CAR_Public/160603.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, June 3, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 111


                            Headlines


1200 ARAPAHOE ST.: Sued in Cal. Super. Ct. Over Rent Charges
ACADEMY BUS: Faces "Lapenna" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ADIZ LLC: "Napier" Class Suit Moved to Dist. of S. Car.
ADVOCATE HEALTH: Violated FLSA, "Vazquez" Suit Claims
AGENT PROVOCATEUR: "Yberri" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under Labor Code

AMERICAN FLUX: "Williams" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
ANTHEM: Parties in Data Breach Suit Proceed to Discovery
ARCADIA UNIVERSITY: Faces "Slivak" Suit in E.D. Penn.
AVIS BUDGET: "Richardson" Sues Over Employment Discrimination
BANK OF AMERICA: Boston Retirement Asserts Sherman Act Violation

BAYLOR SCOTT: Faces "Sabatelli" Suit Over Age Discrimination
BCA FINANCIAL: Faces "Beneli" Suit in D.N.J.
BELLA MIA: "Rosario" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces Six Class Suits in Conn. Super. Ct.
BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA: Sued in D. Minn. Over Sexual Abuse

BRIDGECARE INC: Able Home Seeks Certification of TCPA Class
CARESOUTH HHA: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Sowder" Suit Says
CERNER CORPORATION: "Taylor" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
CHILDREN'S NATIONAL: Judge Remands Data Breach Class Action
CHINESE-AMERICAN PLANNING: Faces "Chu" Suit in S.D.N.Y.

CITY UNIVERSITY OF NY: Sued in N.Y. Over Racial Discrimination
COMMUNITY EDUCATION: "Giles" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
CORNERSTONE ADMINISYSTEMS: Bid to Certify "Altman" Class Denied
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Appeals Reverses Class Action Ruling
CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Certification of Class Sought in "Powers" Suit

CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims
CUSTOM AIR: Faces "King" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
DBHV: Faces "Lofstock" Suit in D.N.J.
DEVRY EDUCATION: Faces Engineers Trust Fund Suit in Ill.
DOLLAR TREE: "Stacy" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla.

DYNAMIC HOME: "Marez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
DYNAMIC SPORTS: Court Rules on Cable Subscriber Info Disclosure
ENTERPRISE RECOVERY: Faces "Boykin" Suit in D. Ariz.
ERIE ASSET: Faces "Derrick" Suit in D.N.J.
EVERLASTING NAILS: "Nguyen" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA

FACEBOOK INC: BIPA Amendment May Help Win Class Action
FACEBOOK INC: Judge Grewal Joins Legal Team
FAIR HAVENS: "Rodriguez" Suit Moved from Jud. Cir. to S.D. Fla.
FANDUEL INC: "Sobel" Class Suit Removed to Dist. of Massachusetts
FIRST CLOVER: Faces Class Action Over First-Mid Illinois Deal

FORD MOTOR: Baron & Budd Mulls Class Action Over ETB Problem
FORD MOTOR: Court Strikes Class Action Claims in "Cassidy" Suit
FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP, PA: Not Liable for Day Care Contamination Suit
GENERAL CABLE: Dismissal of "Livonia" Suit Affirmed
GENERAL MOTORS: Exaggerated Miles Per Gallon in SUVs, Suit Says

GERDAU SA: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action
GERDAU SA: July 25 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
GLACIER WATER: Certification of Class Sought in "Magee" Suit
GOOGLE INC: Status Hearing in "Weiss" Class Suit Set for June 23
GOPRO INC: Faces "Samra" Securities Class Action in Calif. Ct.

HARBOR VILLAGE: "Medina" Suit Moved to S. D. Fla.
HAT WORLD: Faces "Rando" Suit Over Unlawful Terms and Conditions
ILLINOIS: "Richard" Suit Against Dept. of Corrections Tossed
INDIANAPOLIS, IN: Sued Over Prisoner Civil Rights Violation
JENNY CRAIG: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Wage Class Action

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued Over Baby Power-Linked Ovarian Cancer
JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued in Cal. Over Inaccurate Credit History
KELLOGG COMPANY: Falsely Marketed Whole Grain Crackers, Suit Says
KERNERSVILLE, NC: Faces Class Action Over Sewer Service Rates
LAMETTRY'S COLLISSION: Faces Lawsuit Seeking Relief Under ERISA

LANNETT CO: Faces Philly Teachers Fund Suit Over Digoxin Price
M-QUBE INC: 9th Cir. Sends "Geier" Class Suit to Arbitration
MAGELLAN: Sued for Denying Mental Health Coverage to Teens
MARRONE BIO: Settles Securities Class Action for $12 Million
MASSAGE ENVY: Members Sue Over Deceptive Practices

MCGOVERN & COMPANY: Faces Alumaline Suit Over Contract Breach
MDL 1869: Judge Excludes Kalt Expert Opinion in Antitrust Suit
MDL 2467: Court Rules on Bid for Interlocutory Appeal
MERCK: Law Firm Holds Conference to Rally Amicus Support
MIDLAND FUNDING: Illegally Collects Debt, "Doubleday" Suit Says

NAPLES, FL: Faces "Orstand" Suit Over Gender & Age Discrimination
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Janson" Suit Says
NCB MANAGEMENT: FDCPA Class Certification Sought in "Kaleel" Suit
NEW YORK, NY: "Powlette" Case v. Agency Closed
NONG SHIM CO: Indirect-Purchasers Seek Certification of 3 Classes

NRA GROUP: Must Respond to Class Certification Motion by June 7
OMNI HOTELS: Faces "Samaan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Faces Class Action Over Toll Road Fines
OZONE SOLUTIONS: Laundry Workers Sue for Illness
PAM REAL: "Mendoza" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

PETITUSA LLC: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PIERRE DUPONT: Faces Class Action Over Use of Unsafe Implants
RELIABLE TOWING: Faces "Bailey" Lawsuit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
RIVERSOURCE LIFE: Faces Class Suit Over Deferred Annuities
ROYAL TRANSPORTATION: "Clark" FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified

RUBY TUESDAY: "Sagastume" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
RYE PHYSICAL: Faces "Cypress" Suit over Failure to Pay Overtime
SAN DIEGO, CA: Cops' Tactics at Trump Rally Cause Outraged
SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Pay Employees OT, Suit Claims
SETERUS INC: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Zirogiannis" Suit

SIMON & SCHUSTER: Sued in N.Y. Over Low E-Book Royalty Payments
SN SERVICING: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
SNAPCHAT INC: Collects Biometric Info, "Martinez" Suit Says
SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Group of Policyholders Files Amended Claim
SPECTRUM CENTER: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims

SYSTEM INC: Bid for Class Certification in "Bryan" Suit Denied
TARGET CORP: Judge Dismisses Background Check Class Action
TEXAS CRICKET: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
THERANOS: Faces Second False Advertising Class Action
TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR: Faces Drivers' Suit Over Illegal Fines

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Bonke" Suit Claims Driver Misclassification
UHAUL: Motion for Class Certification Sought in "Engle" Suit
UK CLEANERS: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
UNION CARBIDE: Dismissal of "Sahu" Suit Affirmed
UNITED STATES: 2 Subclasses Certified in Government Workers' Suit

VALSPAR CORP: Shareholder Launches Class Suit Over Merger
WHIRLPOOL CORP: "Candelario" Suit Claims Unfair Terms of Use

* Law Professors Support CFPB's Plan to Ban Class Action Waivers


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal on Aearo Indemnification Remains Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Had $39MM Insurance Receivables at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Faces Suits by 2,110 Claimants at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Katy Continues to Face Claims at April 1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaman Continues to Defend Suits at April 1

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had $50.6MM Accrued Liability at April 1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Faced 482 Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Had 13K Cases as of March 25
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Xylem Still Indemnified by ITT at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Plaintiff Verdict

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Missouri Court Remands Asbestos Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tetney Man Dies of Asbestos-related Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mystery Surrounds Asbestos Death of Pensioner
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Discovered at McLachlan Park
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Dockyard Workers at Center of Legal Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Dumpster Left in Detroit Neighborhood
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Westmont Hilltop High School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Ruling Defines Suppliers Duty to Warn
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Suing Americon Says Exposure Led to Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit vs. Air Liquid Blames Death on Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Probe Into Wife's Asbestos-related Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Refines Parameters of Mine Cleanup Area
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Sophisticated Intermediary" Defense Adopted
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford's Jurisdiction Appeal Goes to 5th Dist.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oregon Jury Sets Record with $8.75MM Award

