to determine: (1) whether the
proposed Settlement of the Class's claims against the Defendants
for $45,000,000.00 should be approved as fair, reasonable and
adequate; (2) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair,
just, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the Court should
permanently enjoin the assertion of any claims that arise from or
relate to the subject matter of the Action; (4) whether the Action
should be dismissed with prejudice against the Defendants as set
forth in the Stipulation of Settlement filed with the Court; (5)
whether the application by Class Counsel for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved; and (6) whether
the Class Plaintiffs' application for reimbursement of costs and
expenses should be granted.

If you purchased the Common Stock in or traceable to Groupon's IPO
during the Class Period and were or may have been damaged thereby
OR you purchased or acquired the Common Stock during the Subclass
Period and were or may have been damaged thereby, your rights may
be affected by the Settlement of this Action.  If you have not
received a detailed Notice of Pendency of Class Action (the
"Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release Form, you
may obtain copies by writing to the Claims Administrator at In re
Groupon, Inc. Securities Litigation c/o KCC Class Action Services,
P.O Box 40007 College Station TX 77842-4007, by calling (877) 369-
3968, or by visiting www.grouponsecuritieslitigation.com

If you are a member of the Class, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must timely submit a
Proof of Claim to the Claims Administrator's address provided
above and postmarked no later than August 26, 2016.  If you are a
member of the Class and do not submit a proper Proof of Claim, you
will not share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the
Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgment or
orders entered by the Court.

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion, at the
address above and postmarked no later than June 29, 2016, in the
manner and form detailed in the Notice.  If you properly exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any
judgment or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will
not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement.

If you have any objection to the proposed Settlement, the adequacy
of the representation provided by Class Plaintiffs and Class
Counsel, the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement
Fund, the Final Order and Judgment contemplated by the
Stipulation, the application for attorneys' fees not to exceed 30%
of the Settlement Amount, and reimbursement of expenses not to
exceed $1.15 million, and/or the application of a Compensatory
Award, not to exceed $5,000 each, for the time and expenses
incurred by Class Plaintiffs, or if you otherwise wish to be heard
with respect to any of the foregoing, you may appear in person or
by attorney at the Final Approval Hearing.  Notice of objection or
appearance must be filed in the manner detailed in the Notice with
the Clerk of the Court and delivered to Class Counsel and
Defendants' Counsel, such that it is received by each party no
later than June 29, 2016, in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Notice.

All members of the Class who do not request exclusion therefrom,
in the manner provided herein, will be represented by Class
Counsel in connection with the Settlement, but may, if they so
desire, also enter an appearance through counsel of their own
choice and at their own expense.

INQUIRIES SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED TO THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE,
THE DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL.  Any questions should be
directed to:

Claims Administrator:

In re Groupon, Inc. Securities Litigation
c/o KCC Class Action Services
P.O Box 40007
College Station TX 77842-4007
Telephone: (877) 369-3968

Class Counsel:

Joshua B. Silverman, Esq.
Pomerantz LLP
10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
jbsilverman@pomlaw.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
By Order of the Court
United States District Court
Northern District of Illinois

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.


HANNIBAL, IL: BPW Faces Class Action Over Water Quality Issues
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alyse Thompson, writing for Herald-Whig, reports that Beth Percy
said she and other Hannibal residents should have a voice in how
their drinking water is disinfected.

Ms. Percy, who has lived in Hannibal for 35 years, is among a
steadfast circle of Hannibal Board of Public Works customers who
oppose the utility's use of chloramines, chlorine-ammonia
compounds that kill bacteria and viruses and reduce levels of
potentially carcinogenic disinfection byproducts, or DBP, in water
supplies and distribution systems.

Citing skin and respiratory irritation, pipe corrosion and a lack
of research as concerns with chloramines, citizens have amplified
efforts to get the attention of -- and action from -- a utility
they say will not listen to its customers and community.

"We should have a right to choose what goes in our water,"
Ms. Percy said.  "We should not have somebody choose for us.  It
should be our decision -- not a group of people who are only
concerned about money."

BPW leaders say pressure from the Missouri Department of Natural
Resources to come into compliance with federal DBP standards, as
well as chloramines' effectiveness and life-cycle cost, prompted
the utility to begin injecting the disinfecting agent last fall.

BPW officials also say they did not expect such strong reaction
from customers, given the widespread, decades-long use of
chloramines by public water systems across the country. Residents'
disapproval, the BPW said, should be directed toward regulatory
agencies that develop the rules.

Start of the storm

The BPW's quarterly tests for DBP began showing abnormally high
levels of total trihalomethanes, or TTHM, in late 2011.  That is a
problem, according to rules adopted by the Environemental
Protection Agency in the 1990s and the mid-2000s.

DBP form when chlorine reacts with organic material in the water.
Studies have shown that long-term exposure to DBPs may increase
consumers' risk of developing bladder, colon and rectal cancers,
as well as liver, kidney or central nervous system problems.  A
potential link also may exist between pregnant women's exposure to
DBP and low birth weight and birth defects.

The research led the EPA to develop the Stage 1 and Stage 2
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rules, which set goals
and limits for two regulated types of DBP: TTHM and haloacetic
acids, or HAA5.

After recording a running annual average for TTHM of 120
micrograms per liter in 2011 -- 50 percent higher than the federal
limit of 80 -- the BPW experienced violations just about every
quarter between 2011 and late 2015.  As a result, the MDNR, the
state's enforcer of drinking water regulations, required the BPW
to send public notices to its customers about the violations.

A December 2014 public notice indicated the BPW had begun looking
at different chemicals and treatment technologies to reduce DBP
levels, but it did not specifically mention the BPW's intention to
use chloramines, an option St. Louis engineering firm Horner and
Shifrin presented in 2012.  The BPW tapped Horner and Shifrin the
year before to conduct a study on ways to reduce DBP and meet an
Oct. 1, 2015, compliance deadline set by the MDNR.

The BPW on Aug. 28 -- one month before the utility began injecting
the disinfection agent -- sent letters to customers, alerting them
to the impending switch to chloramines.  That was the first time
Percy heard of it.  She did an online search of chloramines, and
did not like what she found.

Water systems use chloramines because they cost less than other
methods, stay in distribution systems longer and are less likely
to lead to TTHM and HAA5 formation.  However, chloramines can be
toxic to fish and cause anemia in dialysis patients if water is
not treated properly before dialysis facilities use it.

Chloramines also have their own DBPs that are not regulated and
still may increase the risk of developing cancer and skin and
respiratory problems.  Unmonitored changes in water chemistry also
may cause lead from pipes and fittings to leach into water
supplies, which poses another set of health problems.

Ms. Percy and other citizens formed at least three different
groups to voice their concerns with the treatment method to the
BPW. They were not exactly welcomed with open arms, Percy said.

"From the beginning, all we've wanted is to be listened to, taken
seriously and respected, and we have not gotten any of that," she
said.

BPW officials declined recent interview requests, citing a class-
action suit over water quality pending in Marion County Circuit
Court.  However, Heath Hall, BPW director of operations, said in
September the utility did not expect a public outcry.

"It's kind of surprising," he said.  "In the water treatment
field, ammonia or chloramines have been used for decades. We're
one of the last surface water systems of our size to switch to
chloramines.  I was really surprised by the controversy."

Research presented in a 1994 EPA report said short-term studies
indicate chloramines had no adverse effects on test subjects'
physical condition, and test subjects had no major objections to
the taste of monochloramine in provided doses.

BPW General Manager Bob Stevenson also said in October the utility
was "essentially powerless" when it came to using chloramines,
noting it faced the threat of fines if it did not come into
compliance with DBP regulations by the Oct. 1 deadline.

"We are injecting chloramines because we are under a mandate to do
so," he said.  "The DNR approved the use of that chemical to solve
our problem back in 2012, after a lengthy amount of study as to
what would be the most effective thing to do."

A Nov. 23 letter to Stevenson from Steve Sturgess, MDNR public
drinking water branch chief, said the agency did not require use
of chloramines, only that the BPW do something to comply with DBP
regulations.

"Some city officials, through the media, have suggested that the
department required the city to use chloramination in its drinking
water treatment system," he wrote.  "That is not the case. The
city chose the treatment technology in order to comply with
federal, health-based standards for drinking water."

Ms. Percy agreed.

"The Board of Public Works has done this, not the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources or the EPA," she said.  "This is a
decision that they made on the information they had."

Community action

In September, two citizens groups, Concerned Citizens for Safe
Drinking Water and Consumer Watchdog Group of Hannibal, reached
out to Robert Bowcock, a California-based water quality consultant
about the situation. He was not thrilled with what he heard.

"The use of chloramine in order to comply with [DBP rules] is
completely out of sorts with what's really supposed to be done,"
Mr. Bowcock said in a March phone interview.  "They're supposed to
look at the organic reduction in their distribution system in
their treatment process, and they're completely ignoring that.
What they're doing is a quick, cheap fix, rather than addressing
the underlying problem."

During an October public meeting, Mr. Bowcock suggested the BPW
turn to granular activated carbon, a filtration medium that pulls
organic material from water and may cut the amount of disinfecting
chemicals the utility would have to use.  Granular activated
carbon, or GAC, was one option Horner and Shifrin presented in its
study, but the BPW did not select it based on the required capital
investment and maintenance costs.

After the public meeting, the BPW said it would revisit GAC at the
citizens' request.  John Hummel, BPW water and wastewater
supervisor, presented a report to the utility's directors in
February that said switching from anthracite coal to GAC could
cost about $840,000, a tab Horner and Shifrin included in its
study.

Mr. Hummel said the switch would not be a "financially
responsible" decision for the utility, since it had been, at that
time, meeting DBP requirements for about four months with
chloramines. It could also lead to a rate increase, he noted.

Mr. Hummel's report did not go over well.

Mr. Bowcock called it "laughable," adding that while not an
inexpensive option, GAC is a positive one.  The report also drew
the attention of consumer advocate Erin Brockovich, who addressed
it on her Facebook page in February.

"You are liars," Ms. Brockovich wrote of the BPW. "Now your
refusal to give alternative (USEPA Best Available Technologies)
water treatment technologies FAIR consideration . . . you are
causing harm to your friends and families . . . You were in
violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act for 3 years . . . and
lied . . . you were under a consent order . . . and lied.  Please,
just resign and go home."

Lawsuit and a ballot measure

Not pleased with the BPW's response, residents Vickie Brooks,
Oliver "O.C." Latta, Chrystal Stephens and Christine Stolte in
March filed a class-action suit seeking damages for purchasing and
using water they called "unfit for human use" between September
2011 and February 2016.

The suit does not specifically address chloramines, but it refers
to elevated levels of TTHM and corresponding violations the BPW
experienced during that time period.

Chris Nidel, a Washington, D.C., attorney involved in the case,
told The Herald-Whig federal regulations exist "for a reason."

"People have a fundamental right in this country to clean water,
safe water, particularly when they pay for it and particularly
when the laws require it," he said.

Mr. Bowcock said he was "disappointed" by the suit, noting it
would detract from efforts to develop a resolution to the discord.

"I'd rather see the money go into honest, open dialogue between
the [BPW] and the community about solutions and not this nonsense
of litigation where it's not appropriate," he said.

Instead, Mr. Bowcock helped two other groups, Hannibal to Oppose
Chloramines and Hannibal and Ralls County Citizens for Safe Water,
launch proceedings to put a measure on an upcoming election ballot
that would prohibit the "administration, dosing, feeding or use"
of ammonia in the public drinking water system.

Citizens are in the process of collecting signatures from at least
10 percent of Hannibal's registered voters, and Kellie Cookson,
founder of Hannibal to Oppose Chloramines, said she is hopeful the
process will work.

"My hope is that we can effectively get a system that is safe for
pregnant women, safe for infants and safe for anyone with
compromised health," she said.


HIH INSURANCE: Shareholders Get Favorable Ruling in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beverley Newbold, Esq., and Rafael Aiolfi, Esq., of
Minter Ellison, in an article for Lexology, report that on
April 20, 2016, the first judgment in Australia to accept what is
known as the "indirect market based theory of causation" was
handed down by a single judge of the NSW Supreme Court.  The case
has important implications for numerous ASX-listed companies,
particularly those involved in shareholder class actions, where
the issue of how to prove causation has been the subject of
significant debate.

Market based causation

The theory of market-based causation holds that where misleading
or improperly withheld information causes the market to inflate
the price of securities beyond the true value which would have
prevailed but for the contraventions, the act of purchasing shares
in such a market is sufficient to make out the causal nexus
between the misleading information and investors' losses. This
means that investors do not need to prove that they purchased
securities with express knowledge of and reliance upon the
misleading information.

The decision In the matter of HIH Insurance Limited (in
liquidation) & Ors [2016] NSWSC 482 (HIH) held that plaintiff
shareholders who bought shares in a publicly listed company at an
inflated price could recover their loss without the need to
establish a direct link between the company's misleading and
deceptive conduct and their decision to purchase the shares.

Impact on shareholder class actions

A shareholder class action is usually brought on behalf of
investors who purchased shares in a company at an allegedly
inflated price in circumstances where the company is said to have
breached the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ASX Listing Rules or the
ASIC Act2001 (Cth) in its statements to the market.  One of the
unresolved issues in shareholder class actions is whether
investors are required to prove that they relied on the company's
alleged misleading statements prior to purchasing the shares.

Although the HIH decision is not a shareholder class action, it
will certainly encourage plaintiff shareholders to take legal
action against downgraded ASX-listed companies, and may have
immediate implications for several existing shareholder class
actions.

Case facts

In the HIH case, the plaintiffs were shareholders who bought
shares in HIH during the period between October 26, 1999 and March
15, 2001.  The plaintiffs argued that certain representations
contained in the HIH's financial results released to the market on
August 25, 1999 and March 2, 2000 (Financial Results) were
misleading and deceptive in contravention of section 52 of the
then Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (TPA) and sections 995 or 999
of the then Corporations Law.  In short, the plaintiffs argued
that the HIH wrongly accounted for certain reinsurance contracts
creating a misleading and deceptive appearance of its operating
profit.

The plaintiffs argued that they purchased shares at prices which
were inflated by the misrepresentations contained in the Financial
Results, and consequently suffered loss and damage by reason of
having paid more for the shares they purchased than they would
otherwise have paid.  Importantly, the plaintiffs did not contend
that they had read, or directly relied upon reports of, the
Financial Results prior to purchasing shares.

When HIH was placed into liquidation, the plaintiffs lodged proofs
of debt in respect of their losses, but the Liquidators and scheme
administrators, the defendants in the proceedings, did not admit
their proofs.  The plaintiffs then sought orders from the Supreme
Court of NSW that their proofs of debt be admitted.

Decision

The critical issue in this case was whether indirect causation was
available to the plaintiffs.

The relevant sections of the TPA and the Corporations Law (now,
effectively, section 1041H of the Corporations Act) required a
plaintiff to establish that the loss or damage they suffered by
the plaintiffs was caused "by" the contravening conduct.  As
discussed in HIH, previous decisions have established that it is
not necessary that the plaintiffs establish that the contravening
conduct was the sole cause of any relevant loss; it suffices if
the conduct was a cause of the relevant loss, in the sense that it
materially contributed to that loss or damage.

The plaintiffs put to the Court that:

   -- the contravening conduct regarding the company's operating
profit misled the market into attributing an inflated value to HIH
shares

   -- the plaintiffs acquired their shares in that inflated
market, and

   -- the plaintiffs thus paid more than they would otherwise have
paid for the same shares.

The defendants relied on longstanding authorities supporting the
need for direct reliance, (see Digi-Tech (Australia) Ltd v
Brand[2004] NSWCA 58 (2004) 62 IPR 184 and Ingot Capital
Investments Pty Ltd v Macquarie Equity Capital Markets Ltd [2008]
NSWCA 206).  They argued a person such as a shareholder who claims
to have suffered loss by entering into a transaction (such as
purchasing a share) must establish that they had regard to the
allegedly misleading information available (direct reliance).

In finding in favour of the plaintiffs, Justice Brereton
distinguished the facts from previous authorities, concluding
that:

   -- Digi-Tech and Ingot did not involve 'market-based
causation'; Digi-Tech involved a decision to invest in a scheme
and Ingot involved a decision to participate in a converting note
issue.

   -- Digi-Tech and Ingot concerned situations where the effect of
the contravening conduct was to contribute to the opportunity for
the investor to enter into a transaction. Arguably, but for the
contravening conduct, the investors would not have entered into a
transaction.

   -- Digi-Tech and Ingot concerned scenarios in which the
alternatives were 'transaction' or 'no transaction', but HIH was
different: the alternatives were not 'transaction' or no
'transaction', but rather a transaction at a lower or higher
price, in which the contravening conduct had the necessary
consequence that a higher price would exist.

Justice Brereton established the chain of causation as follows:

   -- HIH released overstated Financial Results to the market
the market was deceived into a misapprehension that HIH was
trading more profitably than it really was and had greater net
assets than it really had;

   -- HIH shares traded on the market at an inflated price, and
investors paid that inflated price to acquire their shares, and
suffered loss.

Justice Brereton then concluded at [77] that:

:I do not see how the absence of direct reliance by the plaintiffs
on the overstated accounts denies that the publication of those
accounts caused them loss, if they purchased shares at a price set
by a market which was inflated by the contravening conduct: the
contravening conduct caused the market on which the shares traded
to be distorted, which in turn caused loss to investors who
acquired the shares in that market at the distorted price.  In the
absence of any suggestion that any of the plaintiffs knew the
truth about, or were indifferent to, the contravening conduct, but
proceeded to buy the shares nevertheless. I conclude that
'indirect causation' is available and direct reliance need not be
established."

Loss

The contravening conduct caused the HIH shares to be inflated.  In
assessing the damages, his Honour admitted at that the assessment
of damages, particularly where hypothetical scenarios are
involved, is a difficult task and it involves a degree of
speculation.

In calculating the loss suffered by the plaintiffs, Justice
Brereton concluded that the appropriate measure is represented by
the difference between the price at which HIH shares actually
traded on the market, and the hypothetical price achieved had the
contravening conduct not occurred.

Next Steps

Justice Brereton's decision in HIH is subject to appeal.
Ultimately, the debate of whether indirect causation is available
under Australian law is likely to be resolved by an appellate
court.


HOME PROPERTIES: Court Denies Jarzyna's Bid for Reconsideration
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARIUSZ G. JARZYNA, Plaintiff, v. HOME
PROPERTIES, L.P., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 10-4191
(E.D. Pa.), Judge Eduardo C. Robreno denied the plaintiff's Motion
to Allow Reply Memorandum, which the judge construed as a motion
for reconsideration of its rulings on the parties' motions for
summary judgment.

In his motion, Mariusz G. Jarzyna asked the court to reinstate his
claims against the defendant, Home Properties, L.P. under
Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
and Pennsylvania's Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act.

Judge Robreno denied Jarzyna's motion because it had previously
considered Jarzyna's arguments when deciding the parties' summary
judgment motions and motions for reconsideration, Jarzyna's motion
was untimely, and Jarzyna's arguments concerning application of
his security deposit toward the 30-day notice fee are not
supported by the record.

A full-text copy of Judge Robreno's May 6, 2016 memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/V4s4q2 from Leagle.com.

MARIUSZ G. JARZYNA, Plaintiff, represented by FRANCIS J. FARINA,
JACOB T. THIELEN, O'KEEFE MILLER & THIELEN PC & JOSEPH A. O'KEEFE,
O'KEEFE, MILLER & THIELEN, P.C..

HOME PROPERTIES, L.P., Defendant, represented by CANDIDUS K.
DOUGHERTY -- cdougherty@swartzcampbell.com -- SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC.

FAIR COLLECTIONS AND OUTSOURCING, INC., FAIR COLLECTIONS AND
OUTSOURCING, INC., represented by RONALD S. CANTER, THE LAW
OFFICES OF RONALD S. CANTER LLC.


INTOUCH MOBILE: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Lopez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Intouch Mobile, Inc., Intouch Mobile, LLC, and Does 1
to 100, inclusive, Case No. BC619823 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 9,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants operate a T-Mobile Wireless services company
headquartered at 100 N. Citrus St. West Covina, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin T. Barnes, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES
      5670 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1460
      Los Angeles, CA 90036
      Facsimile: (323) 549-0101
      Telephone: (323) 549-9100
      E-mail: Barnes@kbarnes.com


IRSA INVERSIONES: Sued in Penn. Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stefan Sachsenberg, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Irsa Inversiones Y Representaciones Sociedad
Anonima, Eduardo Sergio Elsztain, Cresud Sociedad Anonima
Comercial, Inmobiliaria, Financiera Y Agropecuaria, Saul Zang, and
Matias IV A.N Gaivironsky, Case No. 2:16-cv-02213-PD (E.D. Penn.,
May 9, 2016), alleges that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

Irsa Inversiones Y Representaciones Sociedad Anonima is a real
estate company that engages in a range of diversified real
estates-related activities in Argentina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
      Gener Haklay, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM PA
      101 Greenwood Ave Suite 203
      Philadelphia, PA 19046
      Telephone: (215) 600-2817
      Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
      E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com
              ghaklay@rosenlegal.com

         - and -

      Laurence Rosen, Esq.
      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 686-1060
      Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
              pkim@rosenlegal.com


J.G. WENTWORTH: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss
--------------------------------------------------
The J.G. Wentworth Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is awaiting
a court decision on the motion to dismiss it filed in the case
against one of its subsidiaries, J. G. Wentworth Originations,
pending in Illinois state court.

The Company said, "In February 2014, a purported class action
filing was made against us and our subsidiaries in the Circuit
Court, 20th Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois. The
class action complaint, as amended, alleges that we violated the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act by,
among other things, marketing, soliciting, and engaging in
transfers of structured settlement payment rights despite
knowledge of anti-assignment clauses in the underlying structured
settlement agreements, and also alleges common law fraud, breach
of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing and violations
of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
based on the same structured settlement purchase transactions. The
plaintiffs seek to have the prior transfers declared void. The
case was removed to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois, transferred to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and
subsequently remanded back to the Circuit Court of the 20th
Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois due to a finding that
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois lacked subject matter jurisdiction."

"Following the remand, upon our appeal, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois had subject
matter jurisdiction over the matter and remanded the case back to
that court.

"On April 10, 2015, one of the plaintiffs from the above mentioned
proceeding filed a new action in the Circuit Court, 20th Judicial
Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois, against one of our
subsidiaries, J. G. Wentworth Originations, LLC, alleging similar
facts and violations as the previously filed matter, and also
requesting that each qualified order obtained be declared void. We
responded to the proceeding, noting that we believe the
plaintiff's claims are without merit. This case was ultimately
transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois and we await a decision on dismissal."

J.G. Wentworth is a diversified financial services company that
specializes in providing solutions to consumers in need of cash.


J. SALERNO: "Gonzales" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
Santiago Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. J. Salerno & Son, Inc. and
Joseph Salerno, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05120
(N.D. Ill., May 10, 2016), seeks statutory damages, reasonable
attorney fees and costs and such other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Defendants operate a restaurant called Salerno's located in
downtown Chicago where Plaintiff worked as a chef. He claims to be
denied overtime pay.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joel A. Brodsky, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JOEL A. BRODSKY
      8 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 3200
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312) 541-7000
      Email: jbrodsky@joelbrodskylaw.com

           - and -

      Chris R. Brockman
      8 S. Michigan Ave., Ste. 3200
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (773) 234-4974
           (312) 541-7000
      Email: chris@chrisbrockmanlaw.com


J.M. HOLM: Faces "Arredondo" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ARREDONDO, Plaintiff, v. J.M. HOLM & CO., INC., and TODD
NELMS, INDIVIDUALLY, Defendants, Case 4:16-cv-01317 (S.D. Tex.,
May 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

J.M. Holm & Co., Inc. specializes in industrial cleaning and
coatings.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark Siurek, Esq.
     3334 Richmond, Suite 100
     Houston, TX 77098
     Phone: 713-522-0066
     Fax: 713-522-9977
     E-mail: msiurek@warrensiurek.com

        - and -

     WARREN & SIUREK, L.L.P.
     Patricia Haylon
     3334 Richmond, Suite 100
     Houston, TX 77098
     Phone: 713-522-0066
     Fax: 713-522-9977
     E-mail: thaylon@warrensiurek.com


JAMIE'S WHALING: Responds to Whale-Watching Accident Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Metronews.ca reports that the deadly capsizing of a whale-watching
vessel off Vancouver Island last year was an "act of God" that
could not have been reasonably predicted nor prevented, says the
owner of a tour operator.

Jamie Bray of Jamie's Whaling Station in Tofino, B.C., filed a
court document responding to a proposed class-action lawsuit
launched by brothers Christian and Dirk Barchfeld.

The German siblings were aboard the Leviathan II on Oct. 25, 2015,
when the 20-metre vessel flipped, killing six people.  They are
accusing the company of negligence for allowing the Leviathan II
out in treacherous ocean conditions.

The response to a civil claim praised Capt. Wayne Dolby, who is
also named in the lawsuit, as well as other employees, for their
life-saving actions.

"The captain and crew successfully pulled a number of passengers
into the life raft and were attempting to rescue other passengers
when vessels, which saw the deployed parachute rocket, and then
the Canadian Coast Guard vessel, attended to provide rescue
services," says the document filed in B.C. Supreme Court.

It describes the Leviathan II as properly equipped and certified
by Transport Canada, as well as complying with regulations
regarding life-jackets and the distribution of passengers around
the sightseeing craft.