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. High Court Rules for Exposed Worker
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 14 Cos. Remain Defendants in "Arbogast"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid for Default Judgment in "Barbarino" Granted
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Strikes Expert Disclosures in "Begin"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Amtrak's Protectve Order Bid Partially Denied

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Reverses Summary Judgment in "Botts"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Objection to Spoliation Instruction Sustained
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Refuses to Review Daubert Motions Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weyerhaeuser's Bid in Limine Partially Granted
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6th Cir. Affirms Order Denying Sanctions Bid

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford USA Wins Bid for Summary Judgment


                            *********


1200 ARAPAHOE ST.: Sued in Cal. Super. Ct. Over Rent Charges
------------------------------------------------------------
Nora Aguayo; Maria Soto; Juana Raigosa; Nelly Nunez;
Ricardo Galleano; Geral Marin Maria de Nunez; Noe Lemus; Nelly
Lemus; Georgina Carranza; Sergio Valle Carranza; Fellx Valle, Sr.;
Fellx Valle, Jr.; Angelica Valle; Maria Hernandez; Nancy Delgado;
Kevin Delgado; Cristian Martinez; Christina Martinez; Nobelia
Martinez; Luis Marquez; Telma Galvez; Kim Saravia;
Jorge Valle; Lilian Martinez; Ruben Lima; Luis Ruiz; Kendra
Lima; Irma Giron; and Emmely Colindres, and all other similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. 1200 Arapahoe St., LLC, a
California limited Liability Company; KMM Management, Inc.; Martha
Sandoval, an individual, and Does 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. BC620350 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 13, 2016), seeks to
recover damages, including economic damages for emotional
distress.

According to the complaint, the Defendants reduced the housing
services provided to Plaintiffs without any decrease in rent
charged (an indeed, in most cases, an unlawfully high increase in
rent charged). The housing services reduced were parking spaces
which Plaintiffs had previously been granted and had been using
for years.

The Defendants are engaged in management consultancy business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Alan Sklar, Esq.
          Joe Ollinger, Esq.
          LAWOFFICES OF JEFFREYA.SKLAR
          11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 905
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone (310) 575-1529
          Facsimile (310)478-7175
          E-mail: sklarnjustice@msn.com


ACADEMY BUS: Faces "Lapenna" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Lou Lapenna, and others similarly situated v. Academy Bus
L.L.C., Case No. 0:16-cv-61067-WJZ (S.D. Fla., May 19, 2016), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Academy Bus L.L.C. operates a bus company providing local bus
services in northern New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chris Kleppin, Esq.
      Chelsea A. Lewis, Esq.
      GLASSER & KLEPPIN, P.A.
      8751 West Broward Blvd, Suite 105
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 424-1933
      Facsimile: (954) 474-7405
      E-mail: ckleppin@gkemploymentlaw.com
              clewis@gkemploymentlaw.com


ADIZ LLC: "Napier" Class Suit Moved to Dist. of S. Car.
-------------------------------------------------------
Robin Napier, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Adiz LLC; ATC Development Corp; ATC
Development LLC, doing business as: ATC Development of Florida;
ATC Apartment Management LLC, formerly known as: ATC Development
Corp of Florida; ATC Construction LLC; Hallum LLC; TCA LLC;
Jane Doe 1-10; Hobbs Heating and Air Conditioning Inc.; A-1 Hobbs
Inc.; Edward F Dinkins, doing business as: Edward Dinkins
Plumbing; Maddox Construction Inc.; Mabus Brothers Construction Co
Inc.; Builders Services Group Inc., doing business as: Davis
Insulation Inc.; Robert Renew, doing business as: Renew Siding;
Bruce Dolford, doing business as: B&D Cement Finishing; MA
Magdalena; Casiano Bibivano, doing business as: MA Roofing
Aaron Ridgdill; Frank Johnson; Willie Rolland; Keith Newman, doing
business as: Newman Company; and John Doe 9-50, the Defendants,
Case No. 2016-CP-02-00263, was removed from Aiken County Court, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina
(Aiken). The South Carolina District Court assigned Case No. 1:16-
cv-01548-JMC to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. J
Michelle Childs.

Adiz is Croatian company which runs its business for over 20
years. The Company is engaged in business education, coaching,
project management and teaching foreign languages, as well as
translations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L Floyd III, Esq.
          Justin O'Toole Lucey, Esq.
          JUSTIN O'TOOLE LUCEY LAW FIRM
          PO Box 806
          Mt Pleasant, SC 29465
          Telephone: (803) 849 8941
          Facsimile: (843) 849 8406
          E-mail: jfloyd@collinsandlacy.com
                  jlucey@lucey-law.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Robert Trippett Boineau III, Esq.
          MCANGUS GOUDELOCK AND COURIE
          1320 Main Street, 10th Floor
          Columbia, SC 29211
          Telephone: (803) 779 2300
          Facsimile: (803) 479-2314
          E-mail: trippett.boineau@mgclaw.com


ADVOCATE HEALTH: Violated FLSA, "Vazquez" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
Christy Vazquez, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Advocate
Health Care Network, an Illinois Non-Profit Corporation, and EHS
Home Health Care Service, Inc., d/b/a Advocate at Home and
Advocate Home Health Services, an Illinois Nonprofit
Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05200 (N.D. Ill.,
May 13, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime
compensation, unlawfully withheld wages, statutory penalties,
prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and other damages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Illinois Minimum
Wage Law (IMWL).

According to the complaint, this action arose out of Defendants'
systematic, companywide wrongful classification of Plaintiff and
other similarly situated home health infusion and pediatric nurses
as exempt from the overtime compensation requirements of the FLSA
and IMWL. These persons worked as registered nurses for Defendants
providing health care infusion and pediatric services to patients
in their homes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          Teresa Becvar, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N Michigan Ave, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233 1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233 1560
          E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  tbecvar@stephanzouras.com


AGENT PROVOCATEUR: "Yberri" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ana Sofia Yberri, an individual, on behalf of herself and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Agent
Provocateur, Inc., a California Corporation; and Does 1-50,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC620413 (Cal. Super. Ct., May
13, 2016), seeks declaratory relief holding that the Defendant's
policy and practices constitute unfair competition, along with
declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and incidental equitable
relief as may be necessary to prevent and remedy the conduct
declared to constitute unfair competition and in violation of the
California Labor Code and requirements of the Industrial Welfare
Commission (IWC) Wage Order.

According to the complaint, the Defendants knowingly and
systematically failed to compensate Plaintiff the correct rate of
pay for all overtime worked.

The Defendant retails lingerie, nightwear, and swimwear products.
The company also provides accessories, such as whips and paddles,
cuffs and chokers, hosiery options, stockings, hold ups, garters,
eye masks, footwear options, gloves, travel accessories, luggage
options, and fragrances.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nonnan B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK FILED
          2255 Calle Clara IA La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858)551-1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
          Website: www.bamlawca.com


AMERICAN FLUX: "Williams" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jamel Williams v. American Flux & Metal Company, Stuart Rudoler,
and Joachim Rudoler, Case No. 1:16-cv-02833-JHR-AMD (D.N.J., May
19, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a metallurgical product manufacturing
plant, including the manufacture and sale of aircraft parts in
Winslow, Camden County, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ANTHEM: Parties in Data Breach Suit Proceed to Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a giant data breach case against Anthem and Blue Cross appears
headed for trial after a federal judge in San Jose told attorneys
at a case management conference to move on to discovery.

"I am likely to deny the defense's motion, so please move forward
with discovery," U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh said May 26.

Koh indicated that six of the seven claims are likely to survive
the motion to dismiss phase, and asked attorneys for both sides to
consider reducing the claims to four.  She said narrowing the case
is important, as its complexity, involving contract breaches in
several states as well as federal claims and the enormous number
of contracts the court will be forced to consider could make
prompt adjudication impossible.

"I don't want to prejudice either side, but I want you to make
this humanly feasible," Koh said.

Anthem attorney Craig Hoover said he was reluctant to agree to
anything until the ruling is issued, and until the July 11
deadline for adding plaintiffs had passed.

"We don't want to submit identical papers just to force you to
read them, but we also don't want you looking at a tiny slice of
the pie," Hoover said.

Koh said the complexity and lack of precedents in data breach
class actions made it a difficult case. "We are going to have to
address a lot of novel issues," she said.

The Anthem data breach, which the company disclosed in February
2015, involved more than 37 million records from the company's
computer system, affecting an estimated 80 million people.

The cyberattack is believed to have been carried out by China,
though the country denies it.

Consumers nationwide filed multiple lawsuits against Anthem, 28
Anthem affiliates, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, and 17 non-
Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield companies.

Anthem, the nation's second-largest health insurer, serves members
through various Blue Cross Blue Shield licensee affiliates and
other non-Blue Cross Blue Shield affiliates. It also works with
the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and several independent
Blue Cross Blue Shield licensees via the BlueCard program.

Anthem's computer database has personal and health information on
about 80 million current and former clients, Koh said.  It was not
the first such attack on Anthem. In 2009, about 600,000 customers
of Wellpoint, Anthem's former trade name, "had their personal
information and protected healthcare information compromised due
to a data breach," Koh said.

The Department of Health and Human Services fined Anthem $1.7
million in 2013 for violations of data security.

In 2014, the federal government warned Anthem and other health
care-companies of the possibility of more cyberattacks and advised
them to take appropriate measures, including data encryption and
enhanced password protection.

Consumers claim Anthem and its affiliates did not heed the
warnings, and allowed hackers to extract massive amounts of data
from its database from December 2014 to January 2015.

Anthem said it stopped the cyberattacks by Jan. 31, 2015.

Cybersecurity company Mandiant, which Anthem hired to assist its
response to the data breach, released a report in July 2015 that
said "Anthem and [its] affiliates [had] failed to take reasonable
measures to secure the [personal and health information] in their
possession."

Though Anthem publicly disclosed the data breach in February 2015,
many customers said that were not personally informed until March
2015, if at all. They also said Anthem failed to disclose whether
it has made any changes to its security practices to prevent
another cyberattack.

Multiple lawsuits were transferred and consolidated in spring
2015. In June 2015, a multidistrict litigation judicial panel
issued a transfer order and selected Koh.  On Feb. 14, she removed
three Anthem entities and partially removed seven more, with leave
to amend. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Arizona, BlueCross
BlueShield of Tennessee and Highmark West Virginia were dismissed.

Plaintiffs' attorney Eve Cervantez declined to comment after the
hearing, as did Hoover.


ARCADIA UNIVERSITY: Faces "Slivak" Suit in E.D. Penn.
-----------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Arcadia University. The case is
captioned Jessica Slivak, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly, the Plaintiff, v. Arcadia University, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:16-cv-02334-GEKP (E.D. Penn., May 13, 2016). The
assigned Judge is Hon. Gene E.K. Pratter.

Arcadia is a coeducational, private university in suburban
Philadelphia offering undergraduate and graduate studies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arkady Eric Rayz
          KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
          1051 County Line Road, Suite A
          HUNTINGDON VALLEY, PA 19006
          Telephone: (215) 364 5030
          Facsimile: (215) 364 5029
          E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


AVIS BUDGET: "Richardson" Sues Over Employment Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Whitney Richardson, on behalf of herself and all of those
similarly situated v. Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC, Bridget
Whiteman, Deborah Pryor a/k/a Debbie, and John and Jane Does 1-5,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00377-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss., May 19, 2016), arises
out of the Defendant's alleged unlawful employment discrimination.

The Defendants operate a car rental company headquartered in
Parsippany-Troy Hills, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Macy D. Hanson, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF MACY D. HANSON, PLLC
      102 First Choice Drive
      Madison, MS 39210
      Telephone: (601) 853-9521
      Facsimile: (601) 853-9327
      E-mail: macy@macyhanson.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Boston Retirement Asserts Sherman Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
BOSTON RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on Behalf of Itself and all Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., BANK OF
AMERICA MERRILL LYNCH INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, CREDIT AGRICOLE
CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK, CREDIT SUISSE AG, DEUTSCHE BANK AG,
NOMURA INTERNATIONAL PLC, HIREN GUDKA, AMANDEEP SINGH MANKU,
SHAILEN PAU, and BHARDEEP SINGH HEER, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-
03711, (S.D.N.Y., May 18, 2016), alleges violations of the Sherman
Act and Clayton Act for alleged collusive activities of Defendants
to fix the prices of supranational, sub-sovereign, and agency
bonds sold to and purchased from investors in the secondary
market.

Defendants are among the largest dealers, or among the most
prominent traders, of supranational, sub-sovereign, and agency
bonds denominated in various currencies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
     Jay L. Himes, Esq.
     Garrett J. Bradley, Esq.
     Karin E. Garvey, Esq.
     Matthew J. Perez, Esq.
     LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
     140 Broadway
     New York, NY 10005
     Phone: (212) 907-0700
     Fax: (212) 818-0477
     E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com
             jhimes@labaton.com
             gbradley@labaton.com
             kgarvey@labaton.com
             mperez@labaton.com

          - and -

     Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
     William P. Butterfield, Esq.
     Timothy S. Kearns, Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP
     1700 K Street, Suite 650
     Washington, DC 20006
     Phone: (202) 540-7200
     Fax: (202)-540-7201
     Email: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
            wbutterfield@hausfeld.com
            tkearns@hausfeld.com


BAYLOR SCOTT: Faces "Sabatelli" Suit Over Age Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Sabatelli, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Baylor Scott & White Health and Scott &
White Clinic, Case No. 1:16-cv-00596-RP (W.D. Tex., May 22, 2016),
arises out of the Defendant's alleged unlawful age discrimination.

The Defendants operate a non-profit, multispecialty academic
medical center in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John F. Melton
      THE MELTON LAW FIRM, PLLC
      2705 Bee Cave Road, Suite 220
      Austin, TX 78746
      Telephone: (512) 330-0017
      Facsimile: (512) 330-0067
      E-mail: jmelton@meltonkumler.com


BCA FINANCIAL: Faces "Beneli" Suit in D.N.J.
--------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against BCA Financial Services, Inc. The
case is captioned David Beneli, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BCA Financial
Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-02737-FLW-LHG
(D.N.J., May 13, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Freda L.
Wolfson.

BCA Financial is a family owned company with a focus on health
care billing, insurance follow up, and retrieval of funds.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS ZELMAN LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695 3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298 6256
          E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com
                  yzelman@marcuszelman.com


BELLA MIA: "Rosario" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
Wanda Rosario, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Bella Mia Inc., a Florida Corporation
d/b/a Pink Pony, John Steven Ennis, an individual, Teri Galardi,
an individual, and Michael Porter, an individual, the Defendants,
Case No. 8:16-cv-01191-MSS-AEP (M.D. Fla., May 12, 2016), seeks to
recover overtime pay, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant required and/or
permitted Plaintiff to work at their adult entertainment club in
excess of 40 hours per week, but refused to compensate them at the
applicable wage and overtime rate.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam B. Kenner, Esq.
          KENNER, CUMMINGS & IMPARATO, PLLC
          175 SW 67th Street, Suite 2410
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 384 7370
          Facsimile: (305) 384 7371
          E-mail: adam@kennercummings.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces Six Class Suits in Conn. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Six class action lawsuits have been filed against Boehringer
Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Boehringer Ingelheim
International GmbH, in Connecticut Superior Court, Hartford
Judicial District.

The lawsuits seek compensatory, consequential and punitive
damages, as a result of Defendants' reckless disregard for safety
of patients, to whom Pradaxa (TM) was promoted and sold for use,
and as a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants' reckless
disregard for patient safety, in violation of the Connecticut
Products Liability Act.

According to the complaints, the Defendants negligently designed
and formulated Pradaxa (TM) and its packaging, labeling,
prescribing information and patient medication guide which
rendered Pradaxa (TM) defective.

The Defendants were engaged in the business of designing,
licensing, manufacturing, distributing, selling, marketing, and/or
introducing into interstate commerce, either directly or
indirectly through third parties or related entities, the
prescription anticoagulant drug sold under the name Pradaxa (TM),
throughout the State of Connecticut. Pradaxa (TM) helps to prevent
platelets in blood from sticking together and forming a blood
clot.

The six lawsuits are:

     -- Rudolph Dluhy, and others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and
Boehringer Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No.
HHD-CV-16-6067963-S. May 3, 2016.

The plaintiff is represented by:

          Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
          URY & MOSKOW, LLC
          833 Black Rock Turnpike
          Fairfield, CT 06825
          Telephone (203) 610 6393
          Facsimile (203) 610 6399
          E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

     -- Anthony Reis, and others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and
Boehringer Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No.
HHD-CV-16-6067962-S, May 3, 2016.

The plaintiff is represented by:

          Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
          URY & MOSKOW, LLC
          833 Black Rock Turnpike
          Fairfield, CT 06825
          Telephone (203) 610 6393
          Facsimile (203) 610 6399
          E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

               - and -

          Russell T. Abney, Esq.
          FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER
          DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE
          2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 720
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Telephone: (800) 521 4492
          Facsimile: (214) 526 6026
          E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com

     -- Shirley Ronk, and others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and
Boehringer Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No.
HHD-CV-16-6067965-S, May 3, 2016.