"The capsize occurred through a combination of sea conditions,
wind and waves generated naturally in such a manner as to be
unforeseeable and not preventable by exercise of ordinary care,
caution and maritime skill," the document says.

"Injury, loss, damage or expense was caused by an act of God, was
totally accidental and/or unforeseeable in nature, or was caused
or contributed by the negligence of others not presently known."

None of the allegations have been tested in court.

One Australian and five Britons died after the Leviathan II
overturned with 24 passengers and three crew on board.  The craft
had a 46-person capacity.

The Transportation Safety Board is conducting an investigation to
determine what caused the vessel to capsize.

The Barchfeld brothers, who were vacationing in Canada, are
seeking compensation for alleged physical and psychological
injuries.

Five legal actions have already been filed in Federal Court
involving 34 people in relation to the Leviathan II, says the
response to civil claim.

The tour operator argues in the document that the lawsuit should
not be granted class-action status and that the action would be
better heard in Federal Court so the question of liability can be
answered alongside five preceding suits.

The court document says that if any injury or loss was suffered,
the blame lies with the case plaintiffs for not taking proper
steps to mitigate any damage.  That includes failing to seek or
follow medical advice and failing to resume employment as soon as
possible.


JUST LUNCH: Customer Files Class Action Against Houston Franchise
-----------------------------------------------------------------
L.M. Sixel, writing for Houston Chronicle, reports that
Jolynn Johnston, a resident of Fort Bend County, was very specific
when she paid $12,000 to the dating service It's Just Lunch.  She
wanted to meet physically active men about her age, 50, who didn't
have facial hair, tattoos or children.

The service arranged six dates.  Two of the men had tattoos and
beards. Another wanted children.  One was in a back brace.

Needless to say, Johnston was not happy, and she became one of the
many dissatisfied customers who have sued It's Just Lunch, a
national franchise with a location in Houston.  More than 130,000
clients are part of a separate class-action lawsuit in federal
court in New York, where It's Just Lunch recently agreed to a
settlement valued at $65 million.  As part of the settlement, most
of the clients will receive vouchers for two free dates, each
valued at about $450.

Ms. Johnston sued the Houston franchise in state district court in
Fort Bend under the state deceptive trade practices act, claiming
the matchmaker knew it could not deliver on its promise to find
suitable partners.  She is seeking a refund of her $12,000 fee
along with $36,000 in damages.

She was asked to join the New York class-action suit, but opted
against it.  "We laughed," recalled Nancy Knox-Bierman,
Ms. Johnston's lawyer, at the possibility of more excursions with
poorly matched suitors.

Peter Shapiro, the lawyer representing It's Just Lunch in the
New York class-action case, did not respond to requests for
comment.  Trevor Hall, owner of the Houston franchise of It's Just
Lunch, declined to comment on the suit, citing client
confidentiality, which prevents him from talking about customers.

"We have always maintained the highest level of integrity and
honesty in how we serve our clients and have thousands upon
thousands of very happy clients as a result," Mr. Hall said in a
statement.

Ms. Johnston declined to be interviewed, her lawyer said.
Ms. Johnston did not return a call seeking comment.

It's Just Lunch is based in Florida and bills itself as a
personalized dating service that arranges lunch dates or after-
work drinks in low-pressure settings.  The company, which got its
start in 1991, sells franchises across the country.

Ms. Johnston found out about It's Just Lunch from seeing an
advertisement in an airline magazine, according to her lawyer. She
signed up after visiting the company's Galleria-area office.

Ms. Johnston, who owns an accounting business, lost her longtime
partner in a motor vehicle accident, according to her lawyer.  A
busy professional, she upgraded to the company's "Elite" service
as a way to find suitable men more quickly.

"She didn't want to go on a million lousy dates," said Ms.
Knox-Bierman.  Ms. Johnston's experiences were not unique,
according to the New York class-action suit.  One It's Just Lunch
member, a vegetarian, said she was paired with a pig farmer who
described how he shoots his hogs behind the ear before
slaughtering them, according to court documents.  Another said she
was paired with a man 6 inches shorter when she specifically said
she wanted someone as tall as her.

Other dating companies have run into legal difficulties.  One site
was sued for failing to prevent its clients from using stock
photos of more photogenic people as their profile pictures.  Other
users have complained the sites aren't vetted for felons.

Two years ago, the Federal Trade Commission reached a settlement
with a dating service that generated fake computer-generated
profiles to lure users into buying memberships to meet the man or
woman of their dreams.  The British company paid $616,165 to
settle the claim.

Diana Karni, a consumer rights lawyer in Houston, said disputes
over dating services often turn on what exactly the companies are
promising.  Are they promising a pool of candidates who can meet a
client's every criterion? Or, are they merely offering a pool of
candidates in which clients might find a match?

"What if he has everything she wants but he's tattooed from head
to toe?" said Ms. Karni, who represents consumers but is not
familiar with the Johnston case.  "At what point do they need to
make a determination not to match them up for lunch?"

Emotion also comes into play, affecting the decisions of those
looking for love, much as it can affect car buyers giddy over the
latest model.

"They can't really read the fine print because they're reading it
with rose-colored glasses," said Ms. Karni.

Documents in the class-action suit detailed some of the tactics
that It's Just Lunch used to land clients.  If one was reluctant,
the salespeople were instructed to say they had two suitors in
mind and ask when the new client might be available for an
introduction, according to a tip sheet from "First Date
University," the training program for It's Just Lunch franchises.
The advice was on file as part of the New York case.

Employees were also instructed to emphasize the size of their
database of potential matches.  "Reach over and grab your big
stack of contracts on the clipboard," according to the tip sheet.

Federal anti-discrimination measures prohibit employers and
businesses from making hiring and public accommodation decisions
based on race, sex, age, religion and national origin. Matchmaking
service can't turn customers away based on age, sex, race,
disability, religion and other protected factors, said
Rick Anderson -- randerson@rmwbhlaw.com -- trial lawyer with
Roberts Markel Weinberg Butler Hailey in Houston.

But once they join, dating service members can state preferences
based on those same protected factors, said Mr. Anderson, who
represents companies sued over deceptive trade practices.


LANGSTON CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Employees OT, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bismark Mairena-Rivera, on behalf of himself and other persons
similarly situated v. Langston Construction, LLC and Composite
Architectural Design Systems, LLC, and Michael Langston, Case No.
2:16-cv-04493 (E.D. Lo., May 9, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours a workweek.

Langston Construction, LLC is in the business of installing
precast concrete structural framing or panels and prefabricated
windows and doors for commercial projects in various states,
including Florida and Louisiana.

Composite Architectural Design Systems, LLC is in the business of
fabricating and installing aluminum composite material panels for
commercial construction projects in various states, including
Florida and Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
      William H. Beaumont, Esq.
      Emily Westermeier, Esq.
      COSTALES LAW OFFICE
      3801 Canal Street,Suite 207
      New Orleans, LA 70119
      Telephone: (504) 534-5005
      E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com
              whbeaumont@gmail.com
              emily.costaleslawoffice@gmail.com


LG ELECTRONICS: Sued in Minnesota Over False Product Labels
-----------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Hudock and Breann Hudock, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., Best
Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P., and Bestbuy.Com, LLC, Case
No. 0:16-cv-01220 (D. Minn., May 9, 2016), is brought on behalf of
all consumers who purchased LG televisions labeled as having
refresh rates of "120Hz" or "240Hz" when, in actuality, its
televisions' refresh rates are 60Hz and 120Hz, respectively.

LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. sells home appliances, entertainment
products, mobile communications products, and business solutions
in the United States.

Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P., and Bestbuy.Com, LLC
operates a consumer electronics corporation headquartered in
Richfield, Minnesota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David M. Cialkowski, Esq.
      Jason R. Lee, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
      1100 IDS Center, 80 S. 8th
      St. Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 341-0400
      E-mail: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com
              jason.lee@zimmreed.com

         - and -

      Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
      Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
      GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
      Canadian Pacific Plaza
      120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 333-8844
      E-mail: dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
              jbourne@gustafsongluek.com

         - and -

      Luke P. Hudock, Esq.
      HUDOCK LAW GROUP, S.C.
      P.O. Box 83
      Muskego, WI 53150
      Telephone: (414) 526-4906
      E-mail: lphudock@law-hlg.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Class Action Over Bamboo Flooring
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tony Statz, writing for ClickonDetroit, reports that there have
been a rash of headlines about Lumber Liquidators and a federal
investigation surrounding the safety of some Chinese-made
flooring.

The flooring company also is facing a national class-action
lawsuit over concerns about the quality of some bamboo flooring.

A local family shared their story as a warning to customers in
metro Detroit.

"It was just demoralizing because we spent all this money and . .
. we're left with a house that has problems all over the
flooring," said James Rose, who has been working on this battle
with his parents.

First, a look back at a rocky time for Lumber Liquidators. In
March of 2015, CBS "60 Minutes" reported the retailer's laminates
from China contained excessive level of formaldehyde.  Months
later, the company stopped the sale of all Chinese-made flooring
and the CEO resigned. Lumber Liquidators offered free independent
air quality tests to give customers objective, scientific
information about the flooring it has sold.

Bamboo flooring battle

As that problem was making national headlines, the Rose family of
Lake Orion was fighting it's own battle with Lumber Liquidators
over the Morning Star bamboo flooring they purchased in late 2014.
The family paid about $11,000 for the flooring and installation
started in February of 2015.

The contractor hired by the family, Tom Perry, says he saw
problems with the flooring immediately.  He says the bamboo
started to separate just days after he started to lay it down.

"I've never had issue like this with any kind of flooring I've put
in," said Mr. Perry, who has been in the home renovation business
for 40 years. "I've worked with wood for a long time. I know it
expands and retracts . . . but this wood started doing it two to
three days after we installed it."

The family was frustrated and started to appeal to Lumber
Liquidators, looking for solutions.  The contractor, Tom Perry,
says he's guided several clients to Lumber Liquidators for
flooring and never had an issue until now. He says a salesman told
the family they wouldn't have any issues with the bamboo for 30
years.

Class-action lawsuit

That claim is reflected in a class-action lawsuit filed in
California in December of 2014.  Although it's received less
publicity than the safety concerns, the suit raises some questions
about Lumber Liquidators Morning Star bamboo flooring.

The suit alleges Lumber Liquidators has created expectations that
its bamboo flooring will last for 30 years, but claims "the
product is subject to premature cracking, splitting, warping, and
shrinking all well before the warranted useful life."

The Rose family has reached out to the law firm behind the class-
action suit and is considering whether they might join the suit or
file their own legal action.

"It's very upsetting because we're just a small family and we're
going up against a multi-billion dollar corporation," said
James Rose.

Lumber Liquidators response

In a letter to the Rose family, Lumber Liquidators blames the
issues in their home on problems with installation and complaints
there may have been too much humidity in the family's Lake Orion
home.

The contractor, Tom Perry, says he followed all the manufacturer
specifications for installation.  Mr. Perry and the Rose family
are surprised humidity is getting the blame especially in
Michigan.

"Their humidity level, I think, as far as any house in Michigan is
regulated as good as you can get it," said Mr. Perry.

The Rose family would still like a full refund but Lumber
Liquidators is not budging.

The family says they never thought to ask the salesperson about
humidity levels in their home before buying the bamboo flooring,
and they want other customers in Michigan to know that's
apparently something you should be asking when you're at the
store.

"I don't understand why they would sell a product in an area that
has humidity that would impact all the homes," asks James Rose.

Help Me Hank contacted Lumber Liquidators on behalf of the Rose
family.  The company said it could not discuss the lawsuit as it
does not comment on pending litigation.

A spokesperson released this statement:

"Lumber Liquidators' bamboo products are popular and beautiful
flooring options that, like all flooring products, require proper
installation and a suitable home environment for peak performance.
Lumber Liquidators clearly communicates these processes and
requirements to customers at the time of purchase. Nonetheless, we
regret Mr. Rose's experience and sent an inspector to his home.
The inspector found that the contractor did not test for moisture
as required and failed to install transition strips that allow
floating floors to move as intended. These issues were compounded
by humidity levels in the home above 55 percent, a level that's
not only not ideal for flooring, but breeds mold and other health
issues.  Lumber Liquidators recommends ensuring a thorough
understanding of the product instructions before purchase and
installation."


MARYLAND: Silver Spring Residents Sue Over Purple Line Route
------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Simmons, writing for FOX5, reports that some Silver Spring
residents who live along the proposed Purple Line light rail route
are gearing up for a fight in court.  They have filed a class
action lawsuit against the Maryland Transit Administration
claiming the authority is short-changing them on a fair price for
the land they need for construction.

For Andrew Hoddick, there will not be much of a front yard left
once construction on Purple Line begins.  The 16-mile light rail
project will extend from Bethesda to New Carrollton.  Mr. Hoddick
told FOX 5 he is not against the Purple Line at all.

"It's not about that," he said.  "It's about what is just
compensation.  The property will be diminished. The train will be
relatively close to our house and the state has said they don't
expect there to be any diminished value to the rest of the
property.  I don't think that's true."

Mr. Hoddick's next door neighbor, Isaac Kunnirickal, said he may
consider joining the lawsuit.  He said adding up the amount the
state wants to pay for a chunk of his front yard and the property
value hit he will likely take, the MTA's offer is a fraction of
what it should be.

"It's like taking your head off of your human body," he said.  "If
somebody takes your hand or your brain, it makes a difference,
right? It's going to come right from the front of the house, so
that's a problem."

Construction on the Purple Line is expected to begin later this
year on the Prince George's County side.


MAXPOINT INTERACTIVE: Seeks Dismissal of IPO Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
MaxPoint Interactive, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 16, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in 2015 class action
lawsuit related to its initial public offering, the Company filed
a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on March 24, 2016.
The Lead Plaintiff is due to file an opposition to that motion in
mid-May, and the Company anticipates that the motion will be fully
briefed by mid-June.

The Company said, "We, certain of our officers and directors, and
certain investment banking firms who acted as underwriters in
connection with our initial public offering, have been named as
defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed August 31,
2015 in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act by not including
information regarding customer concentration, which the complaint
characterizes as a known trend and/or significant factor required
to be disclosed under federal securities regulations. The
complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest and other costs."

"The Court appointed a Lead Plaintiff on November 18, 2015, and on
January 19, 2016 the Lead Plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint that repeats the same substantive allegations included
in the initial complaint and continues to seek unspecified
damages."

"We dispute the claims alleged in the lawsuit and intend to defend
this matter vigorously."

MaxPoint is a marketing technology company that generates
hyperlocal intelligence to optimize brand and retail performance.


MDL 1203: Court Awards Atty. Fees, Expenses to Levin Fishbein
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE/
FENFLURAMINE/DEXFENFLURAMINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. THIS
DOCUMENT RELATES TO: SHEILA BROWN, et al., v. AMERICAN HOME
PRODUCTS CORPORATION,  MDL No. 1203, No. 99-20593 (E.D. Pa.),
Judge Harvey Bartle III awarded attorneys' fees and expenses to
Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman for work performed in 2015.

Levin-Fishbein, in its respective capacity as Plaintiffs' Liaison
Counsel ("PLC"), Co-Lead Counsel for the Plaintiffs, and Class
Counsel, petitioned for an award of attorneys' fees and expense
reimbursements relating to work performed from January 1, 2015
through December 31, 2015. The court has previously awarded fees
in Pretrial Order ("PTO") Nos. 7763A, 8516, 8646, 8869, 9102,
9294, and 9398.

Levin-Fishbein sought an aggregate award of attorneys' fees in the
amount of $751,037.50 from the AHP Settlement Trust (the "Trust")
pursuant to the stipulation between Wyeth and Class Counsel with
regard to the funding of future awards of class-related fees that
was approved in PTO No. 9297.

In addition, Levin-Fishbein requested an award of attorneys' fees
in the amount of $751,037.50 to be paid from the MDL 1203 Fee and
Cost account for MDL-related services performed during 2015.

Finally, Levin-Fishbein incurred $12,874.18 in litigation expenses
during 2015.  The court has already authorized payment of
$4,948.56 of these expenses from the MDL 1203 Fee and Cost
Account.  Pursuant to PTO No. 7763, Levin-Fishbein sought an order
directing the Settlement Fund to reimburse $2,474.28 to the MDL
1203 Fee and Cost Account.  Levin-Fishbein petitioned for
reimbursement of the remaining $7,925.62 in out-of-pocket expenses
to be allocated for payment equally as between the Settlement Fund
and the MDL 1203 Fee and Cost Account.

Judge Bartle found that the requested 2015 award is reasonable.
The judge granted an award of $751,037.50 from the MDL 1203 Fee
and Cost Account.  Judge Bartle also directed that the settlement
fund reimburse the MDL 1203 Fee and Cost Account in the amount of
$2,474.28, which represents 50 percent of the expenses paid from
the MDL 1203 Fee and Cost Account during 2015.  The judge also
ordered that 50 percent of the out-of-pocket costs advanced by the
Levin-Fishbein be reimbursed to it from the MDL 1203 Fee and Cost
Account and the remaining 50 percent be reimbursed from the
settlement fund.

A full-text copy of Judge Bartle's May 6, 2016 memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/duhnMQ from Leagle.com.

IN RE: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE, FENFLURAMINE, DEXFENFLURAMINE)
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, IN RE:, represented by ANDREW A.
CHIRLS -- achirls@finemanlawfirm.com -- FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS
PC, ARNOLD LEVIN -- alevin@lfsblaw.com -- LEVIN FISHBEIN SEDRAN &
BERMAN, GERALD COOPER KELL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, JOHN
FITZPATRICK -- jfitzpatrick@hdp.com -- HARNES DICKET PIERCE PLC,
JULES S. HENSHELL -- jhenshell@sogtlaw.com -- SEMANOFF ORMSBY
GREENBERG & TORCHIA LLC, ROBB W. PATRYK --
robb.patryk@hugheshubbard.com -- HUGHES HUBBARD AND REED, ROBERT
A. LIMBACHER -- rlimbacher@gdldlaw.com -- Goodell, DeVries, Leech
& Dann LLP, ROBERT N. SPINELLI -- rspinelli@kjmsh.com -- KELLEY
JASONS MCGOWAN SPINELLI & HANNA, LLP, THEODORE V. MAYER --
ted.mayer@hugheshubbard.com -- HUGHES HUBBARD AND REED & RAND
NOLEN, FLEMING, NOLEN & JEZ LLP.

HEATHER C. GIORDANELLA, Special Master, represented by HEATHER C.
GIORDANELLA -- heather.giordanella@dbr.com -- DRINKER BIDDLE &
REATH LLP.


MDL 2357: Court Rules on Zappos' Bid to Dismiss
-----------------------------------------------
In the case captioned In re ZAPPOS.COM, INC., CUSTOMER DATA
SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION, No. 3:12-cv-00325-RCJ-VPC, MDL No.
2357 (D. Nev.), Judge Robert C. Jones granted in part and denied,
in part, the Motion to Dismiss filed by the defendant, Amazon.com,
Inc., doing business as Zappos.com ("Zappos").  The judge also
granted the defendant's Motion to Strike, three Motions to Seal,
and a Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages.

The Court said the so-called Prior Plaintiffs -- the Preira
Plaintiffs (Preira, Ree, Simon, Hasner, Habashy, and Nobles) and
the Stevens Plaintiffs (Stevens, Penson, Elliot, Brown, Seal,
Relethford, and Braxton) -- have failed to allege instances of
actual identity theft or fraud, as the Court gave them leave to
do. The Court dismissed Prior Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice.

As to the new Plaintiffs -- Kristin O'Brien and Terri Wadsworth --
the Court said that at this stage of the case it is sufficient for
purposes of standing to allege that Zappos sent its customers an
e-mail notifying them that their PII had been compromised in a
breach of its servers and that actual fraud occurred as a direct
result of the breach. Whether or not New Plaintiffs' allegations
suffer from defects that prevent them from ultimately prevailing
in the case, the allegations show the connection between the
alleged injury and breach is more than just hypothetical or
tenuous. The Court finds that New Plaintiffs have standing.

The multidistrict litigation case arose out of a security breach
of Zappo.com's customer data.

A full-text copy of Judge Jones's May 6, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/hylcYd from Leagle.com.

In re Zappos.com, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation,
represented by Brian C. Frontino -- bfrontino@stroock.com -- Julia
B Strickland -- jstrickland@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock &
Lavan LLP, pro hac vice, Robert R. McCoy -- mccoy@kcnvlaw.com --
Kaempfer Crowell & Stephen J. Newman -- snewman@stroock.com --
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP.

Robert Ree, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow --
b.barnow@barnowlaw.com -- Barnow and Associates, P.C., D. Greg
Blankinship -- gblankinship@fbfglaw.com -- Finkelstein,
Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, David C OMara --
david@omaralaw.net -- The OMara Law Firm, P.C., Jeremiah Frei-
Pearson -- jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.co -- Finkelstein, Blankinship,
Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, Jon A Tostrud --
jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com -- Tostrud Law Group, P.C., pro hac vice,
Kara M Wolke -- kwolke@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray
LLP, Marc L. Godino -- mgodino@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP, pro hac vice & Shin Young Hahn, Finkelstein,
Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP.

Stephanie Priera, Shari Simon, Plaintiffs, represented by Ben
Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C., D. Greg Blankinship,
Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, Jeremiah
Frei-Pearson, Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber,
LLP, Marc L. Godino, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice,
Robert A Winner, Winner & Carson, P.C., Shin Young Hahn,
Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP & David C
OMara, The OMara Law Firm, P.C..

Kathryn Vorhoff, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and
Associates, P.C., D. Greg Blankinship, Finkelstein, Blankinship,
Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Finkelstein,
Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, Marc L. Godino, Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice, Robert A Winner, Winner &
Carson, P.C. & David C OMara, The OMara Law Firm, P.C..

Ms. Dahlia Habashy, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremiah Frei-
Pearson, Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, Ben
Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C., D. Greg Blankinship,
Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, Marc L.
Godino, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice, Shin Young
Hahn, Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP & David
C OMara, The OMara Law Firm, P.C..

Theresa D. Stevens, Plaintiff, represented by Edward K Wood, Wood
Law Firm, LLC, Lance A Harke, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Timothy
Gordon Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP, Ben Barnow, Barnow and
Associates, P.C., pro hac vice, David C OMara, The OMara Law Firm,
P.C., Erich Schork, Barnow and Associates, P.C., Mark Gray, Gray &
White, pro hac vice &Richard L. Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm.

Stacy Penson, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and
Associates, P.C., Charles T. Lester, Jr., pro hac vice, David C
OMara, The OMara Law Firm, P.C., Howard M Bushman, Harke Clasby &
Bushman LLP, Lance A Harke, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP & Richard
L. Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm.

Tara J. Elliott, Brooke C. Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Ben
Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C., David C OMara, The OMara Law
Firm, P.C., Edward K Wood, Wood Law Firm, LLC, Lawrence Lee Jones,
II, Jones Ward PLC & Richard L. Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm.

Christa Seal, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and
Associates, P.C., David C OMara, The OMara Law Firm, P.C. & Edward
K Wood, Wood Law Firm, LLC.

Christa Seal, Kentucky Western, 3:12-cv-00037, Plaintiff,
represented by Lawrence Lee Jones, II, Jones Ward PLC.
Christa Seal, Plaintiff, represented by Richard L. Coffman, The
Coffman Law Firm.

Zetha Nobles, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and
Associates, P.C., D. Greg Blankinship, Finkelstein, Blankinship,
Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Finkelstein,
Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, Marc L. Godino, Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice,Reginald V. Terrell, The
Terrell Law Group, Shin Young Hahn, Finkelstein, Blankinship,
Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP & David C OMara, The OMara Law Firm,
P.C..

Patti Hasner, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and
Associates, P.C., D. Greg Blankinship, Finkelstein, Blankinship,
Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Finkelstein,
Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, Marc L. Godino, Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice,Robert A Winner, Winner &
Carson, P.C., Shin Young Hahn, Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-
Pearson & Garber, LLP & David C OMara, The OMara Law Firm, P.C..

Denise Relethford, Emily E. Braxton, Plaintiffs, represented by
David C OMara, The OMara Law Firm, P.C. & Ben Barnow, Barnow and
Associates, P.C..

Amazon.com, Inc., dba Zappos.com, Defendant, represented by Brian
C. Frontino, Christine R Fitzgerald, Belcher, Starr & Fitzgerald,
LLP, David C OMara, The OMara Law Firm, P.C., Jeffrey B Bell,
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Julia B Strickland, Stroock &
Stroock & Lavan LLP, pro hac vice, Robert R. McCoy, Kaempfer
Crowell & Stephen J. Newman, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP.


MEDSTAR HEALTH: Court Narrows Plaintiffs in Hospital Staff Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DANIELLE FREEMAN, et al., Plaintiffs v.
MEDSTAR HEALTH INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 14-628
(CKK) (D.C.), Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly granted in part and
denied, in part, the defendants' motion for partial summary
judgment as to the plaintiffs Melissa Gayle, Raina McCray,
Lorraine Tyeryar, and Cherry Graziosl.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly granted the motion with respect to Gayle,
McCray, and Tyeryar, but denied the motion with respect to
Graziosi.

A full-text copy of Judge Kollar-Kotelly's May 9, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/fBVLeD from
Leagle.com.

The plaintiffs are current and former hospital employees who
brought claims against MedStar Health, Inc. and against six
MedStar hospitals.  The hospital defendants are two District of
Columbia hospitals -- Washington Hospital Center and Georgetown
University Hospital -- and four Maryland hospitals-Franklin Square
Hospital, Harbor Hospital, Union Memorial Hospital, and Good
Samaritan Hospital.  Essentially, the plaintiffs claimed that they
were not paid for work that they conducted during their meal
breaks.  Under Count I, the plaintiffs brought individual claims
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) against each of the
defendants and sought to bring collective action claims under the
FLSA with respect to four hospitals (Franklin Square, Harbor,
Union Memorial, and Washington Hospital Center).  Under Count II,
the plaintiffs employed at the D.C. hospitals brought individual
claims pursuant to the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act.  The
plaintiffs also sought to bring collective action claims with
respect to Washington Hospital Center.  Finally, the plaintiffs
employed at the Maryland hospitals brought individual claims
pursuant to the Maryland Wage and Hour Law (Count III) and
pursuant to the Maryland Wage Payment Collection Law (Count IV).

DANIELLE FREEMAN, LISA BRASWELL, MARGARET BROWN, DOROTHY
EGGLESTON, MELISSA GAYLE, CHERRY GRAZIOSI, RAINA MCCRAY, DONNA
ROWAN, LORRAINE TYERYAR, BETTYE TEAL, CATHLEEN KELLER, JANICE
HARRIS, DONET DURRANT, LINDA HAGANS, Plaintiffs, represented by
David J. Cohen, KOLMAN ELY, PC, Jason S. Rathod --
jrathod@classlawdc.com -- MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP & Nicholas A
Migliaccio -- nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com -- MIGLIACCIO LAW FIRM
PLLC.

CYNTHIA SCOTT, Plaintiff, represented by Jason S. Rathod,
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP & Nicholas A Migliaccio, MIGLIACCIO LAW
FIRM PLLC.

MEDSTAR HEALTH INC., MEDSTAR WASHINGTON HOSPITAL CENTER, MEDSTAR
FRANKLIN SQUARE MEDICAL CENTER, MEDSTAR GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY
HOSPITAL, MEDSTAR HARBOR HOSPITAL, MEDSTAR UNION MEMORIAL
HOSPITAL, Defendants, represented by Joshua B. Waxman --
jwaxman@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, Steven E. Kaplan --
skaplan@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., Angelo Spinola,
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. & Sarah Elizabeth Henninger --
lhenninger@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C..


MERCY HEALTH: "Grasle" Sues over Underfunded Retirement Fund
------------------------------------------------------------
Gene Grasle, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. Mercy Health, Mercy Health Benefits
Committee and John Does 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00651
(E.D. Mo., May 10, 2016), seeks preliminary and permanent
injunction removing Defendants as Plan fiduciaries, civil money
penalties, declaratory and injunctive relief, disgorgement of
profits, equitable lien, constructive trust or other remedy,
attorney fees and expenses under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.

Grasle was employed by Mercy Health home health care delivery,
courier/logistics and in the security department.

Mercy Health is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws
of Missouri, headquartered in Chesterfield, Missouri. It is the
sponsor of Mercy Health MyRetirement Personal Pension Account Plan
of which the Plaintiff is a member. Grasle alleges that the Plan
was underfunded by at least $340 million.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Don R. Lolli, Esq.
     DYSART TAYLOR COTTER MCMONIGLE & MONTEMORE, P.C.
     4420 Madison Avenue, Suite 200
     Kansas City, MO 64111
     Telephone: (816) 931-2700
     Facsimile: (816) 931-7377
     Email: dlolli@dysarttaylor.com

           - and -

     Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
     Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
     Julie Siebert-Johnson, Esq.
     KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
     280 King of Prussia Road
     Radnor, PA 19087
     Tel: (610) 667-7706
     Fax: (610) 667-7056
     Email: eciolko@ktmc.com
            mgyandoh@ktmc.com
            jsjohnson@ktmc.com

           - and -

     Robert A. Izard, Esq.
     Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
     Douglas P. Needham, Esq.
     IZARD NOBEL LLP
     29 South Main Street, Suite 305
     West Hartford, CT 06107
     Tel: (860) 493-6292
     Fax: (860) 493-6290
     Email: rizard@izardnobel.com
            mkindall@izardnobel.com
            dneedham@izardnobel.com


MICROFIBRES INC: Trustee Seeks Dismissal of WARN Act Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that
the trustee for defunct Microfibres Inc. is asking a federal
Bankruptcy Court judge to dismiss a WARN Act lawsuit filed by two
former Microfibres employees.

The trustee, Joseph DiOrio, claims the company is not financially
liable to the workforce "because it was a faltering business when
it ceased operations."

The company, based in Pawtucket, R.I., filed for Chapter 7
voluntary bankruptcy protection Jan. 29 with plans to liquidate
its assets -- the same day it closed its Winston-Salem and
Pawtucket plants.

Two Winston-Salem employees, Dawn Phillips and Cedric Williams,
filed an amended WARN complaint Feb. 9.  They request class-action
status for the lawsuit and at least $1.5 million in damages.

About 125 employees in Winston-Salem and 60 in Pawtucket are
projected to be covered by WARN protections.

The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act was enacted
in 1989 with the intent of preventing situations where rank-and-
file employees show up for work only to discover that their
employer has shut down without notice.

The act does this by requiring companies that are planning large
job cuts -- defined as more than 50 employees -- to notify their
state and local governments, as well as affected workers, at least
60 days in advance.  The act provides certain benefits to laid-off
workers, such as 60 days of pay and benefit contributions if the
closing is immediate, and access to COBRA insurance benefits for
60 days.

However, the U.S. Labor Department has no authority to enforce
WARN regulations, hear employee complaints, investigate potential
wrongdoing or file lawsuits representing employees.  Employees
must file a lawsuit in federal court to assert WARN rights.

The local workforce at the 3821 Kimwell Drive plant had as many as
270 employees as recently as 2004.

The company ended U.S. production in response to domestic and
global textiles challenges.

Mr. DiOrio said Microfibres acted in good faith toward its
employees, including paying them "in full for compensation they
were owed."

The plaintiffs want priority administrative claim status for
employees, meaning they typically would be first in line after
secured creditors are paid.  They want the first $12,745 of each
employee's claim listed as a priority administrative claim, and
the remaining amount as a general unsecured claim.

Mr. DiOrio said the plaintiffs should be required to follow the
creditors' process for handling their claims. He argues there is
no legal necessity for a class-action lawsuit involving the WARN
Act.

"Plaintiffs and the proposed class provided no services that
benefited the estate, and any damages they receive are not
entitled to administrative priority," he wrote.

Webster Bank has a $3.1 million secured claim against Microfibres.

Unsecured creditors had claims of $12.6 million.  Among
Microfibres' largest unsecured creditors are $215,683 owed to the
Forsyth County general fund for unpaid taxes; and $107,772 to the
city of Winston-Salem for utilities services.

Employers can be ordered to pay the attorney fees and court costs
of affected workers who sue and win.  Employers who don't give
proper notice to the state may have to pay fines, but that money
goes to the state.


MILES ENTERPRISES: "Jabrani" Suit to Recover Minimum Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Kais Jabrani, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Miles Enterprises, Inc., JMRMJ Pizza LLC
and Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02620-JBS-AMD (D.N.J,
May 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages owed under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Minimum Wage Law.

Defendants operate 26 Domino's franchise stores in New Jersey and
Pennsylvania where the Plaintiff was employed as a delivery driver
to deliver pizzas and other food items to customers. Defendants
allegedly paid below the federal and New Jersey minimum wage rates
and require their delivery drivers to pay for their own uniform.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jack D. McInnes, Esq.
     PAUL McINNES LLP
     601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
     Kansas City, MO 64106
     Telephone: (816) 984-8100
     Facsimile: (816) 984-8101
     Email: mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com

           - and -

     Kenneth B. Fromson, Esq.
     Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
     FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER LLC
     445 Hamilton Ave., Suite 605
     White Plains, NY 10601
     Telephone: (914) 298-3281
     Email: Kfromson@lawampm.com

           - and -

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


MISTRAS GROUP: Settlement Approval Bid in "Viceral" Due June 2
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned EDGAR VICERAL and DAVID KRUEGER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. MISTRAS GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:15-
CV-02198-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen issued an order
vacating all pending dates as a result of the parties' Notice of
Settlement, including the status conference set for May 12, 2016.
Judge Chen also ordered the following briefing and hearing
schedule pursuant to the parties' stipulation to set a preliminary
approval schedule:

          -- Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval shall be
             filed by June 2, 2016.

          -- The hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary
             Approval shall take place before the court on June
             23, 2016 at 1:30 p.m.

The parties have jointly submitted a Joint Status Report, Notice
of Settlement, and Stipulation and Proposed Order to Vacate All
Pending Dates and Set Preliminary Approval Schedule, pursuant to
the court's December 30, 2015 Case Management and Pretrial Order
for Jury Trial and the Clerk's January 13, 2016 Notice.  The
parties further submitted a stipulation to vacate all pending
dates and set preliminary approval schedule pursuant the court's
Standing Order No. 4.

A full-text copy of Judge Chen's May 6, 2016 order is available at
https://is.gd/j79m7S from Leagle.com.

Edgar Viceral, Plaintiff, represented by Stanley Donald Saltzman,
Marlin & Saltzman, Carolyn Hunt Cottrell --
ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Christina Ann Humphrey, Marlin & Saltzman,
Keenan Locks Klein, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns
LLP, Leslie H. Joyner, Marlin Saltzman, LLP, Nicole Nellessen Coon
-- ncoon@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Tina Mehr, Marlin & Saltzman LLP & Walter
Lewis Haines, United Employees Law Group, P.C..

David Krueger, Plaintiff, represented by Carolyn Hunt Cottrell,
Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Stanley Donald
Saltzman, Marlin & Saltzman, Christina Ann Humphrey, Marlin &
Saltzman & Nicole Nellessen Coon, Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky Wotkyns LLP.

Mistras Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joseph Alan
Schwachter -- jschwachter@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Angela
Joy Rafoth -- arafoth@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. &
Richard Keith Chapman -- kchapman@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, PC.


NEW YORK: Two Plaintiffs Withdraw Marathon Claims
-------------------------------------------------
David O. Klein, Esq., of Klein Moynihan Turco LLP, in an article
for Lexology, report that this January, a proposed class action
sweepstakes lawsuit filed on behalf of all runners who entered the
New York City Marathon's ("Marathon") general entry drawing
("Drawing") between 2010 and 2015.  In April, two of the named
plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew their claims against the
Marathon's organizer and operator -- New York Road Runners, Inc.
("Road Runners") -- after Road Runners moved to compel the two
plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims.

What can sweepstakes sponsors do to stay out of plaintiffs'
crosshairs?

New York City Marathon's Drawing and Sweepstakes Lawsuits

In order to compete in the Marathon, most prospective runners must
apply via the Drawing and pay Road Runners a non-refundable
"processing fee" of $11.  However, court records suggest that
fewer than 18% of the 80,000 prospective runners that participated
in the Drawing from 2010-2015 won a spot in the Marathon.

This January, two residents of Utah who entered the Drawing but
were passed over for the Marathon sued Road Runners in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No.
1:16-cv-00450-KBF), claiming to represent all those who entered
the Drawing in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and/or 2015,
respectively, and suffered damages as a result.  The sweepstakes
lawsuit alleges that Road Runners conducted an illegal lottery
because each member of the class purportedly risked something of
value (the entry fee) upon the outcome of a game of chance (the
Drawing) for the opportunity to receive something of value
(qualification to run in the Marathon).

Less than two weeks later, a separate class action plaintiff
commenced legal action against Road Runners in the Southern
District (1:16-cv-00791-KBF) with similar claims related to the
Road Runners Marathon and Drawing. This March, the Court
consolidated the two sweepstakes lawsuits.

Road Runners' Motion to Stay and Compel Arbitration

In April, Road Runners filed a motion to compel arbitration of the
allegations of two of the Plaintiffs and to stay the consolidated
sweepstakes lawsuit pending the completion of those arbitration
proceedings.

According to Road Runners, when two of the named class action
plaintiffs sought entry into the 2015 Marathon, they each agreed
to arbitrate any claims arising out of or relating to their
participation in any Road Runners event or activity.  Road Runners
further claimed that the two plaintiffs agreed not to pursue
claims against Road Runners collectively or as part of a class
action.

In light of these arbitration and class/collective waiver
provisions, Road Runners asked the Court to order the two subject
plaintiffs to resolve their claims in individual arbitrations and
stay Plaintiffs' remaining claims in the consolidated sweepstakes
lawsuit pending the outcome of the allegedly arbitrable claims.

Withdrawal of Two Plaintiffs

On April 20, 2016, in response to Road Runners' motion to compel,
the two plaintiffs in question voluntarily withdrew all of their
claims against Road Runners without prejudice.  The subject
plaintiffs further agreed not to pursue arbitration of their
claims.

In light of the foregoing, Road Runners has agreed to withdraw its
motion.  It appears that the consolidated case will proceed with
one named plaintiff seeking to represent the class of prospective
runners.

How to Avoid a Sweepstakes Lawsuit

Although two plaintiffs' claims in the above-referenced actions
have been eliminated following their voluntary withdrawal from the
proposed class action, it appears that the defendant's legal
battles are far from over.

Specific state and federal laws apply to contests, sweepstakes and
drawings. Non-compliant sweepstakes and contests could be deemed
illegal lotteries, which would place their sponsors at risk of
significant legal liability. Such promotions should be carefully
vetted by an experienced marketing attorney before their launch to
ensure compliance with applicable laws, rules and regulations.


PACIFIC BELL: Order Striking "Rel" Class Allegations Reversed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Five
reversed the trial court's order striking the class allegations
from the seventh amended complaint in the case captioned ANGELA
REL et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. PACIFIC BELL MOBILE
SERVICES et al., Defendants and Respondents, No. A144349 (Cal. Ct.
App.).

A full-text copy of the appellate court's May 9, 2016 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/19CdS1 from Leagle.com.

The action was initiated by Diane Tucker in December 2003 as a
putative private attorney general under the unfair competition
law.  Tucker challenged the respondents' marketing of their
"bucket plans," which essentially purported to give subscribers a
specified number of minutes of use for a monthly rate.  After the
voters enacted Proposition 64, Tucker lacked standing to proceed
with the UCL claims.  Appellants Angela Rel and Monica Hodge,
along with Julia Knapp, were later added to the action as
plaintiffs.


PADUCAH, KY: "Youngblood" Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------
In the case captioned ERICA YOUNGBLOOD, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF
PADUCAH, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:15-CV-00060-TBR
(W.D. Ky.), Judge Thomas B. Russell granted the defendant's motion
to dismiss Erica Youngblood's claims.

The plaintiff, Erica Youngblood is the daughter of Eric C.
Youngblood and Melissa Youngblood.  The action arises out of the
execution of a search warrant at the Youngblood's home by the
Paducah Police Department.

Youngblood alleged that on the morning of October 31, 2008, she
was preparing for school.  At 6:07 a.m., Assistant Chief Danny
Carroll and Detective Troy Brown entered her residence.  Carroll
and Brown interrupted the plaintiff while she was in the bathroom
and yelled at her to "get in the living room and sit down."  For
the next twenty-seven minutes, Carroll and Turner "stood guard"
over Youngblood and her family.  At 6:34 a.m., "approximately
thirteen" members of the Drug and Vice Enforcement ("DAVE") Unit
entered "like a herd of wild Bison."  As they entered, officers
"pointed and/or trained their military style weapons on my family
and me."   Youngblood alleged she was detained for "what seemed
like sixty (60) minutes or so."  Youngblood was "in tears" during
the ordeal.  Upon returning to school she was humiliated and
teased by fellow students.  Youngblood's parents were arrested and
charged with possession of marijuana.

The plaintiff's parents, Eric C. Youngblood and Melissa Youngblood
previously filed a lawsuit ("Youngblood I") alleging the Paducah
Police Department violated their substantive and procedural due
process rights, among other claims.  The court granted summary
judgment in favor of the City of Paducah, the sole defendant in
Youngblood I.  The plaintiff, Erica Youngblood, was a minor at the
time of the events.  The plaintiff was also not a party to
Youngblood I.  After reaching the age of majority, Erica
Youngblood filed this action.

A full-text copy of Judge Russell's May 6, 2016 memorandum opinion
is available at https://is.gd/OcneBk from Leagle.com.

The City of Paducah, Danny Carrol, William Gilbert, Nathanial
Young, John Toliver, Joe Hayes, Troy Turner, Defendants,
represented by Stacey A. Blankenship -- sblankenship@kkhblaw.com
-- Keuler Kelly Hutchins & Blankenship, LLP.


PAYPAL INC: Court Strikes Objection to "Zepeda" Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California tossed a 19-page
objection filed by Sam A. Miorelli, an attorney acting pro se, to
the proposed class action settlement in the case, MOISES ZEPEDA,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. PAYPAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
C 10-2500 SBA (N.D. Cal.).  The Court noted that its Standing
Order, which counsel should have reviewed before submitting his
filing, clearly state that briefs (other than those relating to
summary judgment motions) are limited to 15 pages. The objection
also is untimely.

A copy of the Court's May 13, 2016 Order is available at
https://is.gd/wxe938 from Leagle.com.

Moises Zepeda et al., represented by Michael Vincent Storti,
Alfredo Torrijos -- alfredo@asstlawyers.com -- Arias Sanguinetti
Stahle & Torrijos, LLP, Brian Stephen Kabateck --
bsk@kbklawyers.com -- Kabateck Kellner LLP, Howard Judd Hirsch,
Lexington Law Group, Jeffrey A Leon, Quantum Legal LLC, Jonathan
Shub -- jshub@kohnswift.com -- Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., Mark N.
Todzo, Lexington Law Group, LLP, Seth Michael Lehrman --
seth@pathtojustice.com -- Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos
& Lehrman, P.L. & Richard Kellner, Kabateck Kellner LLP.

Paypal, Inc., Defendant, represented by Benjamin Taylor Potter --
bpotter@stroock.com -- David Wesley Moon -- dmoon@stroock.com --
and Julia B. Strickland -- jstrickland@stroock.com -- Stroock &
Stroock & Lavan LLP.

Perkins Tammy, Defendant, represented by Matt Kurilich.

Walley Collins, Objector, represented by Anthony Albert Ferrigno,
Law Ofcs of Anthony A. Ferrigno, John David Franklin, Franklin &
Franklin & Pamela Elizabeth Havird, Law Offices of Pamela E.
Havird.

Lucinda Christian, Objector, represented by Anthony Albert
Ferrigno, Law Ofcs of Anthony A. Ferrigno, John David Franklin,
Franklin & Franklin & Pamela Elizabeth Havird, Law Offices of
Pamela E. Havird.


PETRO RIVER: Donelson-Friend Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------
Petro River Oil Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2016, that Martha Donelson and
John Friend on August 11, 2014, amended their complaint in an
existing lawsuit by filing a class action complaint styled: Martha
Donelson and John Friend, et al. v. United States of America,
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs and Devon
Energy Production, LP, et al., Case No. 14-CV-316-JHP-TLW, United
States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (the
"Proceeding").  The plaintiffs added as defendants twenty-seven
(27) specifically named operators, including the Company, as well
as all Osage County lessees and operators who have obtained a
concession agreement, lease or drilling permit approved by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs ("BIA") in Osage County allegedly in
violation of National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA").

Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the BIA improperly
approved oil and gas leases, concession agreements and drilling
permits prior to August 12, 2014, without satisfying the BIA's
obligations under federal regulations or NEPA, and seek a
determination that such oil and gas leases, concession agreements
and drilling permits are void ab initio.  Plaintiffs are seeking
damages against the defendants for alleged nuisance, trespass,
negligence and unjust enrichment.

On October 7, 2014, Spyglass, along with other defendants, filed a
motion to dismiss the August 11, 2014 Proceeding on various
procedural and legal arguments.  Plaintiffs filed their response
to the motion to dismiss on October 27, 2014.  Spyglass filed its
reply brief on November 10, 2014 and the plaintiffs were granted
leave until November 19, 2014 to file a reply to Spyglass' reply
brief.

"Once the briefing cycle concluded on November 19, 2014, the
motion to dismiss became ripe for determination by the court.
Oral arguments may be ordered by the court.  There is no specific
timeline by which the court must render a ruling," the Company
said.

                           *     *     *

On March 24, 2016, Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy denied
Plaintiffs' Motion For Leave To Conduct Discovery From Federal
Defendants. The request is denied without prejudice to being
reasserted after the resolution of the motions to dismiss.  A copy
of that decision is available at https://is.gd/wfjkE9 from
Leagle.com.

In a March 31 Opinion and Order, District Judge James H. Payne
ruled on sixteen Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended
Complaint filed by each of the 27 named Defendants in this case.
A copy of that decision is available at https://is.gd/Hov0QP from
Leagle.com.

Judge Payne ruled that the sovereign immunity of the United States
is not waived, and this action must be dismissed as to the Federal
Defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Judge Payne
also held that there is no independent basis for the Court to
exercise jurisdiction over the non-Federal Defendants in this
case. For this reason, Plaintiffs have not stated a claim against
the non-Federal Defendants and Plaintiffs' claims against the non-
Federal Defendants must be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, or alternatively under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction.


PORTAL HEALTHCARE: Cyber Claim Insurance Coverage Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------
Paul K. Stockman, Joshua D. Davey and Akiesha R. Gilcrist, Esq.,
of McGuireWoods LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that in a
decision issued April 11, the Fourth Circuit added to a small but
growing body of case law across the country finding coverage for
cyber claims under traditional general liability insurance
policies.  In Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Portal Healthcare
Solutions, LLC, No. 14-1944, -- F. App'x -- 2016 WL 1399517 (4th
Cir. April 11, 2016), the court affirmed a federal district
court's ruling that Travelers Indemnity Company of America
("Travelers") must defend its insured, Portal Healthcare
Solutions, LLC ("Portal"), in a putative class-action lawsuit
alleging that Portal published the plaintiffs' private medical
records on the Internet.

The underlying lawsuit against Portal was filed by plaintiffs Dara
Halliday and Teresa Green in New York state court.  The plaintiffs
alleged that Portal had allowed their private medical records to
remain on an unsecured server for several months, making them
publicly available on the Internet for anyone to see. Portal was
insured under two insurance policies issued by Travelers -- one
spanning the period from January 2012 to January 2013, and another
spanning from January 2013 to January 2014. The policies covered
Portal for damages caused by "electronic publication of material
that . . . gives unreasonable publicity to a person's private
life" or the "electronic publication of material that . . .
discloses information about a person's private life."

Travelers filed a lawsuit against Portal in the Eastern District
of Virginia, seeking a declaration that it was not obligated to
defend Portal against the underlying New York putative
class-action claims.  Travelers argued that the complaint failed
to allege a covered publication by Portal for two reasons: First,
Travelers argued that "publication" under the policy required
intentional publication, rather than mere inadvertent disclosure.
Second, Travelers contended that there was no "publication"
because the underlying complaint did not allege that anyone, other
than the plaintiffs, actually viewed the medical records online.
The district court rejected these arguments, finding that exposing
confidential medical records to online searching is "publication"
giving "unreasonable publicity" to, or "disclos[ing]" information
about, a person's private life, and holding that Travelers was
duty bound under the policies to defend Portal against the class-
action complaint.

The Fourth Circuit affirmed in an unpublished, per curiam opinion.
The court emphasized that the district court had correctly applied
the "eight corners rule" -- which looks to the terms of the policy
and the allegations in the complaint -- to determine whether
Travelers had a duty to defend.  Turning to the "publication"
issue, the court noted its agreement with the district court's
conclusion that the class-action complaint "at least potentially
or arguably" alleged a "publication" of private medical
information by Portal that constituted conduct covered under the
applicable policies and affirmed the district court's ruling that
Travelers was required to defend Portal against the New York
class-action complaint.

Some may argue that the decision in Portal is "too little, too
late."  It can arguably be seen as "too little," in that there
remains a divergence in the case law that encourages strategic
insurer claim denial (particularly in jurisdictions that lack a
robust policyholder remedy for insurer bad faith).  For example,
insurers continue to rely on the ill-reasoned trial court decision
in Zurich American Insurance Company v. Sony Corp. of America,
where the New York trial court held that there was no coverage
unless the "publication" was made by the policyholder, rather than
hackers.  The fact that the decision is unreported further limits
its potential precedential impact.  The decision may also arguably
be seen as "too late," in that the insurance industry has
promulgated endorsements that are intended to minimize or
eliminate the potential for cyber-breach coverage under general
liability policies.

Nevertheless, the Fourth Circuit's decision in Portal is
noteworthy for at least two reasons.  First, the court's broad
reading of the policy term "publication" will benefit
policyholders seeking coverage for data breach claims involving
inadvertent disclosure of information.  Second, the decision
underscores the importance of considering the possibility of
coverage for cyber events under traditional policies -- such as
commercial general liability, directors and officers, and errors
and omissions policies -- despite efforts by the insurance
industry to exclude cyber claims from traditional policies and
force insureds to purchase dedicated cyber coverage.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Summary Judgment for Magee & Peterson Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned NACOLA MAGEE and JAMES PETERSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 12 cv 1624 (N.D. Ill.), Judge John W. Darrah denied the
defendant's motion for summary judgment as to Counts I and II.
The judge granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.

A full-text copy of Judge Darrah's May 9, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/x2WyOS from Leagle.com.

The plaintiffs, Nacola Magee and James Peterson brought the class
action against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (PRA) for
alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA).