The plaintiff is represented by:

          Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
          URY & MOSKOW, LLC
          833 Black Rock Turnpike
          Fairfield, CT 06825
          Telephone (203) 610 6393
          Facsimile (203) 610 6399
          E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

               - and -

          Russell T. Abney, Esq.
          FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER
          DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE
          2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 720
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Telephone: (800) 521 4492
          Facsimile: (214) 526 6026
          E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com

     -- John Rusnack, and others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and
Boehringer Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No.
HHD-CV-16-6067968-S, May 3, 2016.

The plaintiff is represented by:

          Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
          URY & MOSKOW, LLC
          833 Black Rock Turnpike
          Fairfield, CT 06825
          Telephone (203) 610 6393
          Facsimile (203) 610 6399
          E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

               - and -

          Russell T. Abney, Esq.
          FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER
          DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE
          2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 720
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Telephone: (800) 521 4492
          Facsimile: (214) 526 6026
          E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com

     -- James Stewart, Sr., and others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and
Boehringer Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No.
HHD-CV-16-6067966-S, May 3, 2016.

The plaintiff is represented by:

          Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
          URY & MOSKOW, LLC
          833 Black Rock Turnpike
          Fairfield, CT 06825
          Telephone (203) 610 6393
          Facsimile (203) 610 6399
          E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

               - and -

          Russell T. Abney, Esq.
          FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER
          DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE
          2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 720
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Telephone: (800) 521 4492
          Facsimile: (214) 526 6026
          E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com

     -- William Williams, and others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and
Boehringer Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No.
HHD-CV-16-6067967-S, May 3, 2016.

The plaintiff is represented by:

          Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
          URY & MOSKOW, LLC
          833 Black Rock Turnpike
          Fairfield, CT 06825
          Telephone (203) 610 6393
          Facsimile (203) 610 6399
          E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

               - and -

          Russell T. Abney, Esq.
          FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER
          DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE
          2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 720
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Telephone: (800) 521 4492
          Facsimile: (214) 526 6026
          E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com


BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA: Sued in D. Minn. Over Sexual Abuse
---------------------------------------------------------
John Doe 167, the Plaintiff, v. The Boy Scouts of America,
Northern Star Council, Boy Scouts of America, and Oak Knoll
Lutheran Church, the Defendant, Case No. 27-CV-16-7298 (D. Minn.,
May 13, 2016), demands judgment against Defendants individually,
jointly, and severally in an amount in excess of $50,000 plus
costs, disbursements, reasonable attorney's fees, interest, and
whatever other relief the Court deems just and equitable.

According the complaint, the Defendants fraudulently
misrepresented and failed to disclose, and/or actively concealed
the dangers of sexual abuse of boy scouts by Scout Leaders.

Defendants jointly own and operate Scouting programs which invite
and seek out the participation of children.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick Noaker, Esq.
          Noaker Law Firm LLC
          Union Plaza
          333 Washington Avenue N., Suite 300
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 839 1080


BRIDGECARE INC: Able Home Seeks Certification of TCPA Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
Able Home Health, LLC, asks the Court to enter an order
determining that the action titled ABLE HOME HEALTH, LLC, on
behalf of plaintiff and the class members defined herein v.
BRIDGECARE, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-05568 (N.D.
Ill.), may proceed as a class action against Bridgecare.

Plaintiff defines the classes as:

     For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone
     Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, the
     Plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of (a) all
     persons with fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date four
     years prior to the filing of this action (28 U.S.C. Section
     1658), (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant
     Bridgecare, Inc. promoting its goods or services for sale
     (d) and which did not contain an opt out notice as described
     in 47 U.S.C. Section 227.

     For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of the Illinois
     Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/2, the Plaintiff seeks to
     represent a class consisting of (a) all persons with
     Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date three years
     prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by
     or on behalf of defendant Bridgecare, Inc. promoting its
     goods or services for sale (d) and which did not contain an
     opt out notice as described in 47 U.S.C. Section 227.

     For purposes of Count III, alleging conversion, Count IV,
     alleging private nuisance, and Count V, alleging trespass to
     chattels, plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of
     (a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or
     after a date five years prior to the filing of this action,
     (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant Bridgecare,
     Inc. promoting its goods or services for sale (d) and which
     did not contain an opt out notice as described in 47 U.S.C.
     Section 227.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CARESOUTH HHA: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Sowder" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Sowder, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Caresouth HHA Holdings, LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-00906
(M.D. Ten., May 19, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for all hours work over 40 per week.

Caresouth HHA Holdings, LLC owns and operates a home health and
hospice center in Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
      David W. Garrison, Esq.
      Scott P. Tift, Esq.
      Seth M. Hyatt, Esq.
      BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON LLC
      414 Union Street, Suite 900
      Nashville, TN 37219
      Telephone: (615) 244-2202
      Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
      E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com
              dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
              stift@barrettjohnston.com
              shyatt@barrettjohnston.com

           - and -

      Peter Winebrake, Esq.
      R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
      WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
      715 Twining Road, Suite 211
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Telephone: (215) 884-2491
      Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
      E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
              asantillo@winebrakelaw.com


CERNER CORPORATION: "Taylor" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
J. Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Cerner Corporation c/o CT Corporation
System 120 South Clayton Ave. Clayton, MO 63105, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:16-cv-00434-DW (W.D. Mo., May 13, 2016), seeks to
recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was classified as a
salaried exempt associate and was not paid overtime wages for
hours worked over 40 per week.

Cerner is a supplier of health information technology (HIT)
solutions, services, devices and hardware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
          WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 876 2600
          Facsimile: (816) 221 8763
          Email: dirks@williamsdirks.com

               - and -

          William E. Parsons, Esq.
          David C. Zoeller, Esq.
          Caitlin M. Madden, Esq.
          HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
          Post Office Box 2155
          Madison, WI 53701-2155
          Telephone: (608) 257 0040
          Facsimile: (608) 256 0236
          E-mail: wparsons@hq-law.com
                  dzoeller@hq-law.com
                  cmadden@hq-law.com

               - and -

          HABUSH HABUSH & ROTTIER, S.C.
          Daniel A. Rottier, Esq.
          Jason Knutson, Esq.
          Breanne L. Snapp, Esq.
          150 East Gilman St., Suite 2000
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 255 6663
          E-mail: rottier@habush.com
                  jknutson@habush.com
                  bsnapp@habush.com


CHILDREN'S NATIONAL: Judge Remands Data Breach Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sulina Gabale, Esq. -- sgabale@reedsmith.com -- Michael O'Neil,
Esq. -- michael.oneil@reedsmith.com -- and Paul Bond, Esq., of
Reed Smith LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that just days
after the Supreme Court's ruling in Spokeo v. Robins, the highly
anticipated decision is already impacting data breach class
actions across the country.  The defendant in the Spokeo case
contended that the plaintiff had suffered no concrete injury, and
that a mere statutory violation is not enough of an injury to give
plaintiffs constitutional standing to sue in federal court.  The
Supreme Court agreed that plaintiffs must show more than a
technical violation of consumer protection law to establish
standing, but also that, in certain circumstances, the violation
of a "procedural right" amounts to a concrete injury.

Recently, a federal judge in Maryland remanded a putative class
action in Khan v. Children's National Health System, No. 8:15-cv-
02125, May 19, 2016 (U.S.D.C. of Maryland) [link to Maryland
decision].  The action alleged that the company violated state
privacy laws by allowing a data breach to occur in 2014, during
which patient personal information was released.

In his opinion, Judge Chuang decided that the plaintiff patient
failed to show how the hackers' possession of her personal
information "has diminished its value" or that she suffered a loss
of privacy that is in itself an injury.  Citing to Spokeo, Judge
Chuang held that the plaintiff had not suffered a concrete injury
(that is required even in the context of a statutory violation),
and thus, lacked Article III standing in federal court.  Notably,
the opinion pointed out that the majority of district courts faced
with the issue of Article III standing in data breach actions
follow the same pattern of finding that, where there is no
specific misuse of the data in question, the increased risk of
identity theft does not confer standing.  As the case had been
removed from state court, Judge Chuang remanded it.

Although lower courts have just started to apply Spokeo, there's
no doubt that we will see an increasing number of data breach
class action defendants wielding the high court's recent decision
to their benefit.


CHINESE-AMERICAN PLANNING: Faces "Chu" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Chinese-American Planning Council
Home Attendant Program, Inc. The case is captioned Mei Kum Chu,
Sau King Chung and Xiang Ling, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Chinese-American
Planning Council Home Attendant Program, Inc., the Defendant, Case
No. No. 1:16-cv-03569 (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2016).