Nacola Magee, James Peterson, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel A.
Edelman, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC, Cassandra P.
Miller, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC, Cathleen M.
Combs, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC & James O.
Latturner, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Defendant, represented by
David M Schultz -- dschultz@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw &
Culbertson, Avanti Bakane -- abakane@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw &
Culbertson, LLP, Jennifer W. Weller -- jweller@hinshawlaw.com --
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLC & Katherine H. Oblak --
ktresley@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson Llp.


PREMIER FOODS: Court to Hear Victims' Bread Cartel Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
BDlive reports that the Constitutional Court was on May 10
scheduled to hear from the alleged victims of the Western Cape
bread cartel why they should be allowed to sue Premier Foods.

They are challenging a Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) ruling that
effectively let Premier Foods off the hook for its role in the
2006 bread cartel, by setting aside a declaration that opened it
up to lawsuits.

Without the declaration -- issued by the Competition Tribunal, the
Congress of South African Trade Unions, the National Consumer
Forum and other parties that are planning a class action against
the bread cartelists -- they cannot sue Premier Foods.

Premier Foods, which makes Blue Ribbon bread and owns brands such
as Snowflake, Iwisa and Dove, was granted immunity under the
Competition Commission's corporate leniency policy in exchange for
assisting it in the investigation of the cartel.

Premier Foods then gave evidence against fellow cartelists Tiger
Brands and Pioneer Foods and blew the whistle on Foodcorp, which
it had colluded with on a national scale.

It argued that the certification declaring that it had acted
unlawfully under competition laws should not have been issued
against it because it had immunity, and the SCA agreed.

The Competition Commission and the cartel's alleged victims are
appealing against the SCA's ruling.

Lawyer Charles Abrahams, acting for the alleged victims, said in
court papers that Premier Foods had only challenged the
declaration after his clients attempted to take civil action
against it.

He said that their application for class action certification,
currently pending before the High Court in Cape Town, against the
cartelists will continue after the appeal, with or without Premier
Foods.

Pioneer Foods was fined R195.7m for its involvement in the cartel
while Tiger Brands and Foodcorp negotiated fines of more than R98m
and R45m, respectively.


PUSHPIN HOLDINGS: "Johnson" Complaint Dismissed With Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit affirmed the
judgment of the district court dismissing the complaint with
prejudice in the case captioned MICHAEL B. JOHNSON, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PUSHPIN HOLDINGS, LLC, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees, No. 15-2771 (7th Cir.).

A full-text copy of the Court's May 6, 2016 opinion is available
at https://is.gd/TYcoAS from Leagle.com.

The class-action suit accused Pushpin Holdings, a debt collector,
along with its owners and affiliates, of having violated the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and
committed related torts, all in the course of attempting to
collect debts in Illinois.


RBC CAPITAL: Dragged in N.Y., Canadian Suits v. FX Dealers
----------------------------------------------------------
United States Gasoline Fund, LP said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that

On July 31, 2015, RBC Capital Markets, LLC was added as a new
defendant in a pending putative class action initially filed in
November 2013 in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The action is brought against multiple
foreign exchange dealers and alleges collusive behavior, among
other allegations, in foreign exchange trading. The action is in
its initial stages as it relates to the new defendants, including
RBC Capital Markets, LLC.

On September 11, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice and a motion for authorization
of a class action was filed in the Quebec Superior Court, both on
behalf of an alleged class of Canadian investors, against Royal
Bank of Canada, RBC Capital Markets, LLC and a number of other
foreign exchange dealers. The Canadian class actions allege that
the defendants conspired to manipulate the prices of currency
trades and are in their initial stages.

Based on the facts currently known, it is not possible to predict
the ultimate outcome of the Foreign Exchange Matters or the timing
of their ultimate resolution.

The United States Gasoline Fund, LP ("UGA") is a Delaware limited
partnership organized on April 13, 2007. UGA maintains its main
business office at 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1530, Oakland,
California 94612. UGA is a commodity pool that issues limited
partnership interests ("shares") traded on the NYSE Arca, Inc.
(the "NYSE Arca"). It operates pursuant to the terms of the Second
Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership dated as of
March 1, 2013 (as amended from time to time, the "LP Agreement"),
which grants full management control to its general partner,
United States Commodity Funds LLC ("USCF").


REDFIN CORP: Bid for Curative Notice in "Cruz" Denied
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IVONNETH CRUZ, Plaintiff, v. REDFIN
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 14-cv-05234-TEH (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Thelton E. Henderson denied the plaintiff's motion for
curative notice.

Ivonneth Cruz worked as a Field Agent for the defendant, Redfin
after signing a Field Agent Independent Contractor Agreement which
contained an arbitration clause.  In a putative class action, Cruz
alleged that Redfin misclassified her as an independent
contractor.  On December 1, 2015, the court granted Redfin's
motion to compel arbitration, but in doing so, found that three
provisions in the agreement were unconscionable: the fee-shifting
provision, the forum selection clause, and the choice of law
clause.  The court severed the unconscionable provisions, but
found the remainder of the agreement valid and enforceable,
including the agreement's delegation of the issue of arbitrability
to the arbitrator.  The court stayed the action pending
arbitration.  Cruz then filed the Motion for Curative Notice on
April 11, 2016.

Judge Henderson found that ordering curative notice would be
inappropriate given the factual and procedural posture of the
action.  The judge explained that a motion for curative notice may
be more proper when putative class members who may be actually
harmed by the clauses in the agreement can be identified, and
after the arbitrator has made a decision as to arbitrability; the
court may consider entertaining such a motion at that time.

A full-text copy of Judge Henderson's May 9, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/1jXbF7 from Leagle.com.

Ivonneth Cruz, Plaintiff, represented by Aparajit Bhowmik,
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Kyle Roald Nordrehaug,
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Norman B. Blumenthal, Blumentha,
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik & Ruchira Piya Mukherjee, Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Redfin Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kathryn Macomber
Weeks -- kweeks@arenahoffman.com -- Arena Hoffman LLP, Michael A.
Hoffman, III -- mhoffman@arenahoffman.com -- Arena Hoffman LLP &
Ronald D. Arena -- rarena@arenahoffman.com -- Arena Hoffman LLP.


ROCK CREEK: "Baldwin" Amended Complaint Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a court
granted a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the "Baldwin"
consumer class action.

The Company said, "On January 27, 2014, Howard T. Baldwin filed a
purported class action naming our company, RCP Development (our
subsidiary), and GNC Holding, Inc. ("GNC") as defendants. The case
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois. Generally, the complaint alleged that claims
made for our Anatabloc (R) product have not been proven and that
individuals purchased the product based on alleged misstatements
regarding characteristics, uses, benefits, quality and intended
purposes of the product. The complaint purported to allege claims
for violation of state consumer protection laws, breach of express
and implied warranties and unjust enrichment. We have agreed to
indemnify and defend GNC pursuant to the terms of the purchasing
agreement between RCP Development and GNC. Consistent with that
commitment, we have agreed to assume the defense of this matter on
our own behalf as well as on behalf of GNC. The defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint on March 24, 2014. On January 13,
2015, the Court entered an order dismissing the complaint in its
entirety without prejudice."

"On February 10, 2015, Mr. Baldwin filed an Amended Complaint
against our company, RCP Development and GNC (collectively,
"Defendants"). The Amended Complaint also includes an additional
named plaintiff, Jerry Van Norman, who alleges that he is a
citizen of Parkville, Missouri. The Amended Complaint requests
certification of an "Illinois Class" consisting of "[a]ll persons
who paid, in whole or in part, for Anatabloc (R) dietary
supplement in Illinois between August 1, 2011 and the present for
personal, family or household uses," and a "Missouri Class"
consisting of "[a]ll persons who paid, in whole or in part, for
Anatabloc (R) dietary supplement in Missouri between August 1,
2011 and the present for personal, family or household uses." The
Amended Complaint is pleaded in seven counts: (1) violation of the
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act of Illinois;
(2) violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practice Act; (3)
breach of express warranty under Illinois law; (4) breach of
express warranty under Missouri law; (5) breach of implied
warranty of merchantability under Illinois law; (6) breach of
implied warranty of merchantability under Missouri law; and (7)
unjust enrichment.

"Like the original complaint, the Amended Complaint alleges that
Defendants manufactured, marketed and/or sold Anatabloc (R) , a
dietary supplement purportedly derived from an anatabine alkaloid,
and promoted Anatabloc (R) as a "wonder drug" with a number of
medical benefits and uses, from treating excessive inflammation
(associated with arthritis) to Alzheimer's disease, traumatic
brain injury (or concussions), diabetes and multiple sclerosis.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have never proven any of these
claims in clinical trials or received FDA approval for Anatabloc
(R) , and that Anatabloc (R) "was never the 'wonder drug' it
claimed to be." Plaintiffs allege that they purchased Anatabloc
(R) based upon claims that it provides "anti-inflammatory
support." Mr. Baldwin alleges that he purchased Anatabloc (R) to
"reduce inflammation and pain in his joints," and Mr. Van Norman
alleges that he "suffers back and knee problems, as well as
arthritis, and expected Anatabloc (R) to be effective in treating
these symptoms and purchased Anatabloc (R) to help alleviate his
symptoms." Both plaintiffs allege that Anatabloc (R) did not
provide the relief promised by the Defendants.

"Although the Amended Complaint does not include claims based on
the consumer protection laws and breach of warranty laws of
several additional states like the original complaint, on February
10, 2015, counsel for plaintiffs also served a "Notice pursuant
to: Alabama Code Sec. 8-19-10(e); Alaska Statutes Sec.45.50.535;
California Civil Code Sec. 1782; Georgia Code Sec. 10-1-399;
Indiana Code Sec. 24-5-0.5-5(a); Maine Revised Statutes, Title 5,
Sec. 50-634(g); Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, Sec. 9(3);
Texas Business & Commercial Code Sec. 17.505; West Virginia Code
Sec. 46A-6-106(b); and Wyoming Statutes Sec. 40-12-109 as well as
state warranty statutes," which purports to give notice to
Defendants on behalf of the named plaintiffs and a "class of
similarly situated individuals" that Defendants have "violated
state warranty statutes and engaged in consumer fraud and
deceptive practices in connection with its sale of Anatabloc (R)
," and demands that "Defendants correct or otherwise rectify the
damage caused by such unfair trade practices and warranty breaches
and return all monies paid by putative class members."

The Defendants timely moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
March 10, 2015. Plaintiffs filed a memorandum in response to the
motion to dismiss on April 9, 2015, and Defendants filed their
reply memorandum on April 22, 2015.  On April 28, 2015, the Court
entered an order lifting the stay of discovery that had been in
place in the case. The Plaintiffs served discovery requests on May
18, 2015, to which we responded on June 17, 2015.

"We are continuing to produce responsive documents to the
Plaintiffs on a rolling basis," the Company said.

On February 2, 2016, the Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and
Order granting the motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint and
dismissing all claims alleged in the Amended Complaint. The
Plaintiffs' claims under Illinois and Missouri law for breach of
express and implied warranty were dismissed with prejudice. The
remaining claims were dismissed without prejudice. The Court has
allowed Plaintiffs 28 days to file a Second Amended Complaint. The
next status hearing before the Court was scheduled for March 22,
2016. To date, no amounts for loss contingency have been accrued
in the consolidated financial statements.


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned APRIL LINDBLOM, Plaintiff, v. SANTANDER
CONSUMER USA, INC., Defendant, No. 1:15-cv-990-LJO-BAM (E.D.
Cal.), Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill denied the motion filed by
Santander Consumer USA, Inc. for judgment on the pleadings.

April Lindblom brought a proposed class action against Santander
for alleged violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA) and California's Rosenthal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (Rosenthal Act), California Civil Code,
associated with the fees former defendant Western Union charged
borrowers when making payments on loans to Santander by phone or
internet.  Santander moved for judgment on the pleadings on
Lindblom's Rosenthal Act claim on the ground that Lindblom does
not state a claim because Santander's conduct did not violate the
Act.

A full-text copy of Judge O'Neill's May 9, 2016 memorandum
decision and order is available at https://is.gd/xMT8uZ from
Leagle.com.

April Lindblom, Plaintiff, represented by D. Frank Davis --
fdavis@davisnorris.com -- Davis & Norris, LLP, pro hac vice, John
E. Norris -- jnorris@davisnorris.com -- Davis & Norris, LLP, pro
hac vice, Wesley W. Barnett -- wbarnett@davisnorris.com -- Davis &
Norris, LLP, pro hac vice & Benjamin P. Tryk, Tryk Law, PC.

Santander Consumer USA Inc., Defendant, represented by Chad R.
Fuller -- chad.fuller@troutmansanders.com -- Troutman Sanders Llp,
R. Frank Springfield -- fspringfield@burr.com -- Burr & Forman,
LLP, pro hac vice, Virginia Bell Flynn --
virginia.flynn@troutmansanders.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP, pro
hac vice, Zachary D. Miller -- zachary.miller@burr.com -- Burr &
Forman, LLP, pro hac vice & Justin M Brandt --
justin.brandt@troutmansanders.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP.


SHUTTERFLY: Settles Class Action Over Facial Recognition Tech
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Campbell, writing for Cook County Record, reports that
Shutterfly has settled a class action suit alleging the online
photo sharing site violated Illinois privacy laws by creating a
system permitting photos to be stored and searched using facial
recognition technology.

The amount of the settlement has not been disclosed.

The plaintiff, Brian Norberg, had filed suit claiming the Redwood
City, Calif.-based Shutterfly and its Palo Alto, Calif.-based
subsidiary, ThisLife, had systems that relied upon various
"biometric identifiers" to identify the faces of people in the
uploaded photos, essentially telling who is who in the pictures,
recognizing their gender, age, race, and location.

However, because Shutterfly failed to secure the permission of
those tagged in the photos and store their biometric information,
the system broke the Illinois law, the complaint alleged.

According to Mr. Norberg his likeness was first stored without his
consent in February 2015 when a Shutterfly user created a wedding
invitation that included his image.  Around five months later,
more photos of Mr.  Norberg's likeness were subsequently uploaded
to ThisLife and Shutterfly's program allegedly automatically
recognizing Norberg's face from the template it had created,
encouraging the person who uploaded the photos to tag Mr. Norberg,
and in the process attaching Mr. Norberg's name to his facial
template without his consent.

Shutterfly's motion to dismiss Mr. Norberg's complaint was
rejected on Dec. 29 by U.S. District Judge Charles R. Norgle.

As the Illinois BIPA "prohibits private entities from collecting
biometric information from individuals absent express consent . .
. following a written disclosure," Judge Norgle said
Mr. Norberg's allegations were sufficient to dismiss Shutterfly's
dismissal attempt.

Just about four months since that ruling, however, Shutterfly and
Mr. Norberg have settled the case for an undisclosed amount.

Linn Freedman, a partner at Robinson+Cole who followed the case,
said she is not surprised that a settlement was reached.

"My sense is that the parties agreed to a settlement to terminate
the litigation, which is prolonged and costly," she said.  "Since
it is the first known settlement under the law, it is important
for Shutterfly and other companies using facial recognition
technology to keep the terms confidential as the settlement does
not admit any liability."

Facebook is currently battling a similar case in California, in
which plaintiffs alleged the social media company collected facial
data through its facial recognition software.

Freedman, though, doesn't believe others will necessarily follow
Mr. Norberg.

"Because the issue is somewhat unsettled, I don't anticipate that
there will be other suits that follow until there is definitive
guidance," she said.


SNYDER'S LANCE: Judge Denies Motion to Stay "Crocker" Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge STEPHEN L. CROCKER of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin denied on May 10,
2016, a motion by Pamela A. Sweeney, a self-styled pro se objector
in the lawsuit captioned TODD BARRON, ADELE FERRERA, MATTHEW
MCDONOUGH and DAVID KORN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SNYDER'S LANCE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 16-mc-06-slc/SDF Case No. 13-62496
LENARD/GOODMAN, to stay discovery and to quash a Rule 45 subpoena
that requires her deposition in Madison on May 12, 2016.

The Judge ordered that Pamela A. Sweeney must comply with the Rule
45 subpoena in all respects. Failure to do so could result in the
sanctions set forth in Paragraph 14 of the Southern District of
Florida's February 12, 2016 order, as well as possible contempt
sanctions imposed by this court.

This is the third motion to quash filed in this court within the
past week by Ms. Sweeney or by Patrick Sweeney, but the other two
resolved themselves without this court entering a captioned order.


SPRINT CORP: Time to Respond to "Bekkerman" Suit Moved to June 6
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALINA BEKKERMAN; BRANDON GRIFFITH; JENNY LEE; and
CHARLES LISSER, Plaintiffs and Petitioners, v. CALIFORNIA BOARD OF
EQUALIZATION; STATE OF CALIFORNIA; AT&T, INC.; SPRINT CORPORATION;
T-MOBILE US, INC.; VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; and DOES 1 to 20,
inclusive, Defendants and Respondents, Case No. 2:16-cv-00709-MCE-
EFB (E.D. Cal.), District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.,  of the
District Court for the Eastern District of California approved a
Joint Stipulation continuing the time for the Carrier Defendants
to respond to the Complaint from May 9, 2016 up to and including
June 6, 2016.  A copy of the Court's Order dated May 12, 2016, is
available at https://is.gd/Ay1fMX from Leagle.com.


SQUARE INC: "Levin" Action Goes to Arbitration
----------------------------------------------
Square, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a court has sent the
lawsuit by Jeffry Levin to arbitration.

The Company said, "we are involved in a class action lawsuit
concerning independent contractors in connection with our Caviar
business. On March 19, 2015, Jeffry Levin, on behalf of a putative
nationwide class, filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of
California against our wholly owned subsidiary, Caviar, Inc.,
which, as amended, alleges that Caviar misclassified Mr. Levin and
other similarly situated couriers as independent contractors and,
in doing so, violated various provisions of the California Labor
Code and California Business and Professions Code by requiring
them to pay various business expenses that should have been borne
by Caviar. Mr. Levin is also seeking an award of penalties
pursuant to the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004
(PAGA), on behalf of the putative class."

"On June 30, 2015, we filed a Motion to Compel Individual
Arbitration and Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint. On
November 16, 2015, the Court granted Caviar's motion to compel
arbitration of Mr. Levin's individual claims and found the waiver
of the representative California Labor Code cause of action under
PAGA unenforceable under a recent appellate court ruling.

"On January, 22, 2016, the Court ruled that an arbitrator will
determine whether the PAGA claim is arbitrable or should move
forward in court. This arbitration has not yet been initiated. We
will continue to vigorously defend against Mr. Levin's claims.
Given the early stage of these proceedings, it is not yet possible
to reliably determine any potential liability that could result
from this matter."

"We started Square in February 2009 to enable anyone with a mobile
device to accept card payments, anywhere, anytime. While we found
early success providing easy access to card payments, commerce
extends beyond payments. In every transaction, we see opportunity
for our sellers: to learn more about which products are selling
best, to reinvest in their businesses, or to create and engage
loyal buyers. Although we currently generate approximately 94% of
our total net revenue from payment processing services, which
include revenue generated from Starbucks Corporation (Starbucks),
we have extended our product and service offerings to include
additional point-of-sale (POS) services, financial services and
marketing services, all to help sellers start, run, and grow their
businesses."


STARBUCKS CORP: "Crittenden" Sues Over Under-filled Espresso
------------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Crittenden, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Starbucks Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-03496 (S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2016) seeks
damages as a result of breach of warranty, fraudulent concealment
and/or inducement, negligent misrepresentation and unjust
enrichment for violation of New York General Business Law.

Plaintiff alleges that Starbucks espresso beverages contain less
fluid ounces per serving size than the Defendant otherwise
advertises.

Starbucks is a global coffee shop business with its headquarters
and principal place of business located in Seattle, Washington.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brittany Weiner, Esq.
      Murray Friedman, Esq.
      IMBESI LAW P.C.
      450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
      New York, NY 10123
      Tel: (646) 380-9555
      Fax: (646) 790-3851
      Email: brittany@lawicm.com
             murray@lawicb.com


STATE FARM: Bid to Vacate or Suspend Discovery Order Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned AMANDA M. LaBRIER, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM
FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant, No. 2:15-cv-04093-NKL (W.D.
Mo.), Judge Nanette K. Laughrey denied the motion filed by State
Farm Fire and Casualty Company to vacate or suspend Special Master
Leland Shurin's Discovery Order No. 4, as amended.

On April 6, 2016, the Special Master ordered State Farm to answer
the plaintiff Amanda LaBrier's second set of interrogatories by
May 6, 2016.  State Farm objected to the Special Master's order,
arguing the interrogatories are unduly burdensome and the order
penalizes State Farm for its record keeping.

Judge Laughrey, however, concluded that the Special Master did not
abuse his discretion in entering the order.

A full-text copy of Judge Laughrey's May 9, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/DLcgyf from Leagle.com.

Leland Maurice Shurin, Special Master, represented by Leland M.
Shurin -- lshurin@sls-law.com -- Shaffer Lombardo Shurin.

Amanda LaBrier, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher E Roberts --
croberts@butschroberts.com -- Butsch Roberts & Associates LLC, pro
hac vice, David T. Butsch -- dbutsch@butschroberts.com -- Butsch
Roberts & Associates LLC, pro hac vice, Joe D. Jacobson --
jacobson@archcitylawyers.com -- Jacobson Press & Fields PC &T.
Joseph Snodgrass -- jsnodgrass@larsonking.com -- Larson King, LLP,
pro hac vice.

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Defendant, represented by
Heidi Dalenberg -- hdalenberg@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes &
Cancila LLP, pro hac vice, Jacob Kahn -- jkahn@rshc-law.com --
Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph A Cancila,
Jr. -- jcancila@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP,
pro hac vice, Patricia T. Mathy -- pmathy@rshc-law.com -- Riley
Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, pro hac vice, Ryan P. Poscablo --
rposcablo@rshc-law.com -- pro hac vice, Tal C. Chaiken --
tchaiken@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, pro hac
vice & Daniel E. Wilke, Wilke & Wilke, P.C..


STERICYCLE: Faces Class Action Over Service Fee Hike
----------------------------------------------------
HartfordBusiness.com reports that two West Hartford physicians
have filed a class-action lawsuit accusing one of the country's
largest medical-waste disposal service providers of illegally
jacking up service fees.

But they aren't alone.

The April 28 complaint against Illinois-based Stericycle -- filed
by Drs. Murray Wellner and Harvey Hameroff -- comes on the heels
of at least 18 similar class-action suits that have been filed in
multiple states against the $8-billion public company over the
past three years, according to court records.

Drs. Wellner and Hameroff's complaint, which seeks class-action
status, estimates there could be thousands of Stericycle customers
in Connecticut, including physicians, dentists, veterinarians,
pharmacies and other businesses that generate medical waste, whose
aggregate claims against the company exceed $5 million.

At the heart of the Connecticut suit, and those that preceded it,
is the contention that Stericycle's customer-service agreements
were deceptive or misleading.

Fine Print Challenged

The contracts -- several examples have been filed in federal court
-- list a flat monthly, quarterly or annual service fee on the
front page.  But further into the agreement, the fine print says
Stericycle has the right to change pricing to account for specific
scenarios, such as rising operational costs, or to comply with
changes in law.

The lawsuits argue that Stericycle routinely charged automatic
price increases as high as 18 percent, and that they were
unrelated to rising costs or legal changes.

The two Connecticut doctors allege that Stericycle steadily
increased their service fees, from $181 in 2006 to $1,581 last
year.  The suit claims the increases were part of "a systematic
practice and policy that Stericycle regularly employs to generate
revenues," and that wasn't disclosed to customers when they signed
their agreements.

Their complaint said the alleged actions amount to breach of
contract and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act.

Stericycle claims more than 1 million customers and 25,000
employees around the world. More than half of its workforce is in
the United States, including an unknown number at a Middletown
location.

As of May 5, Stericycle had not yet filed a formal response to the
complaint in court.  The company did not return a call seeking
comment for this story.

Lawsuits mounting

Drs. Wellner and Hameroff's civil suit is the latest in a growing
number of similar billing-related lawsuits, known as "tag-along"
or "follow-on" actions, that Stericycle faces.

The class actions began mounting in 2013 and a federal judicial
panel has since consolidated 18 lawsuits from Stericycle's non-
government customers in a dozen states under a federal court in
Illinois, where the company is headquartered.

It's possible Drs. Wellner and Hameroff's complaint will join
them.  Three of the law firms representing the two doctors are
involved in several of the 18 consolidated cases, the latest of
which was filed April 8 in Alabama, according to court records.
Dr. Wellner declined comment and his and Dr. Hameroff's attorney
didn't return calls for comment.

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, the Seattle-based law firm appointed
as lead counsel for the consolidated plaintiffs in Illinois, said
the Connecticut case will "almost certainly" join the 18 others
because it "asserts essentially identical claims."

Hagens Berman asked a judge in January to certify a nationwide
class of plaintiffs.  That hadn't yet happened.

Roots of the Class-Action Frenzy

The class-action frenzy was sparked by public revelations in 2013
that numerous state governments were suing Stericycle over alleged
improper price increases.

In January of that year, a judge unsealed a 2008 whistleblower
lawsuit filed by a former Stericycle employee, which contained the
first publicly known allegations that Stericycle had improperly
increased prices billed to government customers.

Thirteen states and Washington, D.C., joined the complaint in
2010, which eventually settled in 2015 for $28.5 million.  New
York's attorney general settled separately for $2.4 million.
Stericycle has said in U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
filings that the whistleblower settlement was not an admission of
wrongdoing or liability, and that it settled the suit to "avoid
the expense, burden and inherent risk and uncertainty of
litigation."

Stericycle has denied the allegations made by the flurry of
lawsuits that soon followed.

"We believe that we have operated in accordance with the terms of
our customer contracts and that these complaints are without
merit," Stericycle said in its 2015 annual report, filed with the
SEC in March.  "We will continue to vigorously defend ourselves
against each of these lawsuits."

Stericycle said it couldn't estimate possible losses from ongoing
lawsuits.

CT's Stericycle dealings

Two New England states -- Massachusetts and Rhode Island --
received a piece of last year's $28.5 million whistleblower
settlement, but Connecticut was not a party to the suit, although
the state has done business with Stericycle.

Since 2012, the state has paid the company approximately $334,000
for hazardous-waste-disposal services, mainly at correctional
facilities and hospitals, according to data on the State
Comptroller's website, opencheckbook.ct.gov. Stericycle also has
an active four-year contract for disposal services with the state
that runs through 2018, records show.

It wasn't immediately clear if the state had any contracts with
Stericycle prior to June 2010, which is when more than a dozen
states joined the whistleblower suit.

Attorney General George Jepsen was elected in late 2010, five
months after other states joined the lawsuit.  His spokeswoman
Jaclyn Falkowski said that the office has no Stericycle-related
complaints from state agencies on file from the past two years,
which is the length of time the office keeps records not related
to litigation.

She said Connecticut also didn't join the whistleblower suit
because Stericycle's alleged conduct took place prior to the state
legislature enacting its own whistleblower law, known as the False
Claims Act. In addition, until 2014, the act only applied to false
Medicaid claims, she said.

Massive growth, antitrust concerns

Mr. Jepsen's predecessor, U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, tangled
with Stericycle at least once, records show.

In 2002, when Stericycle announced it intended to buy medical-
waste-disposal businesses from Georgia-based Scherer Healthcare, a
competitor with a substantial New England customer base, then
Connecticut Attorney General Blumenthal expressed concern about
the potential anticompetitive impacts of the deal.

Blumenthal negotiated a voluntary seven-year agreement that
required Stericycle to notify his office in advance of further
acquisitions of medical-waste businesses operating in the New
England market.

Ms. Falkowski said the AG's office has no such notices on file.
Massachusetts was also involved in the acquisition settlement,
requiring Stericycle to divest a medical-waste transfer station in
the northeastern part of the state.

At the time, Stericycle had been operating in Connecticut for
eight years.

Massive Revenue Growth

Founded in 1989, the company bought Middletown-based Safe Way
Disposal in 1994, two years before going public.  Stericycle had
$16.1 million in sales that year. In 2015, the company reported
$2.99 billion in revenues.

That 187-fold growth is the result of 435 acquisitions over the
company's history, including 230 in the U.S., according to SEC
filings.

That market consolidation has drawn other antitrust concerns.  The
U.S. Department of Justice and New York's attorney general sued in
2011 to block Stericycle's acquisition of an Ohio-based
competitor, which they argued would have given Stericycle 90
percent of the New York metro market for infectious-waste
treatment.

The parties settled, with Stericycle agreeing to divest a transfer
station in The Bronx.

The suit filed by the West Hartford doctors in April refers to
Stericycle's market power.

"One of the consequences of Stericycle's rapid growth and
dominance has been that its customers (and potential customers)
have had little meaningful choice in selecting and negotiating
arrangements with medical waste disposal companies and have been
at the mercy of the terms of the agreements, no matter how
oppressive and one-sided they may be," the complaint reads.

There are 17 biomedical-waste haulers licensed in Connecticut,
according to a state list dated Nov. 2015.  It's not clear how
much market share Stericycle owns.


SUNEDISON INC: Case Management Conference Set for Aug. 25
---------------------------------------------------------
OMEGA CAPITAL INVESTORS, L.P., et al., Plaintiffs, v. SUNEDISON,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-02268-PJH (N.D. Cal.),
has been reassigned to the Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton. On May
13, 2016, Judge Hamilton ordered that a Case Management Conference
will be held in this case on August 25, 2016, at 2:00 p.m., in
Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Federal Building, 1301 Clay Street,
Oakland, California.  A copy of the Order is available at
https://is.gd/OgLN9s from Leagle.com.

Omega Capital Investors, L.P., Plaintiff, represented by Darren
Jay Robbins -- darrenr@rgrdlaw.com -- David William Hall --
dhall@rgrdlaw.com -- Dennis J. Herman -- dennish@rgrdlaw.com --
Jennifer N. Caringal -- jcaringal@rgrdlaw.com -- and James Ian
Jaconette -- jamesj@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP.  The firm also represents Omega Capital Partners, L.P., Omega
Equity Investors, L.P., and Omega Overseas Partners, LTD.

SunEdison, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sara B. Brody --
sbrody@sidley.com -- and Jaime Allyson Bartlett --
jbartlett@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP.  The firm also
represents individual defendants Ahmad Chatila, Brian Wuebbels,
Carlos Domenech Zornoza, Martin Truong, Jeremy Avenier, Emmanuel
Hernandez, Antonio R. Alvarez, Clayton Daley, Jr., Georganne
Proctor, Steven Tesoriere, James B. Williams, and Randy H. Zwirn.

Terraform Global, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brett Hammon --
brett.hammon@wilmerhale.com -- Michael G. Bongiorno --
michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com -- and Timothy J. Perla --
timothy.perla@wilmerhale.com -- at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
and Dorr.  The firm also represents Peter Blackmore.

Alejandro Hernandez, Defendant, represented by Daniel H. Bookin
-- dbookin@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Goldman, Sachs & Co., Defendant, represented by Patrick David
Robbins -- probbins@shearman.com -- Shearman & Sterling LLP.  The
firm also represents J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Barclays Capital
Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC,
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Deutsche Bank
Securities Inc., BTG Pactual US Capital LLC, Macquarie Capital
(USA), Inc., and MCS Capital Markets, LLC.


SUNRUN INC: July 5 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Goldberg Law PC on May 9 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Sunrun Inc. ("Sunrun" or the "Company").
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares traceable to
the Company's Initial Public Offering (the "IPO") on August 5,
2015, have until July 5, 2016, to move as lead plaintiff.

We advise you to contact Michael Goldberg or Brian Schall, of
Goldberg Law PC, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los
Angeles, CA 90067, at 800-977-7401, to discuss your rights without
cost to you. You can also reach us through the firm's website at
http://www.Goldberglawpc.comor by e-mail at
info@goldberglawpc.com

The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the complaint, the Company failed to disclose that:
(1) Sunrun's actual historical operating costs were being
understated by not identifying and disclosing the fixed grid costs
being borne for it by public utilities where net metering programs
were being employed; and (2) Sunrun had been charging well above
wholesale rates for the electricity it was selling to its net
metering customers.

Goldberg Law PC -- http://www.Goldberglawpc.com-- represents
shareholders around the world and specializes in securities class
actions and shareholder rights litigation.


TICKETMASTER: Provides Details on Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Takiff, writing for Philly.com, reports that a newly
landing email declaring you are due "benefits" in a class-action
lawsuit -- Schlesinger v. Ticketmaster -- is legit, not some
Nigerian get-rich scam.

Still, the terms and nature of the win may make you wonder, "Why
bother?" Class members will have to buy more tickets to get
minimal restitution.  Or wait at least a year and hope fellow
class members don't follow through with claims.

Standing for all consumers who bought tickets on Ticketmaster's
website from Oct. 21, 1999, through Feb. 27, 2013, the California-
based plaintiffs alleged that the description of Ticketmaster's
fees was deceptive and misleading.

While not admitting any wrongdoing, the ticketing subsidiary of
Live Nation Entertainment Inc. agreed to supply those 57 million
eligible Ticketmaster customers with discount coupons applicable
to fees on future orders, beginning on June 18, 2016, and
redeemable up to the same date in 2020.

Class members buying show tickets will get a $2.25 discount on the
order processing fee and -- and if they previously used UPS for
delivery -- will earn a $5 credit toward a new UPS shipment. Two
shipping credits ($10) can be applied to a single transaction.

The same email also discusses a Ticket Code "potentially
redeemable" for two tickets to a concert event presented by Live
Nation.

Those ducats will only be available if/when class members don't
use up at least $10.5 million per year (and $42.5 million total)
of the $397 million available in discount codes.

The first batch of ticket giveaways won't kick in (if at all)
until June 18, 2017.  Live Nation decides which concert and club
shows might be included in the offer.  Locally, the show-promoting
giant puts on events at Festival Pier, TLA, the Tower, the
Fillmore, BB&T Pavilion, and the Wells Fargo Center.

The lawyers who brought this action are walking away with $14.9
million in fees, reported law360.com.  Settlement objectors
suggested that "those purporting to serve the class have sold it
down the river."

In another coupon settlement studied and written about by the
Philadelphia-based law firm Duane Morris, only 20 percent of class
members who received coupons actually used them.


TORRAHOP INC: "Corrales" Suit Alleges Cal. Labor Law Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Beatriz Corrales, individually and on behalf of other individuals
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TORRAHOP, INC., a California
Corporation, LANDMARK RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., a Nevada
Corporation, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, (Cal.
Super., County of Los Angeles, May 10, 2016), alleges:

(1) missed meal and rest breaks in violation of Calif. Labor Code
and California Code of Regulations; (2) unlawful recovery of wages
previously paid in violation of California Labor Code; (3) Failure
to Furnish an Accurate, Itemized Wage Statement upon Payment of
Wages in Violation of California Labor Code; (4) Failure to Pay
Compensation, Upon Termination of Employment in Violation of
California Labor Code; (5) violations of California Business &
Professions Code; and (6) violation of the Private Attorney
General Act.

Torrahop Inc. is a restaurant located in Torrance, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Young W. Ryu, Esq.
     Kelly Kim, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF YOUNG W. RYU
     9595 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     Phone: (888) 365-8686
     Fax: (800) 576-1170
     E-mail: young.ryu@ywrlaw.com
             kelly.kim@ywrlaw.com


TOSHIBA AMERICA: Award of $3,200 in Costs to Sklar Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JEFFERY L. ELLIS et al., Plaintiffs, v.
TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant and
Respondent; LORI J. SKLAR, Objector and Appellant, No. B257966
(Cal. Ct. App.), the Court of Appeals of California affirmed the
trial court's order awarding Lori Sklar costs of $3,200.

Sklar had requested millions of dollars in attorney fees for her
representation of the plaintiffs in a class action filed in 2005
against Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. and resolved by
a settlement agreement.

The appellate court also denied Sklar's motion to strike Toshiba's
brief and portions of its appendix.

A full-text copy of the appellate court's May 6, 2016 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/fCrBbZ from Leagle.com.

Lori Sklar, in pro. per., for Objector and Appellant.

Umberg Zipser, Dean J. Zipser -- dzipser@umbergzipser.com -- Adina
W. Stowell -- astowell@umbergzipser.com -- Manatt, Phelps &
Phillips and Benjamin G. Shatz -- bshatz@manatt.com -- for
Defendant and Respondent.


TRADE STREET: Motion to Dismiss 2nd Amended Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Independence Realty Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint in the case, Tony Blank Family Trust
et al. v. Trade Street Residential, Inc. et al., remains pending.

On June 11, 2015, three purported stockholders filed a complaint
in the Circuit Court of Maryland for Baltimore City on behalf of a
putative class of Trade Street Residential, Inc. or TSRE
stockholders and naming as defendants TSRE's Board of Directors,
or the individual defendants, and TSRE.  The case is captioned
Tony Blank Family Trust et al. v. Trade Street Residential, Inc.
et al., Case No. 24-C-15-003081, or the Blank action.  TSRE is
listed as a defendant in the caption of plaintiffs' complaint, but
no claim is asserted against TSRE.  On July 15, 2015, the
plaintiffs amended their complaint and added Monarch Alternative
Capital, LP, Senator Investment Group, LP, and BHR Capital LLC, or
the shareholder defendants, as defendants.

The amended complaint generally alleges that, in connection with
the acquisition of TSRE by IRT, the individual defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by approving an acquisition that was
financially unfair to TSRE's stockholders and by conducting a sale
process in which the individual defendants had conflicts of
interest.  The amended complaint also alleges that the shareholder
defendants aided and abetted the individual defendants' alleged
breaches of their fiduciary duties and were unjustly enriched by
the TSRE merger.  The amended complaint seeks, among other things,
compensatory damages, pre-and post-judgment interest, an order
requiring that the individual defendants affiliated with the
shareholder defendants disgorge all profits, compensation and
other benefits obtained by them as a result of their conduct in
connection with the TSRE merger, and an award of the plaintiffs'
costs and disbursements of this action, including attorney's fees.

On September 25, 2015 the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.  On November 6, 2015, plaintiffs in the Blank action
amended their complaint for a second time in response to certain
arguments raised by defendants in their motions to dismiss.  The
second amended complaint adds a claim against the shareholder
defendants for breach of fiduciary duty as controlling
stockholders of TSRE.  The defendants have moved to dismiss the
second amended complaint and the motions are currently pending.

"IRT, as successor by the TSRE merger to TSRE, and the individual
defendants intend to vigorously defend against the claim. We
cannot assure you that the matter will be resolved favorably to
us. We have included in our loss contingency an estimate of
probable loss relating to our legal defense costs in connection
with this matter, but currently cannot reasonably estimate any
further possible loss, or any range of reasonably possible loss,
in connection with this matter," the Company said.

IRT is a Maryland corporation that owns apartment properties in
geographic non-gateway markets.

In September 2015, IRT announced the completion of its acquisition
of Trade Street Residential, Inc.  As a result of the merger, each
outstanding share of Trade Street common stock was automatically
converted into (a) $3.80 in cash and (b) 0.4108 shares of IRT
common stock. In connection with the merger, IRT paid
approximately $139.8 million in cash and issued approximately 15.1
million shares of common stock to former Trade Street
stockholders.


TRIAD GUARANTY: 30% of Settlement Fund Awarded to Lead Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JAMES L. PHILLIPS, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. TRIAD
GUARANTY INC., MARK K. TONNESEN, and KENNETH W.JONES, Defendants,
No. 1:09CV71 (M.D.N.C.), Judge N. Carlton Tilley, Jr. granted in
full the motion filed by the lead counsel for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses.

In January 2009, James L. Phillips filed suit against the Triad
Guaranty Inc., Mark K. Tonnesen, and Kenneth W. Jones alleging
violations of securities laws.  Western Pennsylvania Electrical
Employees Pension Fund was appointed as lead plaintiff.  The
parties eventually agreed to settle the suit and successfully
sought court approval of a $1.6 million settlement for a defined
class of plaintiffs.

The lead counsel requested an award of 30% of the settlement
amount and $105,516.13 in expenses, together with interest earned
on both amounts for the same time period and at the same rate as
that earned on the settlement fund until paid.

Judge Tilley granted the lead counsel's motion in full.  The judge
also ordered that the fees and expenses shall be allocated amongst
other plaintiffs' counsel in a manner that the lead counsel in
good faith believes reflects the contributions of such counsel to
the initiation, prosecution, and resolution of the litigation.

A full-text copy of Judge Tilley's May 9, 2016 memorandum opinion
and order is available at https://is.gd/tXKgko from Leagle.com.

JAMES L. PHILLIPS, Plaintiff, represented by LESLIE BRUCE MCDANIEL
-- mcdas@mcdas.com -- MCDANIEL & ANDERSON, LLP.

WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRICAL EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND, Plaintiff,
represented by BRIAN O'MARA -- bomara@rgrdlaw.com -- JACK REISE --
jreise@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, PAUL J.
GELLER -- pgeller@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP,
ELIZABETH A. SHONSON -- eshonson@rgrdlaw.com
-- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, JEFFREY D. LIGHT --
jeffl@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, LESLIE
BRUCE MCDANIEL, MCDANIEL & ANDERSON, LLP, MICHAEL L. GREENWALD  --
mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com -- GREENWALD DAVIDSON, PLLC & STEPHEN R.
ASTLEY -- sastley@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP.

MARK K. TONNESEN, KENNETH W. JONES, Defendants, represented by
RICHARD A. ROSEN -- rrosen@paulweiss.com -- PAUL WEISS RIFKIND
WHARTON & GARRISON, LLP, ROBYN TARNOFSKY --
rtarnofsky@paulweiss.com -- PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON,
LLP, WILLIAM K. DAVIS -- wdavis@belldavispitt.com -- BELL DAVIS &
PITT, P.A. & DANIEL ALAN M. RULEY -- aruley@belldavispitt.com --
BELL DAVIS & PITT, P.A..


TRICKEY'S SERVICE: Faces Class Action Over Tow Service Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sanford J. Schmidt, writing for The Telegraph, reports that a  man
has filed a proposed class action suit against Trickey's Service
of Wood River, claiming the company charged him $100 extra for a
police-initiated tow, plus a storage fee for a Sunday, on which
the company was closed.

Lucas Clark, of Wood River, was arrested on a driving-under-the-
influence charge Saturday, March 19, but he could not reclaim the
vehicle the following Sunday, March 20, because Trickey's was
closed, the suit claims filed by Clark against Trickey's Service.
The DUI case is pending.

He also claims the tow service charged him $358, which is
allegedly $100 more than would be charged had an owner voluntarily
asked the vehicle to be towed.  The total bill for storage was
$120, in addition to the $358 towing charge.  The suit claims a
tow initiated by police requires no more work or expense by the
defendant towing company.

The suit claims that state law allows for towing of cars that
police suspect may be used in a subsequent violation, such as
driving under the influence, but the officer may not impound the
vehicle for more than 12 hours.

The suit also claims that the law provides that the fees for
towing and redeeming impounded vehicles must be filed and kept on
record with the local police.  There is no such schedule of fees
on file, the complaint alleges.

Attorney Thomas Maag of Wood River is representing Clark and
proposes to make the case a class action cause.

"The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable, as defendant has charged at least hundreds of class
members the charges at issue," the suit alleges.  Mr. Maag is also
alleging there are questions of law applicable to all members of
the proposed class.

The proposed class is "all persons who, on or after May 6, 2011,
had vehicles towed and stored by Trickey's Service, Inc., at the
direction of someone other than the vehicle owner or operator, and
were charged fees for towing in excess of the rate charged to tow
non-police tows."

A judge must certify the case as a class action before it can
proceed.  A spokesman for Trickey's had no immediate comment.

The three-count suit is asking for at least $50,000 in each count.


TRISTAR PRODUCTS: Faces Ohio Suit Over Defective Pressure Cookers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH CHAPMAN, JESSICA VENNEL, and JASON JACKSON, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
TRISTAR PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Case: 1:16-cv-01114 (N.D. Ohio,
May 10, 2016), alleges that Tristar designed, manufactured,
marketed, and sold online or through third-party retailers a high-
powered pressure cooker called the "Power Pressure Cooker XL,"
that suffers from a serious and dangerous design defect.

Tristar designs, manufacturers, markets, and sells the Pressure
Cooker online and through third-party retailers throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jack Landskroner, Esq.
     Drew Legando, Esq.
     LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN, LLC
     1360 West 9th Street, Ste. 200
     Cleveland, OH 44113-1254
     Phone: (216) 522-9000
     Fax: (216) 522-9007
     E-mail: jack@lgmlegal.com
             drew@lgmlegal.com

        - and -

     Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
     Lisa A. White, Esq.
     Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
     GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
     First Tennessee Plaza
     800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
     Knoxville, TN 37929
     Phone: (865) 247-0080
     Fax: (865) 533-0049
     E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
             lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com
              mark@gregcolemanlaw.com

        - and -

     Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
     Tyler J. Story, Esq.
     WEXLER WALLACE LLP
     55 W. Monroe Street, Ste. 3300
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 346-2222
     Fax: (312) 246-0022
     E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
             tjs@wexlerwallace.com

        - and -

     Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
     Arthur Stock, Esq.
     BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
     1622 Locust Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: (215) 875-4656
     Fax: (215) 875-4604
     E-mail: scarson@bm.net
             astock@bm.net


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Trump Attorney Opposes Unsealing of Documents
---------------------------------------------------------------
JW August, writing for NBC San Diego, reports that Donald Trump's
attorney opposes unsealing some of the documents the Washington
Post requested to be made public related to the Trump University
class-action lawsuit, according to court documents filed on
May 9.

Rancho Palos Verdes Attorney Jill Martin has filed her opposition
on behalf of Mr. Trump.  According to the filing with the San
Diego federal court where the November trial will be heard,
Ms. Martin opposes unsealing some of the 52 documents "filed in
support of and in opposition to" the class-action lawsuit.  The
documents consist of 1,200 pages.

According to court documents, the Washington Post's attorneys
exchanged emails and phone calls with Mr. Trump's team after the
newspaper had filed its "motion to intervene" in the case.
Mr. Trump's counsel agreed to unseal all the documents with the
exception of four, consisting of 153 pages, the record detail.
The four documents are described in the filing as Trump
University's (Tus) "Playbooks."  The attorneys argue the documents
contain "confidential trade secret information."

According to the court documents, although Trump University has
stopped enrolling students, the information retains "its
commercial value in the event TU starts enrolling students again,
something it may do."

Calls to Trump's attorney's were not immediately returned on
May 9.  Attorney's for the Washington Post told NBC 7 it did not
have a comment on the recent filing.

The Post's motion to intervene was filed related to the older of
the two lawsuits moving through San Diego courts, Cohen vs. Trump.

In the court documents, Ms. Martin argues the Post should not get
to see what is in the documents because Judge Gallo has decided
the documents contain "confidential trade secret information,
which, if made public, would be harmful to TU's competitive
standing."  The documents detail that the Post's argument
"completely misses the mark" when they argue the public interest
in this case "somehow outweighs" Mr. Trump's.

Daniel Petrocelli, another of Mr. Trump's attorney, spoke to NBC 7
on May 6 about deposition taken of Mr. Trump.  He said it would
"not be a good idea" to release it to the public.

In the class action lawsuits, Trump University is accused of
misleading students with unfulfilled promises of teaching them the
secret to being successful in the real estate business.  The
allegations outlined in court documents include Trump University,
which took in over $40 million, was fraudulent and deceptive.
Students paid up to $35,000 for real estate seminars, according to
court documents.

Mr. Trump denies the allegations in the lawsuits.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Settlement Sidesteps Core Issue
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Ribeiro, writing for PCWorld, reports that a proposed
settlement between Uber and drivers in California and
Massachusetts may have saved the company over US$600 million in
payouts to drivers on work-related expenses.

Uber agreed to pay the drivers an initial $84 million and a $16
million top-up depending on the company's valuation if it goes
public.

But the settlement in the class-action lawsuits sidesteps the core
issue of whether the drivers should be classified as employees,
which could have increased the amount Uber would have to pay the
drivers.

The ride-hailing company uses independent contractors rather than
employees as drivers because it holds that the model gives the
drivers a sense of ownership and also work flexibility.  Figures
disclosed by Shannon Liss-Riordan, the attorney for the drivers,
in court on May 9 suggest that the policy also translates into
large savings for the ride-hailing company.

The settlement has to still get the preliminary approval of
District Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. The calculations were released on
May 9 after Judge Chen refused to allow the redaction of certain
portions of the settlement motion, such as information on the
value of the claims.

As employees, the drivers in California would be entitled to as
much as $426 million in mileage expense reimbursement for trips
made on the ride-hailing platform between 2009 and April of this
year, according to the lawyer's estimate.  Uber had put the amount
much lower at $169 million. Massachusetts drivers would have got
another $98 million.

Phone expenses for the California drivers were pegged at $24.7
million and for those in Massachusetts at $4.6 million, according
to the lawyer's estimate.  Another $176 million in mileage
expenses reimbursement would also fall due to drivers in
California who were not part of the class in the lawsuit but were
included in the settlement.

The estimate provided by Ms. Liss-Riordan also includes $122
million in claims for alleged "unlawful taking of gratuities" by
Uber.

Uber has challenged the class certification in an appeals court,
according to the Liss-Riordan, in defense of the settlement.  An
adverse decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit would have diminished the class size from more than
240,000 drivers to approximately 8,000 drivers, or fewer depending
on the Ninth Circuit's reasoning, she wrote in a filing.

Uber also said it would appeal the matter further, if necessary,
in the Supreme Court.  The company had also informed her that at
trial in the district court it would argue that it had satisfied
Section 2802 of the California Labor Code, which deals with
employee expenses, by structuring the fare to be an all-inclusive
one that takes into account things like expenses, Ms. Liss-Riordan
wrote in the filing.

Objections from drivers to the settlement have risen. "Some
drivers out there are doing this full time working night and day
. . ..  So I urge you to reconsider and demand more from UBER and
stand with the little fellas trying to making a living," according
to a filing by Samy Jumaan to Judge Chen.  Another driver, Edward
Hanania appealed to the Judge for help against Uber who "is taking
unfair advantage of us."  Mr. Hanania added that unlike union
workers who have protection and many industries that have laws to
protect them, "you are all we have right now."

Uber faces more class-action lawsuits in Florida and Illinois from
drivers seeking reclassification as employees.  Unlike the ones in
Massachusetts and California, the new ones aim to be national
class-action suits.


VECTOR MARKETING: Supplemental Briefing Due May 20 in "Woods"
-------------------------------------------------------------
After reviewing the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval,
Judge Edward M. Chen ordered the parties to provide a joint
supplemental brief regarding certain issues in the case captioned
WILLIAM WOODS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VECTOR MARKETING
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 14-cv-00264-EMC (N.D. Cal.).

The supplemental briefing shall be filed no later than May 20,
2016.

A full-text copy of Judge Chen's May 9, 2016 order is available at
https://is.gd/0Tk6vB from Leagle.com.