Chinese-American Planning is a home care provider that services
New York, NY 10013.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


CITY UNIVERSITY OF NY: Sued in N.Y. Over Racial Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carmalita Taylor Thomas v. The City University of New York, Case
No. 1:16-cv-03730-LTS (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2016), arises out of the
Defendant's unlawful employment practices on the basis of race in
violation of the Civil Rights Act.

The City University of New York is a public university system of
New York City, and the largest urban university in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James D. Hartt, Esq.
      70 Linden Oaks, Third Floor
      Rochester, NY 14625
      Telephone: (585) 490-7100
      Facsimile: (716) 299-2006


COMMUNITY EDUCATION: "Giles" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Giles, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Community
Education Centers, Inc. and Does 1 through 30, inclusive, Case No.
BC621130 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 18, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages, overtime compensation and damages pursuant to the
California Labor Code.

Community Education Centers, Inc. provides counseling services to
offenders in prisons and residential reentry facilities throughout
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shadie L. Berenji, Esq.
      Tsolik Kazandjian, Esq,
      Kiran Preet Dhillon, Esq.
      8383 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 708
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone: (310) 855-3270
      Facsimile: (310) 855-3751
      E-mail: berenji@employeejusticelaw.com
              kazandjian@employeejusticelaw.com
              dhillon@employeejusticelaw.com


CORNERSTONE ADMINISYSTEMS: Bid to Certify "Altman" Class Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Paul S. Diamond entered an order in the lawsuit entitled
SUSAN ALTMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CORNERSTONE ADMINISYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2:15-cv-
06774-PD (E.D. Pa.), denying the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification, without prejudice to refiling after the completion
of discovery respecting class certification.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kYlcqXL1


COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Appeals Reverses Class Action Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keith Paul Bishop, Esq. -- kbishop@allenmatkins.com -- of Allen
Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP, in an article for The
National Law Review, reports that in Luther v. Countrywide
Financial Corp., 195 Cal. App. 4th 789 (2011), the trial court
ruled that state courts do not enjoy concurrent jurisdiction when
a class action meeting the definition of a "covered class action"
under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (aka
"SLUSA") did not involve a "covered security" as also defined by
SLUSA (the definitions of both these terms can be found in Section
16(f) of the '33 Act).  The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that
"an intent to prevent certain class actions does not tell us that
this class action, or all securities class actions must be brought
in federal court."  At the time, Mr. Bishop observed:

The holding in Luther opens the state courthouse door to class
action plaintiffs with '33 Act claims when the securities involved
do not meet the definition of "covered securities".  It remains to
be seen whether plaintiffs will rush in and whether other courts
will agree that the door is open.

Five years later, we have some answers.  First, the plaintiffs bar
did rush in.  According to a recent petition for certiorari filed
with the U.S. Supreme Court on May 25:

In the 12 years between SLUSA and Countrywide, only 6 class
actions alleging Section 11 claims were filed in California state
courts -- an average of one case every two years.  In the 5 years
after Countrywide, at least 38 class actions alleging Section 11
claims were filed in California state courts -- an average of more
than seven cases every year.  Fourteen were filed in 2015 alone.

Second, the courts are not in agreement.  According to the same
petition:

Federal district courts in removal cases have divided bitterly
over the question presented.  Because of the procedural roadblocks
to review of remand orders, federal appeals courts are unlikely to
rule on, let alone resolve, the conflict.  Absent this Court's
guidance, the district courts will remain in disarray with no end
in sight.

The petition was filed by Boris Feldman and his team at Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees
Retirement Fund et al.


CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Certification of Class Sought in "Powers" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs move for certification of a settlement class in the
lawsuit captioned Laura Powers, Nichole Palmer, and Jason Palmer,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Credit Management Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:11-cv-00436-
JFB-TDT (D. Neb.).

The Plaintiffs also ask for an order preliminarily approving the
settlement of the class action as fair and reasonable, approving
the form and method for providing class-wide notice, and
scheduling a hearing at which these will be considered: request
for final approval of the proposed settlement, any objections
filed, incentive awards to the named plaintiffs, and entry of a
Final Order.

The Motion has been presented to the Defendants, who do not
oppose, the Plaintiffs tell the Court.

For the purpose of the settlement, the parties agree to the
certification of this settlement class:

     All persons with addresses in Nebraska against whom
     Defendants filed a county court collection complaint in the
     form of Exhibit C after January 1, 2008, for purposes of the
     NCPA, and after December 18, 2010, for purposes of the FDCPA
     (ii) which sought to recover attorneys' fees, prejudgment
     interest, and costs, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. Section
     25-1801 (iii) where CMS did not personally provide the
     ninety-day presentation of the claim (iv) in an attempt to
     collect an alleged debt which, as shown by the nature of the
     alleged debt, defendants' records, or the records of the
     original creditors, was primarily for personal, family, or
     household purposes. (The Neb. Rev. Stat. Section 25-1801
     Class)

     AND

     (i) All persons with addresses in Nebraska upon whom
     Defendants served a county court collection complaint in the
     form of Exhibit A after January 1, 2008, for purposes of the
     NCPA, and after December 18, 2010, for purposes of the FDCPA
     (ii) which sought to recover prejudgment interest pursuant
     to Neb. Rev. Stat. Section 45-104 (iii) in an attempt to
     collect an alleged debt which, as shown by the nature of the
     alleged debt, Defendants' records, or the records of the
     original creditors, was primarily for personal, family, or
     household purposes. (The Neb. Rev. Stat. Section 45-104
     Class)

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Pamela A. Car, Esq.
          William L. Reinbrecht, Esq.
          CAR & REINBRECHT, P.C., LLO
          8720 Frederick Street, Suite 105
          Omaha, NE 68124
          Telephone: (402) 391-8484
          E-mail: pacar@cox.net

               - and -

          O. Randolph Bragg, Esq.
          HORWITZ, HORWITZ& ASSOCIATES
          25 East Washington Street, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 372-8822


CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Seri, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Crosscountry Mortgage, Inc., c/o its
Statutory Agent David L. Firestine and Michael Crawford d/b/a
Direct Source, Case No. 1:16-cv-01214-DAP (N.D. Ohio., May 19,
2016), seeks to put an end to the Defendants' practice of making
unsolicited telemarketing calls to the phones of consumers
nationwide and to obtain redress for all persons injured by their
conduct.

The Defendants operate a full service mortgage lending company
that offers a variety of home purchase, refinance, and home equity
products, and is licensed as a mortgage lender in 49 states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Basil W. Mangano, Esq.
      2245 Warrensville Center Road, Suite 213
      Cleveland, OH 44118
      Telephone: (216) 397-5844
      Facsimile: (216) 397-5845
      E-mail: bmangano@bmanganolaw.com

           - and -

      Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
      Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
      WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
      3900 East Mexico Avenue Suite 300
      Denver, CO 80210
      Telephone: (720) 213-0675
      Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
      E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
              ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com

           - and -

      Stefan Coleman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
      201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (877) 333-9427
      E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com


CUSTOM AIR: Faces "King" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony King, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Custom Air Trucking, Inc. and Does 1-50, inclusive,
Case No. BC620732 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 19, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the California Labor Code.

Custom Air Trucking, Inc. operates a trucking company located at
5330 W 102nd St, Los Angeles, CA 90045.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shaun Setareh, Esq.
      Thomas Segal, Esq.
      SETAREH LAW GROUP
      9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (310) 888-7771
      Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
      E-mail: shaun@selarehlaw.com
              thomas@selarehlaw.com


DBHV: Faces "Lofstock" Suit in D.N.J.
-------------------------------------
John Lofstock, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. DBHV also known as: Collection Bureau
of the Hudson Valley, Inc., the Defendant, and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 2:16-cv-02715-CCC-MF (D.N.J., May 13, 2016). The assigned
Judge is Claire C. Cecchi.

DBHV offers pre-collection, third-party bad debt collections
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Efraim Zvi Kieffer, Esq.
          131 Pennington Avenue
          Passaic, NJ 07055
          Telephone: (973) 614 9245
          E-mail: kiefferlawoffice@aol.com


DEVRY EDUCATION: Faces Engineers Trust Fund Suit in Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------
Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers, individually and on
Behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DeVry
Education Group, Inc., Daniel Hamburger, Richard M. Gunst, and
Timothy J. Wiggins, the Defendants, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-
cv-05198 (N.D. Ill., May 13, 2016), seeks to recover losses and
damages as a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions,
and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities.