William Woods, Plaintiff, represented by Christina Ann Humphrey,
Marlin & Saltzman, Daniel Hyo-Shik Chang, Diversity Law Group,
P.C., Hanna Betty Raanan, Marlin & Saltzman, LLP, Larry W Lee,
Diversity Law Group, P.C., Leslie H. Joyner, Marlin Saltzman, LLP
& Stanley Donald Saltzman, Marlin & Saltzman.

Dominic Seale, Wesley Varughese, Casey McCaleb, Plaintiffs,
represented by Stanley Donald Saltzman, Marlin & Saltzman, Daniel
Hyo-Shik Chang, Diversity Law Group, P.C.,Hanna Betty Raanan,
Marlin & Saltzman, LLP, Larry W Lee, Diversity Law Group, P.C.,
Leslie H. Joyner, Marlin Saltzman, LLP & Christina Ann Humphrey,
Marlin & Saltzman.

Eric Essler, Plaintiff, represented by Christina Ann Humphrey,
Marlin & Saltzman, Stanley Donald Saltzman, Marlin & Saltzman,
Daniel Hyo-Shik Chang, Diversity Law Group, P.C., Larry W Lee,
Diversity Law Group, P.C. &Leslie H. Joyner, Marlin Saltzman, LLP.

Samuel Barone-Crowell, Plaintiff, represented by Christina Ann
Humphrey, Marlin & Saltzman, Daniel Hyo-Shik Chang, Diversity Law
Group, P.C.,Larry W Lee, Diversity Law Group, P.C., Leslie H.
Joyner, Marlin Saltzman, LLP & Stanley Donald Saltzman, Marlin &
Saltzman.

Lowell Harvard Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Stanley Donald
Saltzman, Marlin & Saltzman, Daniel Hyo-Shik Chang, Diversity Law
Group, P.C.,Larry W Lee, Diversity Law Group, P.C., Leslie H.
Joyner, Marlin Saltzman, LLP & Christina Ann Humphrey, Marlin &
Saltzman.

Vector Marketing Corporation, Defendant, represented by Karen
Joyce Kubin -- kkubin@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Derek
Francis Foran -- dforan@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, James
R. Grasso -- jgrasso@phillipslytle.com -- Phillips Lytle LLP,
Joanna J. Chen -- jchen@phillipslytle.com -- Phillips Lytle LLP,
Kenneth A. Manning -- kmanning@phillipslytle.com -- Phillips Lytle
LLP, Lloyd W. Aubry, Jr. -- laubry@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster
LLP & William J. Brennan -- wbrennan@phillipslytle.com -- Phillips
Lytle LLP.


WAL-MART STORES: Bid to Dismiss "Leal" Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned YALILE LEAL v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Civil
Action No. 15-5768 (E.D. La.), Judge Karen Wells Roby denied Wal-
Mart Store's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of Judge Roby's May 6, 2016 order is available at
https://is.gd/B8SGUc from Leagle.com.

Yalile Leal filed the lawsuit contending that Wal-Mart
discriminated against her by overlooking her for promotions and
not paying her the same pay as men.  Leal worked at various Wal-
Mart stores over the last fifteen years and worked in different
departments and different positions.  She worked as a cashier,
customer service representative, lay-a-way clerk, overnight
stocker, and in accounting.  She contended that she became
interested in a management position early on and became a support
manager in the automotive department but later stepped down
because of personal reasons.  She contended that she later sought
to reenter management but was told that no positions were
available, although she observed men who were less qualified being
promoted into management.  She also complained that male employees
were paid more than her, received higher raises, and better
bonuses for the same or similar work.  Leal therefore sought
damages for past and present loss of income, mental anguish,
emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of
reputation, and attorney's fees and costs.

Yalile Leal, Plaintiff, represented by J. Arthur Smith, III, Smith
Law Firm, LLC, James Harvey Kaster -- kaster@nka.com -- Nichols
Kaster, PLLP, pro hac vice, Jason Paul Hungerford --
jhungerford@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP, pro hac vice, Justin
M. DeLaune, Smith Law Firm, LLC, Kate Ann Fisher, Nichols Kaster,
PLLP, pro hac vice, Lucas James Kaster -- lkaster@nka.com --
Nichols Kaster, PLLP, pro hac vice & Matthew Hale Morgan --
morgan@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP, pro hac vice.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stephen Paul
Beiser -- sbeiser@mcglinchy.com -- McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC &
Susanne U. Veters -- sveters@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey
Stafford, PLLC.


WESTCONSIN CREDIT: Court Rules on Bid for Protective Order
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BRIAN EGGEN and MARY EGGEN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
WESTCONSIN CREDIT UNION, Defendant, No. 14-cv-873-bbc (W.D. Wis.),
Judge Barbara B. Crabb granted in part and denied, in part,
WESTconsin Credit Union's motion to "bifurcate and stay
plaintiff's claim for punitive damages."

The certified class action was brought under the Driver's Privacy
Protection Act.  The plaintiffs, Brian Eggen and Mary Eggen,
contended that the defendant WESTconsin Credit Union violated the
Act by including driver's license numbers in unsealed and
unredacted court documents.  WESTconsin then filed what it called
a "motion to bifurcate and stay plaintiffs' claim for punitive
damages."  Judge Crabb, however, stated that the motion is more
accurately called a request for a protective order because
WESTconsin was asking for a "stay [of] discovery relating to the
issue of punitive damages until after motions for summary judgment
are decided."   In particular, WESTconsin asked the court to delay
both the noticed deposition of Jerlyn Kinderman, the defendant's
chief financial officer, and the deadline for responding to
Request Nos. 22 through 31 of the plaintiffs' third request for
production of documents.  WESTconsin argued that a stay is
appropriate because the requested discovery relates solely to the
defendant's financial status, which is both confidential and
irrelevant to the liability issues that it will be raising in its
motion for summary judgment.

Granting in part and denying, in part, WESTconsin's motion, Judge
Crabb held that the defendant may have until May 16, 2016, to
serve the plaintiffs Brian Eggen and Mary Eggen with any
objections to Request Nos. 22 through 31 of the plaintiffs' third
request for production of documents.  The judge also stated that
if the case is not resolved on summary judgment, WESTconsin may
have seven days from the date of the summary judgment decision to
comply with those requests in the absence of a sustained
objection.  Judge Crabb also added that the WESTconsin must make
defendant Jerlyn Kinderman available to sit for a deposition
within 14 days of the decision.

"Although defendant does not have to provide information about its
financial status until any summary judgment motions are resolved,
defendant must raise any objections to plaintiff's requests for
production of documents now. This will help to minimize any delays
and allow any disputes about the scope of the requests to be
resolved well before trial. Second, defendant should be prepared
to turn over any responsive documents as soon as the court rules
on the summary judgment motion. Third, defendant should be
prepared to make its chief financial officer available for a
deposition within two weeks of the summary judgment decision,
unless the case is dismissed in full at that time," the Court
said.

A full-text copy of Judge Crabb's May 6, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/R3VnSQ from Leagle.com.

Bradley Eggen, Mary Eggen, Plaintiffs, represented by Eric
Leighton Crandall, Crandall Law Offices, SC, Thomas John Lyons,
Jr., Consumer Justice Center, P.A. & Thomas John Lyons, Sr., Lyons
Law Firm PA.

WESTconsin Credit Union, Defendant, represented by Michael Patrick
Crooks -- mcrooks@pjmlaw.com -- Peterson, Johnson & Murray, S.C. &
Quentin Fitch Shafer -- gshafer@pjmlaw.com -- Peterson, Johnson &
Murray, S.C..


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M's Bid to Exclude Bevis Testimony Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant 3M Company filed a Motion for Exclusion of Testimony of
Darell Bevis and Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned
The case is MARSHA K. DUGAS, Individually and as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Darryl S. Dugas, Plaintiff, v. 3M
COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:14-cv-1096-J-39JBT (M.D.
Fla.).  Plaintiff Marsha K. Dugas filed her Responses in
Opposition.

3M seeks to exclude the proffered expert testimony of Darell Bevis
who opines that 3M's 8500 dust mask was defectively designed. 3M's
position is grounded in a myriad of reasons. First, 3M contends
that Mr. Bevis is unqualified to render opinions on alleged
defects in respiratory protection equipment. Second, 3M argues
that Mr. Bevis's opinion is not based on a reliable methodology or
factual basis. Third, Mr. Bevis's conclusion is irrelevant and
unfairly prejudicial, and lastly, that Mr. Bevis is nothing more
than a paid advocate. 3M also argues that Mr. Bevis's opinion that
Mr. Dugas wore an 8500 dust mask while in the Navy lacks a factual
basis, and that Mr. Bevis is not sufficiently qualified to offer
that opinion.

Judge Brian J. Davis of the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, granted in part
and denied in part 3M's Motion for Exclusion of Testimony of
Darell Bevis.  Mr. Bevis is prohibited from offering an opinion on
the design of the 3M 8500 dust mask.  Mr. Bevis may offer an
opinion on whether the mask described by Mr. Dugas is an 8500 dust
mask.

Judge Davis also granted in part and denied in part 3M's Motion
for Summary Judgment.  Judge Davis granted 3M's Motion for Summary
Judgment in respect to Plaintiff's claims of design defect and
fraudulent concealment.  Judge Davis denied 3M's Motion for
Summary Judgment in respect to Plaintiff's failure to warn claim.

A full-text copy of the Order dated March 29, 2016 is available at
http://is.gd/DswRicfrom Leagle.com.

Marsha K. Dugas, Plaintiff, is represented by Alan M. Pickert,
Esq. -- Terrell Hogan, PA, Case A. Dam, Esq. -- The Lanier Law
Firm, H.W. Trey Jones, Esq. -- Lanier Law Firm, pro hac vice, Mark
A. Linder, Esq. -- Lanier Law Firm, pro hac vice & W. Mark Lanier,
Esq. -- The Lanier Law Firm, pro hac vice.

3M Company, Defendant, is represented by Byron N. Miller, Esq. --
bmiller@tmslawplc.com -- Thompson Miller & Simpson PLC, pro hac
vice, Dara D. Mann, Esq. -- dara.mann@dentons.com -- Dentons US
LLP, pro hac vice, Jerry W. Blackwell, Esq. --
blackwell@blackwellburke.com -- Blackwell Burke P.A., pro hac
vice, Mary A. Wells, Esq. -- mwells@warllc.com -- Wells, Anderson
& Race LLC, pro hac vice, Monica L. Irel, Esq. --
monica.irel@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP & Sada J. Baby, Esq. --
sada.baby@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP, pro hac vice.

IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Eduardo J.
Medina, Esq. -- Bice Cole Law Firm, PL, Melanie E. Chung-Tims,
Esq. -- Bice Cole Law Firm, PL, Neil Anthony Covone, Esq. -- Bice
Cole Law Firm, PL & Susan J. Cole, Esq. -- Bice Cole Law Firm, PL.

United Technologies Corporation, Defendant, is represented by
Eduardo J. Medina, Bice Cole Law Firm, PL, Knight S. Anderson,
Tucker Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Melanie E. Chung-Tims, Bice Cole
Law Firm, PL, Neil Anthony Covone, Bice Cole Law Firm, PL & Susan
J. Cole, Bice Cole Law Firm, PL.

Dexter Hysol Aerospace, LLC, Defendant, is represented by Billie
Jo Taylor, Esq. -- btaylor@boydjen.com -- Boyd & Jenerette, PA,
Kristen M. Van der Linde, Esq. -- kvanderlinde@boydjen.com -- Boyd
& Jenerette, PA & R. Scott Masterson, Esq. --
Scott.Masterson@lewisbrisbois.com  -- Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard &
Smith, LLP, pro hac vice.

Henkel Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Billie Jo Taylor,
Boyd & Jenerette, PA, Kristen M. Van der Linde, Boyd & Jenerette,
PA & R. Scott Masterson, Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, LLP,
pro hac vice.

Shell Oil Company, Defendant, is represented by Evelyn Fletcher
Davis, Esq. -- edavis@hptylaw.com -- Hawkins & Parnell, LLP & Todd
Carlton Alley, Esq. -- talley@hptylaw.com -- Hawkins Parnell
Thackston & Young LLP.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Joseph C.
Wilson, IV, Esq. -- Pierce, Herns, Sloan & Wilson, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Compel Subpoena Compliance Granted
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case is CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. BORGWARNER, et al., Defendants, C.A. No. N15M-05-009 (Del.
Sup.), the Superior Court of Delaware granted in part and denied
in part BorgWaner, Inc.'s Motion to Compel and granted in part and
denied in part the Intervenors's Motion to Quash.

Before the Court is a dispute regarding the production of
testimonial and document evidence created as part of an
arbitration proceeding under the 1985 Wellington Agreement.

BorgWarner, Inc. has filed a motion to compel compliance with a
subpoena that seeks evidence adduced during the arbitration, now
in the hands of a trust, to support its position in an unrelated
matter now pending in Illinois state court. Intervenors objected,
arguing that such evidence is -- by agreement of the parties to
the Wellington Agreement -- confidential, and now ask this Court
to respect that agreement and quash BorgWarner's subpoena.

A full-text copy of the Order dated March 15, 2016 is available at
http://is.gd/r8W5zofrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. High Court Rules on Jurisdisction Issue
-------------------------------------------------------------
This interlocutory appeal raises the singular issue of whether
Delaware may exercise general jurisdiction over a foreign
corporation for claims having nothing to do with Delaware, as a
price for the corporation agreeing simply to be able to do
business in Delaware.

The personal jurisdiction issue before us arises out of claims for
wrongful exposure to asbestos. The plaintiffs-appellants, Ralph
and Sandra Cepec, are residents of Georgia. The seven defendants
are companies associated with the manufacture, distribution, or
installation of products containing asbestos. One of the
defendants is Genuine Parts Company. Between approximately 1988
and 1991, Ralph worked for Genuine Parts in a warehouse in
Jacksonville, Florida.

In 2015, the Georgia plaintiffs sued the defendants in Delaware.
Five of the seven defendants are Delaware corporations. Genuine
Parts, however, is a Georgia corporation whose principal place of
business is in Atlanta. That is, Genuine Parts is, like the
Cepecs, at home in Georgia, not in Delaware. Nationally, Genuine
Parts is known for operating NAPA auto-parts stores. It has never
had a corporate office in Delaware, does not conduct its board or
shareholder meetings in this state, and does not have any officers
here. According to Genuine Parts, fewer than 1% of its employees
work in Delaware, fewer than 1% of its auto-parts stores are here,
and less than 1% of its revenue comes from our state. Genuine
Parts is properly registered to do business in Delaware under
Section 371 and has a designated agent for service of process in
Wilmington in accordance with Section 376.

In their complaint, the Cepecs allege that Genuine Parts acted
negligently, willfully and wantonly, and with reckless
indifference to Ralph's health and safety by wrongfully exposing
Ralph to asbestos during the three years that he worked for the
company in Florida, which, combined with other asbestos exposure,
caused him to develop malignant mesothelioma and other asbestos-
related ailments. They also pled that Genuine Parts "is a foreign
corporation doing business in the state of Delaware whose
registered agent for service of process is: The Corporation Trust
Company."

On June 30, 2015, Genuine Parts moved to dismiss the claims
against it for lack of general and specific personal jurisdiction.
In response, the Cepecs did not argue that the Superior Court had
specific jurisdiction over Genuine Parts under the long-arm
statute, but argued that Genuine Parts had consented to Delaware's
general jurisdiction by registering to do business in this state
and appointing an in-state agent for service of process.
In its August 31, 2015 order denying Genuine Parts' motion to
dismiss, the Superior Court agreed with the Cepecs' position that
Genuine Parts had consented to general jurisdiction in Delaware

The Supreme Court of Delaware in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's
clarification of the due-process limits on general jurisdiction in
Goodyear and Daimler, read the state's registration statutes as
providing a means for service of process and not as conferring
general jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Superior Court's judgment
that denied Genuine Parts' motion to dismiss the claims against it
for lack of personal jurisdiction is reversed.

A full-text copy of the Order dated April 18, 2016 is available at
http://is.gd/yqRtacfrom Leagle.com.

The case is GENUINE PARTS COMPANY, Defendant Below-Appellant, v.
RALPH ALLAN CEPEC and SANDRA FAYE CEPEC, Plaintiffs Below-
Appellees, No. 528, 2015 (Del. Sup.).

Paul A. Bradley, Esquire, pab@maronmarvel.com --  Maron Marvel
Bradley & Anderson LLC, Stephanie A. Fox, Esquire, Esq. --
saf@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC,
Wilmington, Delaware; James C. Grant, Esquire (Argued),
jim.grant@alston.com -- -- Alston & Bird LLP, Jonathan D. Parente,
Esquire, Esq. -- jonathan.parente@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP,
Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellant.

Jeffrey S. Goddess, Esquire (Argued), jgoddess@rmgglaw.com --
Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Lisa W.
Shirley, Esquire --  lshirley@sgpblaw.com -- Charles E. Soechting,
Jr., Esquire -- csoechting@sgpblaw.com -- Simon, Greenstone,
Panatier & Bartlett, Dallas, Texas, for Appellees.

Kathaleen St. J. McCormick, Esquire -- kmccormick@ycst.com --
Nicholas J. Rohrer, Esquire -- nrohrer@ycst.com -- Julia B.
Ripple, Esquire -- jripple@ycst.com -- Young Conaway Stargatt &
Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Andrew J. Pincus, Esquire --
apincus@mayerbrown.com, Archis A. Parasharami, Esquire --
aparasharami@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, D.C.;
Kathryn Comerford Todd, Esquire -- Warren Postman, Esquire, U.S.
Chamber Litigation Center, Inc., Washington, D.C.,Amicus Curaie
for The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America.

William W. Erhart, Esquire, Estate and Elder Law Services,
Wilmington, Delaware; David W. deBruin, Esquire, The deBruin Firm
LLC, Wilmington, Delaware; Meghan Butters Houser, Esquire, Weiss &
Saville, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, Amicus Curaie for Delaware
Trial Lawyers Association.

John C. Phillips, Jr., Esquire, David A. Bilson, Esquire,
Phillips, Goldman, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware;
Robert L. Willmore, Esquire,Thomas Kinney, Esquire, Crowell &
Moring LLP, Washington, D.C., Amicus Curiae for Coalition for
Litigation Justice, Inc. and American Insurance Association.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers OK'd to Amend 3rd-Party Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
This dispute concerns insurance coverage for silica- and asbestos-
related claims against Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company. On
September 6, 2012, the Court held that Defendants The Travelers
Indemnity Company and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company have a
duty to defend such claims. Travelers moves to certify that order,
along with two later orders concerning attorney's fees, as a
partial final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
54(b). Separately, Travelers seeks leave to amend the Second
Amended Third Party Complaint, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 15 and 21, to reinstate claims against Trygg-Hansa
Insurance Company, Ltd.

In brief, Plaintiff Danaher Corporation purchased Chicago
Pneumatic in 1986 and sold the company to Atlas Copco North
America, Inc. in 1987. Danaher retained liability for products
liability losses arising from products manufactured by Chicago
Pneumatic prior to the sale, and obtained rights to receive the
proceeds of insurance policies covering those losses. Chicago
Pneumatic has been and continues to be a defendant in claims
arising from the use of its products (the "Underlying Claims").
Danaher has incurred defense and indemnity costs as a result of
the Underlying Claims.

Travelers issued general liability insurance policies to Chicago
Pneumatic and Danaher between 1936 and 1987. Danaher filed this
action on January 7, 2010, seeking coverage of the Underlying
Claims. Danaher then filed an Amended Complaint naming additional
insurers as Defendants, and after two years of discovery, moved
with Atlas Copco for summary judgment on whether Travelers had a
duty to defend the Underlying Claims.

Judge J. Paul Oetken of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York denied the motion to certify and
granted the motion to amend.

A full-text copy of the Opinion and Order dated March 30, 2016 is
available at http://is.gd/bLXwxHfrom Leagle.com.

The case is DANAHER CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. THE TRAVELERS
INDEMNITY COMPANY, et al., Defendants, No. 10-CV-121
(JPO)(S.D.N.Y.).

Danaher Corporation, Plaintiff, is represented by Brian Jonathan
Osias, Esq. -- bosias@mccarter.com -- McCarter & English, LLP &
Gita F. Rothschild, Esq. -- grothschild@mccarter.com -- McCarter &
English, LLP.

The Travelers Indemnity Company, Defendant, is represented by
Robert W. Mauriello, Jr., Esq. -- rmauriello@grahamcurtin.com --
Graham, Curtin P.A. & Jennifer Leigh Schoenberg, Esq. --
jschoenberg@grahamcurtin.com -- Graham, Curtin P.A..

Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Defendant, is represented
by Robert W. Mauriello, Jr., Graham, Curtin P.A. & Jennifer Leigh
Schoenberg, Graham, Curtin P.A..

North River Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by Gerard
Craig Morici, Esq. -- gerard.morici@mendes.com -- Mendes & Mount,
LLP & Robert Michael Flannery, Esq. -- robert.flannery@mendes.com
-- Mendes & Mount, LLP.

American Home Assurance Company, Defendant, is represented by
Ellen Gayle Margolis, Esq. -- emargolis@moundcotton.com -- Mound
Cotton Wollan & Greengrass, Gerard Craig Morici, Mendes & Mount,
LLP & Robert Michael Flannery, Mendes & Mount, LLP.

Unigard Mutual Insurance Company Inc., Defendant, is represented
by Robert Dwyer Sullivan, Jr, Esq. -- Wilson Elser,Moskowitz
Edelman & Dicker LLP, Barbara Hopkinson Kelly, Esq. --
barbara.kelly@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman
& Dicker LLP, pro hac vice & Sheilagh Mary Depeter, Esq. --
sheilagh.depeter@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson Elser,Moskowitz Edelman
& Dicker LLP.

Employers Insurance Company of Wausau, Defendant, is represented
by Claude N. Grammatico, Esq. -- Epstein, Frankini & Grammatico.

Continental Casualty Company, Defendant, represented by John
Albert Mattoon, Ford Marrin Esposito Witmeyer & Gleser LLP &
Andrew I Mandelbaum, Ford Marrin Esposito Witmeyer & Gleser, LLP.
Employers Commercial Union Insurance Company, Defendant,
represented by Gerard Craig Morici, Mendes & Mount, LLP.

International Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Anthony
Gambardella, Rivkin, Radler & Kremer, Jay Kenigsberg, Rivkin
Radler, L.L.P. & Michael Buckley, Rivkin Radler, LLP.

Granite State Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Ellen
Gayle Margolis, Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass, Gerard Craig
Morici, Mendes & Mount, LLP & Robert Michael Flannery, Mendes &
Mount, LLP.

National Union Fire Insurance Company Of Pittsburgh, PA,
Defendant, represented by Ellen Gayle Margolis, Mound Cotton
Wollan & Greengrass,Gerard Craig Morici, Mendes & Mount, LLP &
Robert Michael Flannery, Mendes & Mount, LLP.

Allianz Underwriters Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
John T. Wolak, Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione.
Atlas Copco North America, Inc., ThirdParty Defendant, represented
by Paul E. Breene, Reed Smith.

AIU Insurance Company, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Gerard
Craig Morici, Mendes & Mount, LLP.

Century Indemnity Company, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by
Brian G. Fox, Siegal & Park & James F Martin, Cohn Baughman &
Martin.

Liberty Mutual Fire Insuance Company, ThirdParty Defendant,
represented by Eric J. Voigt, Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass.
Industria Insurance Company LTD., ThirdParty Defendant,
represented byPaul E. Breene, Reed Smith LLP.

Trygg-Hansa Insurance Company, LTD., ThirdParty Defendant,
represented by Karen M. Asner, White & Case LLP.

North River Insurance Company, Cross Claimant, represented by
Robert Michael Flannery, Mendes & Mount, LLP.

The Travelers Indemnity Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Robert W. Mauriello, Jr., Graham, Curtin P.A. & Jennifer Leigh
Schoenberg, Graham, Curtin P.A..

Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Cross Defendant,
represented byRobert W. Mauriello, Jr., Graham, Curtin P.A. &
Jennifer Leigh Schoenberg, Graham, Curtin P.A..

The Travelers Indemnity Company, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented
byRobert W. Mauriello, Jr., Graham, Curtin P.A. & Jennifer Leigh
Schoenberg, Graham, Curtin P.A..

Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, ThirdParty Plaintiff,
represented byRobert W. Mauriello, Jr., Graham, Curtin P.A. &
Jennifer Leigh Schoenberg, Graham, Curtin P.A..

Danaher Corporation, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Brian
Jonathan Osias, McCarter & English, LLP & Gita F. Rothschild,
McCarter & English, LLP.

North River Insurance Company, ThirdParty Defendant, represented
byRobert Michael Flannery, Mendes & Mount, LLP.

The Travelers Indemnity Company, ThirdParty Defendant, represented
byRobert W. Mauriello, Jr., Graham, Curtin P.A. & Jennifer Leigh
Schoenberg, Graham, Curtin P.A..

Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, ThirdParty Defendant,
represented by Robert W. Mauriello, Jr., Graham, Curtin P.A. &
Jennifer Leigh Schoenberg, Graham, Curtin P.A..

The Travelers Indemnity Company, Cross Claimant, represented by
Robert W. Mauriello, Jr., Graham, Curtin P.A. & Jennifer Leigh
Schoenberg, Graham, Curtin P.A..

Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Cross Claimant, represented
byRobert W. Mauriello, Jr., Graham, Curtin P.A. & Jennifer Leigh
Schoenberg, Graham, Curtin P.A..

Danaher Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Brian
Jonathan Osias, McCarter & English, LLP & Gita F. Rothschild,
McCarter & English, LLP.

North River Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Robert Michael Flannery, Mendes & Mount, LLP.

The Travelers Indemnity Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Robert W. Mauriello, Jr., Graham, Curtin P.A. & Jennifer Leigh
Schoenberg, Graham, Curtin P.A..

Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Cross Defendant,
represented byRobert W. Mauriello, Jr., Graham, Curtin P.A. &
Jennifer Leigh Schoenberg, Graham, Curtin P.A..

The Travelers Indemnity Company, Counter Claimant, represented by
Robert W. Mauriello, Jr., Graham, Curtin P.A. & Jennifer Leigh
Schoenberg, Graham, Curtin P.A..

Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Counter Claimant,
represented byRobert W. Mauriello, Jr., Graham, Curtin P.A. &
Jennifer Leigh Schoenberg, Graham, Curtin P.A..

Danaher Corporation, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian
Jonathan Osias, McCarter & English, LLP & Gita F. Rothschild,
McCarter & English, LLP.

Atlas Copco North America, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by
Paul E. Breene, Reed Smith.

North River Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Gerard Craig Morici, Mendes & Mount, LLP & Robert Michael
Flannery, Mendes & Mount, LLP.

Atlas Copco North America, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by
Paul E. Breene, Reed Smith.

The Travelers Indemnity Company, Counter Defendant, represented
byRobert W. Mauriello, Jr., Graham, Curtin P.A. & Jennifer Leigh
Schoenberg, Graham, Curtin P.A..

Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Counter Defendant,
represented byRobert W. Mauriello, Jr., Graham, Curtin P.A. &
Jennifer Leigh Schoenberg, Graham, Curtin P.A..

Atlas Copco North America, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by
Paul E. Breene, Reed Smith.

North River Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Gerard Craig Morici, Mendes & Mount, LLP & Robert Michael
Flannery, Mendes & Mount, LLP.

Atlas Copco North America, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by
Paul E. Breene, Reed Smith.

The Travelers Indemnity Company, Counter Defendant, represented
byRobert W. Mauriello, Jr., Graham, Curtin P.A. & Jennifer Leigh
Schoenberg, Graham, Curtin P.A..

Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Counter Defendant,
represented byRobert W. Mauriello, Jr., Graham, Curtin P.A. &
Jennifer Leigh Schoenberg, Graham, Curtin P.A..

Industria Insurance Company LTD., Counter Claimant, represented by
Paul E. Breene, Reed Smith.

The Travelers Indemnity Company, Counter Defendant, represented
byRobert W. Mauriello, Jr., Graham, Curtin P.A. & Jennifer Leigh
Schoenberg, Graham, Curtin P.A..

Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Counter Defendant,
represented byRobert W. Mauriello, Jr., Graham, Curtin P.A. &
Jennifer Leigh Schoenberg, Graham, Curtin P.A..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Remands "Sawyer" to Maryland State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The estate of Joseph Morris, his surviving spouse, and his
surviving children sued Defendant Foster Wheeler, LLC in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City. Morris died from mesothelioma,
and the plaintiffs Janya Sawyer, et al. claim under various state
law theories that the defendants were responsible for exposing him
to the asbestos that caused his disease. Foster Wheeler removed
Morris's action to this court under the federal officer removal
statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1). Now pending is the
plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court.

The plaintiffs claim that Morris was diagnosed with asbestos-
related mesothelioma on December 1, 2014 and died as a result of
this disease on March 1, 2015. Allegedly he was exposed to
asbestos at Bethlehem Steel Sparrows Point Shipyard where he
worked as a "riveter heater and boiler maker in the 'boiler shop'"
from 1948 through the 1970s. The plaintiffs filed their complaint
in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City on June 5, 2015, alleging
theories of strict liability, breach of warranty, negligence,
fraud, conspiracy, market share liability, loss of consortium, and
wrongful death. Foster Wheeler filed its notice of removal on
January 11, 2016.

Foster Wheeler claims it "manufactured marine boilers and
auxiliary equipment for use on Navy ships pursuant to contracts
and specifications executed by the Navy." The defendant's basis
for removal is that Foster Wheeler was acting under an officer or
agency of the United States within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.
Section 1442(a)(1) in the manufacture and sale of boilers for the
Navy.

In their motion for remand, the plaintiffs argue that (1) Foster
Wheeler's notice of removal was not timely and (2) Foster Wheeler
fails to meet the requirements of the federal officer removal
statute. As to the second point, the plaintiffs claim that the
boilers were constructed in the shipyard's boiler shop under the
direction of Foster Wheeler personnel and were only transported
and installed on Navy ships after their completion. They do not
dispute that the boilers were built pursuant to Navy
specifications, and that the Navy controlled the warnings that
accompanied the boilers when they were placed on Navy ships, but
they contend the Navy did not restrict Foster Wheeler's ability to
warn its employees in the shipyard's boiler shop about the
presence of asbestos and their need to take proper safety
precautions while constructing the boilers. Additionally, the
plaintiffs say there is no evidence that warning individuals in
the shipyard's boiler shop would have conflicted with the Navy's
specifications, and none of the Navy guidelines cited by Foster
Wheeler relate to warning workers in the boiler shop.

Judge Catherine C. Blake of the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand.
A full-text copy of the Memorandum dated April 20, 2016 is
available at http://is.gd/U1X10Hfrom Leagle.com.

The case is Janya Sawyer, et al. v. Union Carbide Corporation, et
al., Civil No. CCB-16-118 (D. Md.).

Janya Sawyer, Plaintiff, is represented by William G Minkin, Esq.
-- WMinkin@lawpga.com -- Law Offices of Peter G Angelos & James
Steven Zavakos, Esq. -- JZavakos@lawpga.com --  Law Offices of
Peter G Angelos.

Garnette Morris, Plaintiff, is represented by William G Minkin,
Law Offices of Peter G Angelos & James Steven Zavakos, Law Offices
of Peter G Angelos.

Nancy Pike, Plaintiff, is represented by William G Minkin, Law
Offices of Peter G Angelos & James Steven Zavakos, Law Offices of
Peter G Angelos.

Edward Morris, Plaintiff, is represented by William G Minkin, Law
Offices of Peter G Angelos & James Steven Zavakos, Law Offices of
Peter G Angelos.

Wayne Morris, Plaintiff, is represented by William G Minkin, Law
Offices of Peter G Angelos & James Steven Zavakos, Law Offices of
Peter G Angelos.

Joanne Traynor, Plaintiff, is represented by William G Minkin, Law
Offices of Peter G Angelos & James Steven Zavakos, Law Offices of
Peter G Angelos.

John Crane-Houdaille, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Laura A
Cellucci, Esq. -- lcellucci@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Scott Jeffrey Richman, Esq. --
srichman@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles and Stockbridge PC &
Timothy McDevitt Hurley, Esq. -- tmcdevitt@milesstockbridge.com --
Miles and Stockbridge PC.

Owens-Illinois Glass Co., Defendant, is represented by Randolph L
Burns, Esq. -- The Burns Law Firm PC.

Foster Wheeler Corporation, Defendant, is represented by John C
Ruff, Esq. -- jruff@dehay.com -- DeHay and Elliston LLP & Patrick
C Smith, Esq. -- psmith@dehay.com -- Dehay and Elliston LLP.

Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Defendant, is represented by David W
Allen, Esq. -- dwa@gdldlaw.com -- Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann
LLP, Malcolm Sean Brisker, Esq. -- msb@gdldlaw.com -- Goodell
DeVries Leech and Dann LLP & Terri Lynn Goldberg, Esq. --
tlg@gdldlaw.com -- Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP.

Universal Refractories Company, Defendant, is represented by Jason
Sean Garber, Moore & Jackson LLC.

Selby, Battersby & Company, Defendant, is represented by Laura A
Cellucci, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Scott Jeffrey Richman, Miles
and Stockbridge PC &Timothy McDevitt Hurley, Miles and Stockbridge
PC.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Philip A Kulinski,
Evert Weathersby Houff & Clare Marie Maisano, Evert Weathersby
Houff.

J.H. France Refractories Co., Defendant, is represented by
Geoffrey S Gavett, Gavett Datt and Barish PC & Laura D Abenes,
Gavett, Datt Barish PC.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co, Defendant, is represented by
Theodore F Roberts, Venable LLP & Scott Mason Richmond, Venable
LLP.

MCIC, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Louis E Grenzer, Jr,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Defendant, is represented by
Cheri V. Koerner, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Stephen Anthony Fennell,
Steptoe and Johnson LLP & Jamie Michelle Hertz, Steptoe & Johnson
LLP.

General Electric Company, Defendant, is represented by Donald S
Meringer, Meringer Zois and Quigg LLC.

International Paper Company, Defendant, is represented by Philip A
Kulinski, Evert Weathersby Houff & Clare Marie Maisano, Evert
Weathersby Houff.

Cooper Industries, Inc., Defendant, is represented by John C Ruff,
DeHay and Elliston LLP & Patrick C Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP.
Ferro Engineering Division of On Marine Services Company,
Defendant, is represented by Jennifer M Alexander, Brassel
Alexander & Rice LLC & Jon W Brassel, Brassel Alexander & Rice.

Foseco, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Laura A Cellucci, Miles
and Stockbridge PC & Scott Jeffrey Richman, Miles and Stockbridge
PC.

Wayne Manufacturing Corporation, Defendant, represented by David W
Allen, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP, Malcolm Sean Brisker,
Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP & Terri Lynn Goldberg, Goodell
DeVries Leech and Dann LLP.

Lofton Corporation, Defendant, represented by David W Allen,
Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP, Malcolm Sean Brisker, Goodell
DeVries Leech and Dann LLP & Terri Lynn Goldberg, Goodell DeVries
Leech and Dann LLP.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Neil
Joseph MacDonald, MacDonald Law Group, LLC & Rachelle A Schofield,
MacDonald Law Group, LLC.

Greene, Tweed & Co., Defendant, represented by Andrew William
Gaudreau, Goldberg Segalla & Thomas Peter Bernier, Goldberg
Segalla.

Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust, Defendant, represented
byTheodore F Roberts, Venable LLP & Scott Mason Richmond, Venable
LLP.

Crown, Cork & Seal Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Theodore F
Roberts, Venable LLP & Scott Mason Richmond, Venable LLP.
Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Defendant, represented by Laura A Cellucci,
Miles and Stockbridge PC & Scott Jeffrey Richman, Miles and
Stockbridge PC.

Koppers Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jason Sean
Garber, Moore & Jackson LLC.

Pfizer, Inc., Defendant, represented by John C Ruff, DeHay and
Elliston LLP & Patrick C Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP.
Phelps Packing & Rubber Co., Defendant, represented by William
Carlos Parler, Jr, Parler and Wobber LLP.

Paramount Packing & Rubber, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Geoffrey S Gavett, Gavett Datt and Barish PC & Laura D Abenes,
Gavett, Datt Barish PC.

Lloyd E. Mitchell, Inc., Defendant, represented by Helyna M
Haussler, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman and Dicker LLP & Jason
Richard Waters, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman and Dicker.

Pecora Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael Thomas
Hamilton, Marks ONeill OBrien Doherty and Kelly PC & Sebastian
Goldstein, Marks, O Neill, O Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

MCIC, Inc., ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Louis E Grenzer,
Jr, Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

A.W. Chesterton Company, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by
Benjamin D Whetzel, Segal McCambridge Singer and Mahoney Ltd &
Thomas Peter Bernier, Goldberg Segalla.

John Crane-Houdaille, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Laura A
Cellucci, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Scott Jeffrey Richman, Miles
and Stockbridge PC &Timothy McDevitt Hurley, Miles and Stockbridge
PC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Directs Review of Workers' Claims Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Union Carbide Corporation appeals from the Law
Division's February 24, 2015 order denying reconsideration of its
August 29, 2014 order denying UCC's motion for a protective order
to restrict dissemination of certain medical records filed in
workers' compensation cases. While the judge denied UCC's motion,
she fashioned an alternative protective order requiring
notification to the former employees. If they failed to object or
respond, the former employees were deemed to have waived all
privacy interests in their medical records. UCC sought
reconsideration, which the court denied. UCC now appeals.

The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, reversed
because the judge's order does not provide the privacy protection
required by N.J.S.A. 34:15-128.3 when disclosing workers'
compensation medical information.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated April 20, 2016 is available
at http://is.gd/7Ljhznfrom Leagle.com.

The case is GWENDOLYN SEYMOURE, individually and as Executrix and
Executrix ad Prosequendum of the Estate of James F. Seymoure,
Plaintiff-Respondent, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS COMPANY, ARVIN-
MERITOR, INC., f/k/a Arvin Industries, Inc., as successor-in-
interest to Rockwell International Automotive, ASBESTOS
CORPORATION, LTD., BELL ASBESTOS MINES, LTD., BORG WARNER MORSE
TEC, f/k/a Borg Warner, BRIDGESTONE FIRESTONE NORTH AMERICAN TIRE,
LLC, as successor-in-interest to Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. and
Worldbestos Corporation, CARLISLE COMPANIES INCORPORATED, a/k/a
Carlisle Braking Products, CENTRAL JERSEY SUPPLY CO., CERTAINTEED
CORPORATION, DANA COMPANIES, LLC, individually and as successor-
in-interest to Victor Gaskets and Spicer Clutches, EASTERN
EXPRESS, INC. (DISCOVERY ONLY), EASTERN FREIGHT WAYS, INC.
(DISCOVERY ONLY), EATON CORPORATION, FISHER SCIENTIFIC COMPANY,
LLC, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, GOODRICH CORP., f/k/a B.F. Goodrich, THE
GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER CO., HOLLINGSWORTH & VOSE COMPANY,
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., f/k/a Allied Signal, Inc., as
successor-in-interest to the Bendix Corporation, INTERNATIONAL
PAPER COMPANY, KAISER GYPSUM, KENTILE FLOORS, INC., LIPE
AUTOMATION, f/k/a Lipe Rollway Corporation, MCCORD CORPORTAION,
MACK TRUCKS, INCORPORATED, MAREMONT CORPORATION, individually and
as successor to Grizzly, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
MITSUI & CO. (USA), INC., OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORP., OVERNIGHT
(DISCOVERY ONLY), PACCAR, INCORPORATED, individually and as
successor to Kenworth Truck Company and Peterbilt Motor Company,
PNEUMO-ABEX, LLC, RYDER SYSTEM, INC., T.I.M.E. D.C., INC.
(DISCOVERY ONLY), UNIROYAL HOLDINGS, INC., f/k/a Uniroyal, Inc.,
WYETH HOLDINGS CORPORATION, f/k/a American Cyanamid Corp., and
RYDER TRUCK RENTAL, INC., Defendants, and UNION CARBIDE
CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant, No. A-3967-14T3.

Craig A. Woods, Esq. -- cwoods@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP
of the Illinois bar, admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause for
appellant (Caruso Smith Picini PC and Mr. Woods, attorneys;
Richard D. Picini, of counsel and on the brief).

Robert E. Lytle, Esq. -- RLytle@szaferman.com argued the cause for
respondent (Szaferman, Lakind, Blumstein & Blader, P.C., and Levy
Konigsberg, LLP, attorneys; E. Elizabeth Sweetser, on the brief).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment in "McKenzie" Reversed
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Dana Jeunea appeals in this product liability civil
action resolved by summary judgment in favor of defendant Warren
Pumps, LLC. Plaintiff's late husband, Paul McKenzie, served on two
aircraft carriers during his naval career, working on and around
various pumps that defendant had manufactured and sold to the
United States Navy in the 1940s. In claims for strict product
liability, negligence, and loss of consortium brought against
defendant, plaintiff alleged that her husband had developed
mesothelioma after his exposure to asbestos-containing replacement
gaskets, insulation, and packing used with defendant's pumps.

Plaintiff contended that it was foreseeable that those replacement
items would be used with the pumps and that defendant should have
warned of the dangers of asbestos exposure with the use of its
pumps. Defendant filed a summary judgment motion in which it
argued, among other things, that, even if plaintiff could prove
that McKenzie had been exposed to asbestos through the replacement
items, plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient evidence that
defendant had manufactured them or supplied them to the Navy and,
therefore, that it was entitled to judgment in its favor on all
claims as a matter of law. The trial court granted defendant's
summary judgment motion on plaintiff's claims.

On appeal, plaintiff argues that defendant is subject to liability
on all her claims because, at the time McKenzie worked around the
pumps, they were in substantially the same condition as when
defendant had sold them to the Navy and it was foreseeable that
seamen would be exposed to asbestos through the replacement
gaskets, packing, and insulation used with defendant's pumps, even
though defendant had not manufactured or sold the replacements.
The Court of Appeals of Oregon reversed and remanded.

On the issue presented as to plaintiff's strict product liability
claim, a matter of first impression in Oregon, this court
concluded that the statute that governs strict product liability
in Oregon permits plaintiff's theory of liability; that plaintiff
has adduced facts supporting the disputed causation element of her
negligence claim; and that the trial court erred in dismissing
plaintiff's loss of consortium claim, which piggy-backed on the
strict liability and negligence claims.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated April 20, 2016 is available
at http://is.gd/kygXpgfrom Leagle.com.

The case is Paul George McKenzie and Dana Jeunea McKenzie, husband
and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. A. W. CHESTERSON COMPANY, et
al., Defendants, and WARREN PUMPS, LLC, individually and as
successor-in-interest to Quimby Pump Company, Defendant-
Respondent, 277 Or. App. 728

James S. Coon, Esq. -- jcoon@stc-law.com argued the cause and
filed the briefs for appellants. With him on the opening brief was
Swanson Thomas & Coon. With him on the reply brief was Swanson,
Thomas, Coon & Newton.

Laurie Hepler, Esq. argued the cause for respondent. On the briefs
were J. Michael Mattingly, Esq. -- mmattingly@rizzopc.com -- Rizzo
Mattingly Bosworth PC., Allen Eraut, Esq. -- aeraut@rizzopc.com --
Rizzo Mattingly Bosworth PC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Circuit Remands "Davidson" to State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Tina Davidson, Kathryn D. Davidson and Kristen M.
Davidson filed the instant survival and wrongful death action in
Louisiana state court bringing similar claims to those in the
first suit. The new suit did, however, add an allegation that
Davidson was exposed to asbestos-containing insulation while
working at Poulan Chainsaw in Shreveport from 1972 to 1978. All of
the defendants in Davidson II were parties to Davidson I with the
exception of the nondiverse Louisiana Defendants whose joinder is
contested in this appeal: J. Graves Insulation Company, Inc. and
Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc.  Graves and Taylor, according to
Plaintiffs, are contractors that frequently installed asbestos
insulation during the 1970s in northwest Louisiana.

Plaintiffs sought remand. In support of their motion, Plaintiffs
attached the affidavit of one of their attorneys, who stated,
based on her experience that "to the extent Mr. Davidson was
exposed to asbestos insulation at Poulan Chainsaw, this insulation
was more likely than not supplied, installed, and repaired by
Graves and Taylor." Georgia-Pacific and a second defendant,
CertainTeed, opposed the motion to remand, urging the court to
pierce the pleadings and to consider summary-judgment type
evidence.

Both sides supported their positions by quoting Davidson's
testimony, from two depositions in the first lawsuit, about
potential asbestos exposure while working at Poulan Chainsaw.
The district court referred the remand motion to a magistrate
judge. The magistrate judge issued an order granting the motion to
remand, concluding that the allegations in the petition were
sufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(6)-type analysis and that there
was not a basis for piercing the pleadings.

The district court referred the remand motion to a magistrate
judge. The magistrate judge issued an order granting the motion to
remand, concluding that the allegations in the petition were
sufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(6)-type analysis and that there
was not a basis for piercing the pleadings.

Georgia-Pacific and CertainTeed filed appeals of the order. The
district court disagreed with the magistrate's analysis. After
piercing the pleadings, it concluded that Graves and Taylor had
been improperly joined. Based on its improper joinder finding, the
court dismissed Graves and Taylor with prejudice. After a period
of discovery, the remaining Defendants filed a series of motions
that resulted in the dismissal of all claims.

On appeal, Plaintiffs challenge only the denial of their motion to
remand. This court address a procedural question that a number of
other circuits have decided except this court: does a magistrate
judge have authority to enter an order remanding a case to state
court?

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated
the judgment and remanded to the district court for entry of an
order remanding the case to state court.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated April 19, 2016 is available
at http://is.gd/6tDrNqfrom Leagle.com.

The case is TINA DAVIDSON, Individually and on behalf of William
Cleve Davidson; KATHRYN D. DAVIDSON, Individually and on behalf of
William Cleve Davidson; KRISTEN M. DAVIDSON, Individually and on
behalf of William Cleve Davidson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
GEORGIA-PACIFIC, L.L.C.; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; CERTAINTEED
CORPORATION; BEAZER EAST, INCORPORATED; J GRAVES INSULATION
COMPANY, INCORPORATED, formerly known as Graves-Aber Insulation
Company, Incorporated; TAYLOR SEIDENBACH, INCORPORATED, formerly
known as Taylor-Seidenbach, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees,
No. 14-30925.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Reverses Summary Judgment in "Finerty"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of New York reversed the Order of the
Appellate Division granting Ford USA's motion for summary judgment
dismissing the complaint against it and answered in the negative
the certified question in the case styled MARY FINERTY & C.,
Respondents, v. ABEX CORPORATION, FORMERLY KNOWN AS AMERICAN BRAKE
SHOE COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Appellant.
(And Another Action.) , No. 1, 2016 NY Slip Op 03411.
In 2010, plaintiff and his wife commenced this action against,
among others, Ford Motor Company ("Ford USA"), Ford Motor Company,
Ltd. ("Ford UK") and Henry Ford & Son, Ltd. ("Ford Ireland")
alleging strict products liability under the theories of defective
design and failure to warn. After discovery, Ford USA moved for
summary judgment seeking to dismiss the complaint on the ground
that Ford USA did not manufacture, produce, distribute or sell the
parts in question, pointing out that they were manufactured,
produced, distributed and sold by its wholly-owned subsidiary,
Ford UK. Ford USA further moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant
to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) arguing that the complaint should be
dismissed for failure to state a cause of action because it was
devoid of any allegations supporting a claim that the court should
"pierce the corporate veil" such that Ford USA could be held
derivatively liable for the acts of Ford UK.

Plaintiff countered that Ford USA was "actively involved" in the
design, specification, production and sale of Ford products
throughout the world, including the United Kingdom, such that it
could be held liable for the role it "independently played" in
placing the products into the stream of commerce and in failing to
warn plaintiff.

Supreme Court, while holding that there was no basis upon which to
pierce the corporate veil, nonetheless determined that because
plaintiff produced evidence showing that Ford USA "exercised
significant control over Ford UK and Ford Ireland and had a direct
role in placing the asbestos-containing products to which
plaintiff was exposed into the stream of commerce," there was a
question of fact concerning Ford USA's direct responsibility for
plaintiff's injuries.

The Appellate Division affirmed the order of Supreme Court denying
Ford USA's motion for summary. It agreed with Supreme Court that
there was "no basis for piercing the corporate veil" but held that
"the record demonstrated that Ford USA acted as the global
guardian of the Ford brand, having a substantial role in the
design, development, and use of the auto parts distributed by Ford
UK, with the apparent goal of the complete standardization of all
products worldwide that carried the signature Ford logo". As such,
the Appellate Division held that there were factual issues
concerning whether Ford USA could be found "directly liable as a
result of its role in facilitating the distribution of the
asbestos-containing auto parts on the ground that it was 'in the
best position to exert pressure for the improved safety of
products' or to warn end users of these auto parts of the hazards
they presented".

The Appellate Division granted Ford USA leave to appeal to this
Court pursuant to CPLR 5713, and certified the question of whether
that portion of the order that affirmed the order of Supreme Court
was properly made.

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated May 3, 2016 is available at
https://is.gd/1Q6Lpq from Leagle.com.

Anton Metlitsky,  Esq. -- ametlitsky@omm.com -- O'Melveny for
appellant.

James M. Kramer, Esq. -- LEVY KONIGSBERG LLP for respondents.
Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, amicus
curiae.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Loses Bid to Dismiss "Bazor"
--------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Rhode Island, PROVIDENCE, SC, denied Dana
Companies, LLC's Motion to Dismiss the case In Re: Asbestos
Litigation relating to KAY BAZOR, Administratrix of the Estate of
ROBERT BAZOR, and Individually as Surviving Spouse Plaintiffs, v.
ABEX CORPORATION, et al., Defendants., C.A. No. PC-10-3965.
Before this Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Personal Jurisdiction and Plaintiffs Robert T. and Kay Bazor's
Opposition. These motions are made pursuant to Super. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(2). At issue is whether Dana has forfeited its defense of
lack of personal jurisdiction asserted in its Answer by
participating in the litigation.

The Court found that Dana's active conduct constitutes forfeiture
of the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated May 2, 2016 is available at
https://is.gd/lNnAfw from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Silver Loses Bids for Acquittal, New Trial
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Valerie Caproni of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York denied Defendant Sheldon Silver's
Motions in the case UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. SHELDON SILVER,
Defendant, No. 15-CR-093 (VEC).

Defendant Sheldon Silver, former Speaker of the New York State
Assembly, was convicted on two counts of honest services mail
fraud, two counts of honest services wire fraud, two counts of
extortion under color of official right, and one count of money
laundering. Silver renews his motion pursuant to Rule 29 for a
judgment of acquittal and moves pursuant to Rule 33 for a new
trial.