According to the complaint, the Defendants boasted about the
employment prospects of DeVry University graduates to investors
and students alike, emphasizing that 90% of DVU graduates obtained
employment in their field of study within six months of graduation
and that DVU graduates' salaries one year after graduation were
15% higher than the average or median salaries of graduates with
bachelor's degrees from all other colleges and universities.
However, on January 27, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
filed suit against DeVry and DeVry University accusing them of
deceptively advertising the benefits of obtaining a bachelor's
degree at DeVry University. Specifically, the FTC complaint
charges that Defendants' claim that 90% of DeVry University
graduates actively seeking employment landed jobs in their field
of study within six months of graduating was deceptive.

DeVry provides educational services worldwide through a number of
subsidiaries, including DeVry University ("DVU" or "DeVry
University"), one of the largest degree-granting higher education
systems in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
          Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601
          Boca Raton, FL 33486
          Telephone: (561) 206 6708
          Facsimile: (866) 290 1291
          E-mail: lhooker@saxenawhite.com


DOLLAR TREE: "Stacy" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------
Sherika Stacy, on behalf of herself and similarly-situated
individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 16-64328-CA-20, was removed from 17th Judicial
Circuit Court in Broward County, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale). The Southern
District Court assigned Case No. 0:16-cv-61032-WJZ to the
proceeding. The assigned Judge is William J. Zloch.

Dollar Tree operates discount variety stores offering general
merchandise at one-dollar price points.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J Hill, Esq.
          Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 337 7992
          Facsimile: (813) 229 8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com

               - and -

          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224 0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229 8712
          lcabassa@wfclaw.com

               - and -

          Marc Reed Edelman
          MARC R. EDELMAN PA
          1925 E.2nd Avenue
          Tampa, FL 33605
          Telephone: (813) 982 4326
          E-mail: marc@edelmanfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Barry Rodney Davidson, Esq.
          Douglas C Dreier, Esq.
          HUNTON & WILLIAMS
          1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2500
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 810 2539
          Facsimile: (305) 810-2462
          E-mail: bdavidson@hunton.com
                  ddreier@hunton.com


DYNAMIC HOME: "Marez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marta Marez, an individual; for herself and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Dynamic Home Care
Service, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; and, Does 1-10, inclusive,
Defendant, Case No. BC620417 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 13, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid hourly wages, unpaid overtime wages,
reimbursement of business expenses incurred, waiting time
penalties, liquidated damages in the amount equal to wages
unlawfully unpaid and interest, and penalties, restitution, and
liquidated damages under the Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay for all
hours worked, failed to pay for hours worked at the appropriate
rates, which resulted in failure to pay all hourly and overtime
wages owed, failure to provide mandatory meal and rest breaks,
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to
timely pay all wages to separated employees, and failure to
reimburse for all business-related expenses.

Dynamic Home provides hospital quality care in the comfort of your
own home throughout the great Houston, Texas, area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael D. Singer, Esq.
          Janine R. Menhennet, Esq.
          COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
          605 C Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 595 3001
          Facsimile: (619) 595 3000

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
          18250 Ventura Blvd.
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609 0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609 0892


DYNAMIC SPORTS: Court Rules on Cable Subscriber Info Disclosure
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MATTHEW TIGER, Plaintiff, v. DYNAMIC SPORTS
NUTRITION, LLC and PBB TRADEMARK HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 6:15-cv-1701-Orl-41TBS (M.D. Fla.), Judge Thomas B. Smith
granted in part and denied, in part, Dynamic Sports Nutrition,
LLC's (DSN) Motion for Order Directing Release of Cable Subscriber
Information.

Matthew Tiger brought the lawsuit on behalf of himself and two
putative classes of similarly situated persons who purchased
dietary supplements manufactured by the defendants DSN and PBB
Trademark Holdings, LLC (PBB).  Tiger alleged that the defendants
use false and misleading marketing and packaging to deceive
customers into believing their products are steroids.  Count I of
the complaint is an action for violation of the Florida Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act.  Count II is an action for unjust
enrichment.  During discovery, DSN filed a motion for order
directing release of cable subscriber information.

Judge Smith ordered as follows:

          (1) DSN shall serve a copy of the order on Bright House
              Networks, LLC (BHN).

          (2) BHN shall have five business days from the date
              that the order is served on it to notify the
              subscriber of IP address 71.43.72.10 of the
              subpoena and the order.

          (3) The subscriber shall have 21 days from the date of
              service to file any motions in this Court
              contesting the subpoena (including a motion to
              quash or modify the subpoena).

          (4) The parties may only use the subpoenaed information
              to litigate the claims and defenses in this
              lawsuit, and for no other purpose.

A full-text copy of Judge Smith's May 24, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/UdJk4j from Leagle.com.

Matthew Tiger, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Leslie Vessel,
Dixit Law Firm, PA & Shyam N.S. Dixit, Jr, Dixit Law Firm, PA.

Dynamic Sports Nutrition, LLC, PBB Trademark Holdings, LLC,
Defendants, represented by Frank Mari -- fmari@bellroperlaw.com
-- Bell & Roper, PA, Michael J. Roper -- mroper@bellroperlaw.com
-- Bell & Roper, PA, Greg Koush -- gkoush@hicks-thomas.com --
Hicks Thomas, LLP & Stewart Hoffer -- shoffer@hicks-thomas.com --
Hicks Thomas, LLP.


ENTERPRISE RECOVERY: Faces "Boykin" Suit in D. Ariz.
----------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Enterprise Recovery Systems
Incorporated. The case is captioned Je'Anna Boykin, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Enterprise Recovery Systems Incorporated, the Defendant, Case No.
#: 2:16-cv-01487-DKD (D. Ariz., May 13, 2016). The assigned
Magistrate Judge is Hon. David K Duncan.

Enterprise Recovery is a specialist in the recovery of educational
loans and institutional accounts for colleges, universities and
state guarantee programs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Russell Snow Thompson IV, Esq.
          Thompson Consumer Law Group PLLC
          5235 E Southern Ave., Ste. D106-618
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Telephone: (602) 388 8898
          Facsimile: (866) 565 1327
          E-mail: tclg@consumerlawinfo.com


ERIE ASSET: Faces "Derrick" Suit in D.N.J.
------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Erie Asset Management. The case
is captioned Angelique Derrick, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Erie Asset
Management, Inc. Hylan Asset Management, Inc., and John Does 1-25,
the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-02736-PGS-DEA (D.N.J. May 13,
2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Peter G. Sheridan.

Hylan Asset is a distressed receivables management firm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS ZELMAN LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695 3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298 6256
          E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com
                  yzelman@marcuszelman.com


EVERLASTING NAILS: "Nguyen" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tifanny Nguyen, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v, Everlasting Nails, Inc.,
d/b/a New Everlasting Nails, and Pek Chau, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-03582 (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and reasonable
attorney fees and costs from Defendants, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, Defendants paid Plaintiff between
$221.64 and $242.42 per week which is far below the minimum wage
and overtime rate.

Defendants operate a nail/beauty salon in Bronx New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
          NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, PC
          2747 Coney Island Ave.
          Brooklyn, NY 11235
          Telephone: (718) 808 2224
          E-mail: naydensiylaw@gmail.com


FACEBOOK INC: BIPA Amendment May Help Win Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Cale Guthrie Weissman, writing for Fast Company, reports that at
least, that might be what is about to happen in Illinois.  One of
the strongest state digital privacy statutes may soon be gutted.
Known as the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), this
Illinois state law expressly forbids companies from collecting
personal identifiers from people without informed consent.  A new
amendment is being pushed through that could dramatically change
the meaning of the law.

When it was first enacted in 2008, BIPA was meant to prevent
people's personal biological information from being collected by
technology companies.  This meant that if an online service was
collecting your physical data, it had to explicitly let you know.
Over the last year, Facebook has been fighting a class action
lawsuit that alleges that its photo tagging program -- which scans
digital photos, and uses facial recognition to automatically
identify people -- is in direct violation of the Illinois law.

Facebook has been vigorously fighting this suit, claiming on
multiple occasions that it is without merit.  Earlier in May, a
judge ruled against Facebook's motion to dismiss the case, meaning
it would be brought to trial.

This latest amendment might change all that.  Chris Dore, a
partner at the law firm Edelson PC (which represents the class
action suit being brought against Facebook) explained to Fast
Company that this change would essentially "carve out a huge chunk
of it."  In his estimation, the change would make it possible for
companies to collect digital biometric data -- like facial
templates -- without any consent at all.  As Mr. Dore put it, this
amendment would take the teeth out of the privacy act.

It's a little complicated. The existing law didn't count
photographs as biometric identifiers, but it was disputed whether
"photographs" included digital photographs or not.  Additionally,
the law said that analyzing "facial geometry" needed consent.  The
new change specifies that both digital and physical photographs
are not subject to BIPA protections.  Perhaps more significantly,
the amendment specifically identifies biometric scanning as
something that happens in person, IRL -- which means scanning a
digital photograph of someone's face online would no longer be
illegal in Illinois without that person's consent.