Silver orchestrated two criminal schemes that abused his position
as the Speaker of the New York State Assembly and as an elected
Assemblyman for unlawful personal gain. The two schemes follow the
same basic model: Silver received bribes and kickbacks in the form
of referral fees from third party law firms in exchange for
official actions. Silver also engaged in money laundering pursuant
to which he invested the proceeds of his unlawful schemes into
private, exclusive investment vehicles.

The first scheme is the "Mesothelioma Scheme." In the fall of
2002, Silver became "of counsel" to the personal injury law firm
Weitz & Luxenberg. Silver received a fixed salary for lending his
name to the firm (Silver was not expected to and did not perform
any legal work for the firm's clients) and received a referral fee
for any case he brought into the firm; his referral fee was a set
percentage of the fees earned by the firm on any case Silver
referred to the firm. Mesothelioma cases were particularly
lucrative, generating on average hundreds of thousands of dollars
in legal fees per case; the firm did not donate to mesothelioma
medical research.

The second scheme is the "Real Estate Scheme." Glenwood Management
and the Witkoff Group are two major real estate developers in New
York. Both companies depend heavily on the New York State
government for favorable rent regulation, 421-a tax abatement
legislation, and tax-exempt financing that must be approved by the
Public Authorities Control Board ("PACB"). Both companies hired
lobbyists and spent millions in political contributions in an
effort to ensure that they achieved those goals. Silver exercised
extraordinary control over legislation covering these issues and
over PACB approvals. Silver essentially had veto power over all
legislation because he could unilaterally prevent any legislation
he opposed from coming to a vote, and he could unilaterally
prevent the PACB from approving financing.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated May 3,
2016 is available at https://is.gd/upN9YG from Leagle.com.
Sheldon Silver, Defendant, is represented by Joel Cohen, Esq. --
jcohen@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Joel Barry
Rudin, Esq. -- Law Offices of Joel B. Rudin, Justin Vaun Shur,
Esq. -- jshur@mololamken.com -- Mololamken, LLP, Steven Francis
Molo, Esq. --  smolo@mololamken.com -- MoloLamken, LLP, Andrew
Daniel Goldstein, United States Attorney's Office, SDNY, Carrie
Heather Cohen, U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY, Howard Seth Master,
U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY, James M. McDonald, Us Doj, Justin
Michael Ellis, Esq.-- jellis@mololamken.com -- Molo Lamken LLP,
Robert Kelsey Kry, Esq. --rkry@mololamken.com -- Molo Lamken LLP &
Tuongvy Le, Esq. -- tle@mololamken.com -- Mololamken LLP.
Dr. Robert Taub, Interested Party, is represented by Lisa R.
Zornberg, Esq. -- lzornberg@lswlaw.com -- Lankler Siffert & Wohl
LLP.

The New York Times Company, Intervenor, is represented by David
Edward McCraw, The New York Times Company.

NBC Universal Media, LLC, Intervenor, is represented by Daniel M.
Kummer, NBC Universal Media LLC.

USA, Plaintiff, is represented by Andrew Daniel Goldstein, United
States Attorney's Office, SDNY, Carrie Heather Cohen, U.S.
Attorney's Office, SDNY,Howard Seth Master, U.S. Attorney's
Office, SDNY & James M. McDonald, Us Doj.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss Reckless Conduct Claim Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Warren W. Eginton of the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut denied defendant
Aurora Pump Company's motion to dismiss the third count in the
action styled JAMES SCHMIDT, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC
COMPANY et al, Defendants. No. 3:15-cv-00941-WWE.

Defendant Aurora Pump Company has moved to dismiss the Third Count
of plaintiff's complaint, which alleges reckless conduct and seeks
punitive damages based upon plaintiff's exposure to defendants'
asbestos containing products.

Aurora argues that plaintiff's Third Count should be dismissed for
failure to assert specific allegations of recklessness. However,
plaintiff alleges that defendants manufactured, distributed, sold,
or otherwise placed into the stream of commerce products which
contained asbestos. Plaintiff further alleges that defendants
intentionally and fraudulently concealed the dangers of breathing
asbestos from plaintiff and the public. Aurora responds that these
allegations are "nothing more than allegations of negligence," and
that plaintiff's complaint lacks allegations setting out "highly
unreasonable conduct" giving rise to a valid recklessness claim.
The Court found that plaintiff's Third Count adequately alleges
recklessness as a matter of law. The plaintiff will, of course, be
left to his proof of, inter alia, connecting his alleged exposure
to asbestos with defendant's manufacture or distribution of
contaminated products.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum of Decision dated May 4, 2016
is available at https://is.gd/BbS6FS from Leagle.com.

James Schmidt, Plaintiff, is represented by Amity L. Arscott, Esq.
-- Embry & Neusner.

General Electric Company, Defendant, is represented by Brett
Michael Szczesny, Esq. -- szczesny@halloransage.com -- Halloran &
Sage & Dan E. LaBelle, Esq. -- labelle@halloransage.com --
Halloran & Sage.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Robert F. Martin,
Esq. -- rmartin@eckertseamans.com --  Eckert Seamans Cherin &
Mellott LLC.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, is represented by
Jessica Leigh Patch, Esq. -- Hermes, Netburn, O'Connor & Spearing,
P.C. & John R Felice, Esq. -- jfelice@hermesnetburn.com -- Hermes,
Netburn, O'Connor & Spearing, P.C..

Foster Wheeler L.L.C., Defendant, is represented by James R.
Oswald, Esq. -- joswald@apslaw.com -- Adler, Pollock & Sheehan,
Katharine S. Perry, Esq. -- kperry@apslaw.com -- Adler Pollock &
Sheehan PC & Kristen R. Souza, Esq. -- ksouza@apslaw.com --  Adler
Pollock & Sheehan PC.

Crane Co., Defendant, is represented by Crystal L Cooke, Esq. --
cfraser@danaherlagnese.com  -- Danaher Lagnese, PC,Jason Kirk
Henderson, Esq. -- jhenderson@danaherlagnese.com  -- Danaher
Lagnese, PC & Patrick J. Glinka,Esq. -- pglinka@danaherlagnese.com
-- Danaher, Lagnese & Sacco, P.C..

Ingersoll-Rand Co, Consol Defendant, is represented by Erminia Amy
LaBrecque, Esq. -- Adler, Cohen, Harvey, Wakeman and Guekguezian.
3M Company, Consol Defendant, is represented by John C.
Fitzgerald, Jr., Cranmore, Fitzgerald & Meaney, Joseph V. Meaney,
Jr., Cranmore, Fitzgerald & Meaney & Kyle R. Pavlick, Cranmore,
Fitzgerald & Meaney.

Armstrong International Inc., Consol Defendant, is represented by
Adam C Martin, Cetrulo LLP & Matthew Jason Zamaloff, Cetrulo LLP.
Aurora Pump, Consol Defendant, represented by Cullen W.
Guilmartin, Gordon & Rees LLP, Delaney M. Busch, Gordon & Rees LLP
& John J. Robinson, Gordon & Rees LLP.

Bayer Cropscience Inc, Consol Defendant, represented by
Christopher E. H. Sanetti, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP,
Monica Rose Nelson, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Christy
E. Centeno, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

Borgwarner Morse, TEC, LLC, Consol Defendant, represented by
Brendan T. Mahoney, Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, PC & Richard M.
Dighello, Jr., Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C..

BW/IP, Inc., Consol Defendant, represented by Geoffrey Lane
Squitiero, Halloran & Sage LLP.

Flowserve US Inc., Consol Defendant, represented by Geoffrey Lane
Squitiero, Halloran & Sage LLP.

Ford Motor Co., Consol Defendant, represented by Christian J.
Singewald, White and Williams LLP.

Georgia Pacific LLC, Consol Defendant, represented by Brian
Collins Spring, Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP, Jonathan F. Tabasky,
Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP & Kevin W. Hadfield, Manion Gaynor &
Manning LLP.

Honeywell Intl Inc, Defendant, represented by Gregg P. Bailey,
Cetrulo LLP, pro hac vice.

Honeywell Intl Inc, Consol Defendant, represented by Matthew Jason
Zamaloff, Cetrulo LLP.

IMO Industries, Inc., Consol Defendant, represented by Brendan T.
Mahoney, Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, PC & Richard M. Dighello, Jr.,
Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C..

Lincoln Electric Co., Consol Defendant, represented by Brian T.
Murnane, Darger Errante Yavitz & Blau, LLP, pro hac vice,
Christine S. Synodi, Synodi & Videll, LLC, Philip A. Kulinski,
Evert, Weathersby, Houff, pro hac vice &Vincent A. Errante, Darger
& Errante LLP.

Metropolitan Life Insurance, Consol Defendant, represented by
Melicent B. Thompson, Litchfield Cavo LLP.

Nash Engineering Co, Consol Defendant, represented by Jennifer
Elaine Wheelock, McGivney & Kluger, P.C., Kelly E. Petter,
McGivney & Kluger, P.C. & Tamar Bakhbava, McGivney & Kluger, P.C..
Niantic Seal Rip Inc, Consol Defendant, represented by Reed Adam
Slatas, Adler Law Group LLC.

Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, Consol Defendant, represented by
Catherine A. Mohan, McCarter & English, LLP.

Sepco, Consol Defendant, represented by Brendan T. Mahoney,
Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, PC & Richard M. Dighello, Jr., Updike,
Kelly & Spellacy, P.C..

Tenneco, Inc., Consol Defendant, represented by Christopher R.
Drury, Shipman & Goodwin.

Viking Pumps, Inc., Consol Defendant, represented by Alexandra
Nassopoulos Vilella, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP & Charles K.
Mone, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP.

Warren Pumps LLC, Consol Defendant, represented by Alexandra
Nassopoulos Vilella, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP & Charles K.
Mone, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP.

Weir Valves & Controls USA Inc., Consol Defendant, represented by
Jennifer Elaine Wheelock, McGivney & Kluger, P.C., Kelly E.
Petter, McGivney & Kluger, P.C. & Tamar Bakhbava, McGivney &
Kluger, P.C..

Safeguard Scientifics Inc, Consol Defendant, represented by Edward
N. Storck, III, Morrison, Mahoney LLP.

The Scotts Company LLC, Consol Defendant, represented by Erin C
O'Leary, McCarter & English LLP & Cara Tonucci Keefe, McCarter &
English LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deal Inked in Non-Occuptational Exposure Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that the remaining parties
involved in a non-occupational asbestos exposure suit brought
against Weyerhaeuser Co. have reached a settlement agreement,
according to the court, shortly before trial was scheduled to
start in the matter.

In a May 5 docket entry, the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin indicated that a settlement had been reached
in the case and, given that the remaining claim in the action had
been settled, the case was thereby dismissed.

The underlying claims were filed by plaintiff Milton Boyer, who
was employed at the Marshfield plant from 1973 to 1983.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Take Home Death Nets $7-Mil. Verdict
-----------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a Louisiana trial judge awarded $7 million to the surviving
family members of a woman who died of cancer after years of
laundering her husband's asbestos-tainted clothes.

Myra Williams died from mesothelioma, a disease caused exclusively
by exposure to asbestos after years of contact with the material
at home through handling her husband's work clothes. Myra's
husband, Jimmy Williams, worked around asbestos at his job for
Placid Oil Co., court documents say.

As part of his job at Placid Oil, according to the documents,
Jimmy Williams was required to crawl over equipment insulated with
asbestos.

"This caused asbestos dust and fibers to accumulate on his
clothing, which he wore home on a daily basis to be laundered by
Myra Williams," Judge Lala Sylvester's ruling said.

Ingersoll-Rand manufactured asbestos-laden compressors and
supplied them to Placid Oil. Jimmy William's job at Placid Oil
involved changing gaskets and removing insulation. Workers during
trial testified that the removal of insulation and vibration from
the compressors would create asbestos dust in the compressor room,
which visible to the naked eye.

By the 1950s Ingersoll Rand was aware of the dangers of asbestos,
Williams's family claimed, but the company continued to use
asbestos insulation in the equipment it manufactured and did not
provide warnings to the workers using the equipment. Workers had
no idea their health was at risk, and they would not have known of
the dangers of taking asbestos home on their clothing.

The take-home asbestos exposure case ended April 29, 2016.

Myra Williams had four children, each of whom was awarded $750,000
for Myra's death. The total damages won total $7 million.

"Myra's children were extremely close to her, and it was an honor
to represent them," Lance Unglesby of the Unglesby Law Firm said
in a statement posted on its website.

"Take-home asbestos exposure will continue to harm families across
America due to the negligence of companies that failed to properly
protects workers," Jeff Gaughan, a partner with Baggett McCall Law
Firm, said in an online statement. "We are honored to have
represented the Williams family and proud to bring them justice
for their unimaginable grieving, pain and suffering."

Baggett McCall and Unglesby Law Firm collectively are responsible
for the two highest survival action mesothelioma verdicts in the
state. Dorothy White v. Entergy resulted in a $3.8 million
survival action mesothelioma verdict, and Sadie Mae Terrance v.
Exxon resulted in a $5 million survival action mesothelioma
verdict.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal for Info After Mans Dies from Cancer
------------------------------------------------------------
The Press reported that a retired lift engineer's son is working
with solicitors to help discover how his father was exposed to
asbestos.

Brian Addison, 79, from York, died on Saturday, just five months
after he was diagnosed with mesothelioma -- a terminal cancer.

His son, Carl, 57, is appealing for information from his father's
former colleagues to discover more about how Mr Addison came into
contact with asbestos.

The 79-year-old left the RAF in 1966 and became a lift engineer's
assistant, working initially for Fairfield Promotions Limited,
also known as Fairfield Lift & Escalator Company, which had
offices in Bradford and Cleveland, and later at Ebor Lift Company,
based in York.

It is during his time in this role at the companies, that Mr
Addison said he came into contact with asbestos that caused him to
develop mesothelioma.

His family has instructed specialist asbestos-related disease
lawyers at Irwin Mitchell's Leeds office to investigate whether or
not more could have been done by his former employers to protect
him from the dangers posed by asbestos.

Carl said: "My family have been left absolutely devastated by my
dad's death. It is still extremely fresh for us but we want to get
to the bottom of what caused his illness and where exactly he was
exposed to asbestos.

"Dad was always fit and healthy and I know that his diagnosis
really affected him and he was worried what the future would hold
for him and the rest of the family and in particular my mother.

"I can only hope people who worked with him will recognise him and
come forward with the information we need to ensure those
responsible for failing to prevent his asbestos exposure are held
to account."

During his career working in the lift maintenance and repair
industry, Mr Addison worked during the 1970s and the early 1980s
at various power stations in Yorkshire including Ferrybridge B and
C, Skelton Grange and Thorpe Marsh in Doncaster and Keadby Power
station in Scunthorpe.

He worked in dusty conditions and saw employees of the power
stations stripping lagging from pipework while he was undertaking
his lift duties.

Nicola Handley, a specialist industrial disease lawyer at Irwin
Mitchell, said: "Sadly, we know through our work, that many
employers did not do enough to manage the risk associated with
asbestos, even as late as in the 1980s, when extensive legislation
had already been passed.

"We are now appealing to any of Brian's former colleagues who
worked with him at Fairfield Promotions Limited/Fairfield Lift &
Escalator Company and Ebor Lift Company to contact us in order to
discuss the working conditions."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in 3 Cumberland Schools
-------------------------------------------------------
Cierra Putman, writing for NBC 10 News, reported that school is
almost done in Cumberland, but there's a plan for a busy summer
after asbestos was found in several schools.

Teachers were told they'll need to pack up so work can begin the
last day of school.

"At no time were any children or any adults in danger in any way,"
Cumberland School Superintendent Robert Mitchell said.

This summer, the school district will remove all flooring at three
schools, including North Cumberland Middle, McCourt Middle, as
well as Ashton Elementary.

In 1994, NBC 10 News reported that several schools were closed so
asbestos floor tiles could be removed. They were used in school
construction for decades before asbestos was identified as a
health risk in the 1980s.

If disturbed, asbestos particles can cause major health problems -
- and even cancer -- if inhaled. The school district decided to
remove the tiles because it's making other updates and might
disturb the asbestos.

"When you take something out as part of the process for renovation
work, we are required by the state to test for asbestos," Mitchell
said.

The superintendent said teachers and school officials will start
clearing out the buildings on the last day of school, which is
June 17.

"The targeted end date for all of the work to be done is August
26," Mitchell said. "It is a tight schedule."

Teachers will have to pack up everything. Even lockers have to go.
If the schedule goes off course, students might start school late.

"Do I think that's going to happen? No," Mitchell said.

The superintendent said the town borrowed $5 million to complete
the summer project. The school committee and town will have 10
years to pay it back.

"We're really pleased that this really important work is going to
get done this summer," he said.

There are eight schools in the Cumberland School District. Some
schools have gone through the abatement process, while others
still have to have it done when money is available.

The EPA or US Environmental Protection Agency requires schools to
test asbestos-containing materials every three years.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Timebomb Linked to Death of Worker
------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Mezzetti, writing for The Press, reported that York's asbestos
timebomb has been linked to the death of another former
Carriageworks employee.

At an inquest, York's senior coroner Jonathan Leach ruled that
exposure to asbestos dust was a "significant factor" in the death
of Don Welby.

Mr Welby, of Canham Grove, York, died on December 20 last year,
aged 84, after suffering from lung cancer.

The inquest at New Earswick Folk Hall heard that he had been a
joiner at York Carriageworks for 20 years from 1967 to 1987.

Dr Craig Bratten, a consultant pathologist at York Hospital,
performed an autopsy on Mr Welby on December 22.

He found the cause of the 84-year-old's death was carcinoma (a
type of cancer) due to asbestos exposure and smoking.

Mr Leach said: "I have seen a lot of these cases. My experience is
that it can lie dormant for a long, long time and then raise its
ugly head and within a few months, they are gone.

"It's clear that Don, during his working life, was exposed to
asbestos. That was a significant factor in his death.

"My conclusion is that his death was due to industrial disease."

Before his death, Mr Welby instructed solicitors to pursue a claim
on his behalf.

In a letter, which was read out by Mr Leach, he said: "My wife
recalls having to empty out the pockets of my overalls of dust and
debris before they were washed."

Mr Welby's cancer was confirmed after a biopsy in February 2015.

A bone scan in August revealed radiotherapy had not been
successful and he received palliative care until his death in
December.

Many scores of former York Carriageworks employees have died from
mesothelioma, a cancer caused by exposure to asbestos dust at the
Holgate Road factory over several decades before its closure in
the 1990s.

Last year, Howard Bonnett, a specialist lawyer dealing with
asbestos claims at Corries solicitors, said the figures from the
Office for National Statistics (ONS) showed that 14 people in York
had died of the condition in 2014.

He warned that the true number of asbestos-related fatalities
might be much higher, claiming: "A large number of deaths due to
asbestos disease such as lung cancer are not recorded because the
coroners and medical staff are not aware of the diseases or always
make a connection between the two."

Mr Bonnett added: "Unfortunately the date at which the number of
deaths is expected to peak is still a little time away."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: High School Shuts Down Over Asbestos Concerns
--------------------------------------------------------------
KLTV.com reported that the heavy flooding in Palestine has now
forced a school building to close for the rest of the year.

Westwood ISD officials in Palestine decided to close the main
building of the junior high school.

"There is too much of a risk with that tile curling up and
starting to break that we aren't going to use those class rooms,"
said Superintendent Dr. Ed Lyman.

Lyman says on April 30, they saw about eight inches of rain in
just over two hours, causing at least $100,000 in flood damage to
the school property.

"The drainage culverts apparently aren't large enough to handle
that much rain, and it was backed up into the main building,"
Lyman said.

After the flood, crews cleaned the campus but old flooring proved
to be a problem in 10 classrooms.

"The tiles in those classrooms are still the old asbestos tiles.
They started after about two or three days of drying they started
popping up off the concrete and started curling," Lyman said.

The junior high campus was built in the 1960's and is the oldest
campus in the district. Officials say some classrooms have more
modern tiling and some still have the original floors.

"People would step on those things, they would break, and with
type of breakage pulverizing the tiles, there is a risk of
releasing asbestos into the air," Lyman said.

To avoid that risk, the district rearranged schedules and utilized
two other buildings on the campus and the high school.

"We do have other space. The high school has been very
instrumental and very helpful in making sure we accommodate out
students," said Special Programs Coordinator Tiffany Carwell.

Once school is out for the summer, the district will repair the
flooring and expand the culverts.

Flooding damage was also reported at Westwood High School. The
entire gym floor will have to be replaced.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family Seeks Answers for Man's Death
-----------------------------------------------------
South Wales Argus reported that the family of an Abercarn man is
appealing for his former work colleagues to help establish whether
his asbestos-related death in 2013 was linked to conditions in
which he carried out his job.

David Gwilliam, often known by his middle name of Howard, was
suffering from asbestosis when he died in March 2013, shortly
before his 86th birthday.

He worked at the former Alcan plant in Rogerstone for nearly 50
years, from 1941-1990, then for several weeks in summer 1991.

Asbestosis is a chronic lung condition caused by prolonged
exposure to asbestos, and his widow Deborah and son Mike want to
trace his former colleagues in the hope they can provide more
information about his working conditions.

In particular they hope to establish whether, and if so how, he
was exposed to asbestos.

David Gwilliam began working at Alcan as a post boy in 1941,
beginning a mechanical apprenticeship in September 1943 and
completing it in July 1950 after it was interrupted for his
National Service (October 1945-May 1948), which included a spell
in Germany.

A tool maker in the Alcan tool room, he moved to the foil mill
after the former closed in the early 1980s, initially retiring in
October 1990. He briefly returned to work in July 1991, finally
retiring several weeks later.

"Much of dad's life revolved around his family, and he spent much
of his spare time at home. However, he also loved his work, and we
had other family members who worked at Alcan," said Mike Gwilliam.

"In the 1950s, his elder brother and an uncle also worked at
Alcan. His nephew Geoffrey worked there until the late 1970s
before moving to Australia. I worked there in the warehouse for a
brief period.

"We know that over the many years at Alcan he would have had
friends there, and we can only hope a former colleague will
remember working with him and can tell us more about his role.

"Knowing that dad was suffering from asbestosis at the time of his
death has been very hard, and we are seeking witnesses so we can
establish what might have contributed to that.

"There are no doubt other families in the area who have gone
through a similar experience to us, so talking about this publicly
is important."

Richard Green, specialist solicitor in asbestos-related illnesses
at law firm Hugh James, said it is "vital" to be able to speak to
former colleagues of Mr Gwilliam, as his wife and son had only
limited knowledge of his employment history.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Bid to Strike Expert Disclosures
--------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that an Illinois federal court
has granted a motion to strike expert disclosures from 12 experts
set to testify in an asbestos case, saying that the disclosures
were "wholly and obviously deficient" and that the defendants were
prejudiced by the incomplete reports.

In the May 10 ruling, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois ruled that, as a discovery violation
sanction, the plaintiffs will not be permitted to use 12 expert
witnesses, including Arnold Brody, Ph.D., Dr. Barry Castleman, and
Arthur Frank, M.D.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AG Files Criminal Charges Against Hotel
--------------------------------------------------------
The Seattle Medium reported that Washington Attorney General Bob
Ferguson filed criminal charges on in Spokane Superior Court
against three people and one company for multiple violations of
clean air laws involving improper asbestos removal and disposal.
Ferguson alleges the defendants' actions endangered the health of
their neighbors and workers.

According to the Attorney General's Office (AGO), Kent-based 2013
Investors, LLC, its owner, Dayabir Bath, his nephew, Gee Grewal,
and employee John Hickson are accused of multiple violations of
the Washington Clean Air Act and reckless endangerment. Grewal is
also accused of making false statements to a public servant.

In 2013 and 2014, the state alleges, 2013 Investors performed
extensive renovation work on an 89-room hotel in Spokane. Although
the building, the former Spokane House Hotel, contained asbestos,
the owners didn't obtain the proper asbestos surveys or city
permits to do the work as required by law, according to the
allegations.

"My office won't tolerate skirting our environmental laws and
endangering public safety to make a quick buck," Ferguson said.
"Asbestos-removal regulations are strict for a reason: The alleged
actions of these individuals put at risk not only workers,
inspectors and innocent neighbors, but also endangered our
environment."

One City of Spokane permit application filed by the defendants
asserted they planned only to replace, texture and paint drywall,
though more extensive renovation was already underway.

Investigators from the Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency only
became aware of the full extent of the renovation when one of them
happened to drive by and noticed the extensive work in June of
2013. Investigators reported piles of debris likely to contain
asbestos sitting out in the open air, that they believe endangered
workers and neighbors.

In 2014, Clean Air Agency investigators claim that they spotted
another debris pile, containing visible asbestos. The asbestos
allegedly sat in the open air for several months, experiencing
winds of up to 43 mph in that timeframe. The AGO alleges that
during such winds, delicate and breakable asbestos fibers can
freely blow around the neighborhood, endangering the health of
those nearby.

2013 Investors, Bath, Grewal and Hickson are each charged with:

   * Three counts of violating the Washington Clean Air Act, and
   * One count of reckless endangerment

Additionally, Grewal is charged with:

   * One count of making false statements to a public servant

Each count, if substantiated in a court of law, carries a maximum
of 364 days in jail and/or $5,000 in fines.

Ferguson praised the efforts of the Spokane Regional Clean Air
Agency and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, among others,
for their work on the case.

"Their efforts directly led to these charges," Ferguson said.



                            *********

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  * * *