It seems the amendment's backers are trying to pass it through
quietly; Notice how this is all happening on the eve of a holiday
weekend -- the amendment was introduced on May 27 and the vote
could happen as early as May 28.  What's more, the Illinois
legislature was about to go on a break on May 30.  The amendment
is tacked on a law that focuses on unclaimed property, not
biometric data -- which means legislators might not even realize
that they are voting for the BIPA amendment, too.  It should be
noted that the author of this change, Senator Terry Link, was one
of the original lawmakers behind BIPA.

If the amendment doesn't pass and Facebook loses the trial, the
social network may have to change its facial recognition services
for everyone in Illinois.


FACEBOOK INC: Judge Grewal Joins Legal Team
-------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that after juggling a dense docket of technology patent cases for
six years, U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal is trading his black
robe for a high-profile post on Facebook's legal team.

The Silicon Valley judge will retire from the bench on June 3 to
become Facebook's vice president and deputy general counsel for
worldwide litigation.

Grewal has presided over class actions involving Google and other
tech giants, hashed out discovery disputes for Apple v. Samsung
and other patent cases, and handled hundreds of criminal and civil
rights cases.

"He's had to deal with basically everything Facebook will probably
see," Grewal's former colleague Mansi Shah with the Valorem Law
Group said. "They've gotten lucky. He's going to be an asset to
them in ways they probably don't even know yet."

Grewal graduated from MIT with a Bachelor of Science before
earning his law degree at the University of Chicago. He worked on
commercial litigation at Pillsbury Madison and focused on
intellectual property, patent trials and appeals as an attorney
with Day Casebeer Batchelder & Madrid.

Grewal's background in science and engineering and his firm grasp
on intellectual property law led many Silicon Valley attorneys to
agree to have him hear their patent cases.

"I think he's established himself as one of the leading patent
judges in Northern California," said Neel Chaterjee, with Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe, who worked with Grewal at the South Asian
Bar Association of North America. "He's gotten a very high number
of consent cases. I think that's a real testament to people's
confidence in his ability to arrive at fair and thoughtful
conclusions."

Grewal's fellow U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathaniel Cousins said
Grewal has wide-ranging expertise.

"He has great strengths beyond intellectual property," Cousins
said. "He has many hundreds of cases that are not involving
intellectual property. Many of my interactions with him are
outside of that, as magistrate judges handling criminal cases."

And Grewal has kept his fellow judges up to date through his work
on the National Magistrate Judges Committee, Cousins said.

Grewal is one of the few federal judges with a Twitter account,
where he regularly tweets about his hometown's sports teams, the
Cleveland Browns and Cavaliers.

"His absence will be felt deeply, not just by the litigants but by
his colleagues, because he's a joy to be around," Cousins said. "I
know we'll find no one with as much knowledge on the Cleveland
Browns."

Grewal also made sure young attorneys get the chance to strengthen
their skills at oral arguments. In March, he issued a ruling in a
patent case involving microchips, ordering both parties to let
younger attorneys argue at least two of their six post-trial
motions.

"Who will try the technology cases of the future, when so few
opportunities to develop courtroom skills appear?" Grewal wrote in
his March 9 ruling.

Shah, who was mentored by Grewal when her law firm, Howrey, merged
with Grewal's firm Day Casebeer in 2009, said Grewal understands
the importance of giving young attorneys the chance to polish
their courtroom skills.

"He wants to make sure our profession has a pipeline of great
attorneys in it," Shah said.

Aside from losing a judge with a great grasp of technology and
patent law, Shah said, Grewal's departure comes as somewhat of a
blow to the South Asian community.

Grewal previously served as president of the South Asian Bar
Association -- North America and the South Asian Bar Association -
Northern California.

South Asians are one of the least-represented minority groups on
the federal judiciary, according to the Center for American
Progress.

"For the South Asian Bar, it's a judge loss," Shah said. "We don't
have too many, but we're growing in numbers."

When Grewal clerked for retired Federal Circuit Appeals Court
Judge Arthur Gajarsa about 15 years ago, Gajarsa said he knew
Grewal was destined for great things.

"I always knew he would go on to do bigger and better things,"
Gajarsa said. "As a judge, you always hired people you knew were
smarter than you, and they made you look good."

Gajarsa said Grewal has a calling for public service and he may
return to the courts as a higher-ranking judge some day.

He said the pay scale for a district court judge, around $200,000
per year, doesn't compare with the earning potential for a private
sector attorney, especially in Silicon Valley.

"I think Paul stepping down from the court is a big loss to the
federal system," Gajarsa said. "He was essentially one of the best
that they had. Attracting people of Paul's character to the bench
is very important."


FAIR HAVENS: "Rodriguez" Suit Moved from Jud. Cir. to S.D. Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Flor Rodriguez, and other similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff, v. Fair Havens Center, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability
Company, the Defendant, Case No. 16-004468-CA-01, was removed from
11th Judicial Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (Miami). The Southern District Court assigned
Case No. 1:16-cv-21707-RNS to the proceeding. The Assigned Judge
is Robert N. Scola, Jr.

Fair Havens is a nursing home located in Miami Springs, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Courthouse Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com
                  jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Nicholas S Andrews, Esq.
          Jonathan Alan Beckerman, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
          333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 400 7500
          Facsimile: (305) 603 2552
          E-mail: nandrews@littler.com
                  jabeckerman@littler.com


FANDUEL INC: "Sobel" Class Suit Removed to Dist. of Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Lee Sobel, as an individual and
all others similarly situated v. FanDuel, Inc. and Does 1 through
20, inclusive, Case No. BC616436, was removed from the
Los Angeles County Superior Court to the United States District
Court District of Massachusetts (Boston). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-10907-GAO to the proceeding.

FanDuel, Inc. operates an online fantasy sports platform that
enables users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amy Tai Wootton, Esq.
      Christopher J. Hamner, Esq.
      HAMNER LAW OFFICES APC
      555 West 5th Street 31st Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90013
      Telephone: (213) 533-4160
      Facsimile: (213) 533-4167
      E-mail: awootton@hamnerlaw.com
              chamner@hamnerlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Rebekah Elisabeth Kaufman, Esq.
      MORRISON AND FOERSTER
      425 Market Street
      San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
      Telephone: (415) 268-7000
      Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
      E-mail: rkaufman@mofo.com

         - and -

      Benjamin D. Williams, Esq.
      MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
      707 Wilshire Blvd
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 892-5237
      E-mail: bwilliams@mofo.com


FIRST CLOVER: Faces Class Action Over First-Mid Illinois Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Maher, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reports that
stockholders of Edwardsville-based First Clover Leaf Bank have
filed a proposed class action against the company's board of
directors over their recent decision to be acquired by Mattoon-
based First Mid-Illinois.

Lead plaintiff Jonathan Raul brought the suit May 20 in Madison
County Circuit Court; Wood River attorney Tom Maag and Granite
City attorney Joshua Lifshitz represent plaintiffs.

Board members allegedly breached their fiduciary duties because
the deal to sell to First Mid-Illinois, announced April 26,
resulted in an "inadequate" price and a "grossly unfair" merger
process.  The cash and stock transaction is valued at
approximately $90 million, the suit claims.

Defendants include First Clover Leaf president and CEO Dave Kuhl,
as well as board chairman Gerard Schuetzenhofer and board members
Kenneth Highlander, Gary Niebur, Dennis Terry, Mary Westerhold,
Joseph Gugger, Mona Best Haberer and Joseph Stevens.  The banks
are also named in the suit.

The suit claims the deal provides that shareholders may elect to
receive either a .495 share of First Mid-Illinois common stock per
share of First Clover Leaf common stock or $12.87 in cash per
share of First Clover common stock -- "subject to proration such
that 25 percent of First Clover shares will be exchanged for cash
and 75 percent for First Mid-Illinois stock."

"The agreed upon consideration is inadequate in light of First
Clover's intrinsic value and stand-alone alternatives going
forward," the suit claims.

It further states that First Clover Leaf had been performing well
and "was poised for success."

The suit cites an April 28 article in Capital Cube that states the
bank is "undervalued," and has done better than its overall peer
group.

Plaintiffs claim that board members compounded their alleged
breaches by agreeing to deal protections that unreasonably favor
First Mid-Illinois, and which preclude other bidders from making
successful competing offers.

Defendants allegedly agreed to:

  -- a strict no-solicitation provision that prevents First Clover
Leaf from providing confidential information to or even
communicating with potential competing bidders except under
extremely limited circumstances;

  -- a provision that provides First Mid-Illinois with three
business days to match any competing proposal in the event one is
made;

  -- information rights that require First Clover Leaf to share
highly sensitive information about potential competing proposals
with First Mid-Illinois; and

  -- a provision that requires First Clover Leaf to pay First Mid-
Illinois a termination fee of $3.6 million in order to enter into
a transaction with a superior bidder.

"These provisions substantially and improperly limit the Board's
ability to act with respect to investigating and pursuing superior
proposals and alternatives including a sale of all or part of
First Clover," the suit states.  "The preclusive effect of these
deal protection provisions thus exacerbates and aggravates the
Board's utter failure to value-maximizing pre-agreement market
check or auction process."

Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the vote on the proposed transaction, or
in the event the deal is consummated, recover damages resulting
from the defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 16-L-703.


FORD MOTOR: Baron & Budd Mulls Class Action Over ETB Problem
------------------------------------------------------------
The national law firm of Baron & Budd is investigating a potential
class action lawsuit on behalf of owners of certain Ford vehicles
affected by an electronic throttle body (ETB) problem that can
result in sudden stalls, risking the safety of the driver,
passengers and other motorists and/or pedestrians on the road.

Owners of the following vehicles that have an ETB problem may be
able to participate in a class action lawsuit against the
automaker:

   2011 to 2013 Ford Mustang
   2011 to 2013 Ford Edge
   2011 to 2013 Lincoln MKX

A defective ETB can put a vehicle into what is known as "limp
home" mode, where the vehicle can continue to move but at a
significantly lowered speed.  Some consumers have reported that
their vehicles not only stalled while in motion, but also surged
suddenly during acceleration from a stop.

Ford agreed to repair many models that could have defective ETBs
under a special extended warranty program.  However, the program
does not include the models mentioned above.

"Auto defects can put many people at risk of serious injury or
even death," said Roland Tellis, head of the Consumer Class Action
group at the national law firm of Baron & Budd.  "We will work to
make sure that Ford repairs all models that have a defective ETB -
- not just a select few."

If you own one of the models of Ford vehicles listed above, please
call the national law firm of Baron & Budd at 1 (866) 700-8994 for
more information on how we may be able to help.

                     About Baron & Budd, P.C.

The law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C., with offices in Dallas, Baton
Rouge, New Orleans, Austin and Los Angeles, is a nationally
recognized law firm with a nearly 40-year history of "Protecting
What's Right" for people, communities and businesses harmed by
negligence.  Baron & Budd's size and resources enable the firm to
take on large and complex cases.  The firm represents individuals
and government and business entities in areas as diverse as
dangerous pharmaceuticals and medical devices, environmental
contamination, the Gulf oil spill, financial fraud, overtime
violations, deceptive advertising, automotive defects, trucking
accidents, nursing home abuse, and asbestos-related illnesses such
as mesothelioma.


FORD MOTOR: Court Strikes Class Action Claims in "Cassidy" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Kurt D. Engelhardt granted Ford Motor Company's "Motion
to Dismiss or Strike Plaintiffs' Class Action Allegations," and
struck the class allegations from the complaint in the lawsuit
titled JAMES T. CASSIDY AND FAITH H. CASSIDY, individually and as
representatives of others similarly situated v. FORD MOTOR
COMPANY, Case No. 2:15-cv-02483-KDE-KWR (E.D. La.).

The Plaintiffs filed their class action complaint on July 7, 2015.
The Court noted that in the ensuing 91 days, the Plaintiffs
neither moved for class certification nor requested additional
time from the Court.  As a result, the time for moving for class
certification under Rule 23(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure expired on October 6, 2015.

Hence, Judge Engelhardt denied as untimely the Plaintiffs' "Motion
to Certify Class," which was filed on May 20, 2016, more than
seven months after the deadline.  He opined that the Plaintiffs
have not demonstrated good cause to excuse their untimeliness.

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


FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP, PA: Not Liable for Day Care Contamination Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Hefler, writing for Philly.com, reports that a New Jersey
appellate court ruled on May 26 that a state agency and Franklin
Township are not liable for damages or claims due to their failure
to prevent a children's day-care center from opening in a
contaminated mercury thermometer factory a decade ago.

About 100 infants and children were exposed to toxic vapors linked
to brain and kidney ailments after they were enrolled in the
Kiddie Kollege day-care and nursery in Gloucester County between
2004 and 2006.

The appeals panel reversed a 2010 lower-court ruling that the
government entities were negligent partly because they had issued
permits to allow the center to open without a cleanup.

The lower court had ordered the state Department of Environmental
Protection and the township to pay $675,000 into a $1.5 million
medical monitoring fund for the Kiddie Kollege children after
their parents filed a class-action lawsuit.  The town also was
ordered to pay $1.6 million in legal fees to the parents' five
attorneys.


GENERAL CABLE: Dismissal of "Livonia" Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit affirmed the
district court's dismissal of Livonia Employees' Retirement
System's ("Livonia") complaint against General Cable Corporation
and its officers, as well as the district court's denial of
Livonia's motion to amend the judgment.

The case is captioned Satish Doshi, Plaintiff, CITY OF LIVONIA
EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all
others Similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GENERAL CABLE
CORPORATION; GREGORY B. KENNY; BRIAN J. ROBINSON, Defendants-
Appellees, No. 15-5621 (6th Cir.).

A full-text copy of the Sixth Circuit's May 24, 2016 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/R5gUu9 from Leagle.com.

In October 2012, and again a year later, General Cable Corporation
announced that it would reissue several public financial
statements because they included material accounting errors.  Soon
after, Livonia initiated the class-action suit against General
Cable, its CEO Gregory Kenny, and its CFO Brian Robinson for
violating sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Securities Exchange
Act and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5.  Livonia
asserted that each defendant acted at least recklessly in issuing
or approving General Cable's materially false public financial
statements.  The defendants countered that General Cable's
misstatements resulted from accounting errors and a theft scheme
in its Brazilian operations of which the defendants were unaware
and that they promptly sought to remediate upon discovering them.
Agreeing with the defendants, the district court dismissed
Livonia's complaint with prejudice because it failed to plead
scienter adequately.  The district court then denied Livonia's
Rule 59(e) motion to amend the judgment, which included a request
to file an amended complaint. Livonia appeals both decisions.

Joseph D. Daley -- joed@rgrdlaw.com -- James A. Caputo, Steven F.
Hubachek -- shubachek@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD,
LLP, San Diego, California, for Appellant.

Marc J. Sonnenfeld -- marc.sonnenfeld@morganlewis.com -- Karen
Pieslak Pohlmann -- karen.pohlmann@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN,
LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, David F. Fessler
-- dfessler@fsgattorneys.com -- FESSLER, SCHNEIDER & GRIMME, LLP,
Fort Thomas, Kentucky, for Appellees.


GENERAL MOTORS: Exaggerated Miles Per Gallon in SUVs, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action in
Los Angeles claims General Motors exaggerated the miles per gallon
on its 2016 Chevrolet Traverses, GMC Acadias and Buick Enclaves.


GERDAU SA: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Reese Ewing and Jeb Blount, writing for Reuters, report that
New York investor rights law firm Pomerantz LLP filed a class
action suit against Brazil's Gerdau SA, Latin America's largest
steelmaker, alleging the company issued materially misleading
business information filed to investors over tax liabilities.

Porto Alegre, Brazil-based Gerdau is the latest Brazilian company
with shares traded in the United States to face actual or
potential lawsuits over securities fraud as a result of Brazilian
corruption investigations.

The Pomerantz lawsuit alleges Gerdau failed to disclose it and its
executives bribed tax authorities, defrauded Brazil's tax revenue
service of $429 million, laundered illegal funds and carried out
influence peddling, according to the filing.

Federal police in Brazil raided Gerdau offices in March 2015 and
February 2016 as part of Operation Zelot, a probe into tax fraud
through which companies are alleged to have bribed tax revenue
agents to issue favorable rulings.

Earlier in May, Brazilian police filed charges alleging Gerdau
evaded $429 million in taxes and against Chief Executive Officer
Andr‚ Gerdau Johannpeter for corruption.

Pomerantz is seeking investors in Gerdau ADRs from June 2, 2011
and May 15, 2016 to participate in its suit.  For it to proceed as
a class action, a court must accept it as meeting a minimum
criteria.

Earlier in May, another New York firm, Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman LLC, launched an investigation into whether investors in
the company's ADRs suffered losses due to similar allegations
related to Gerdau's ongoing tax corruption case in Brazil.

The growing docket of securities fraud lawsuits follow probes that
uncovered a giant price-fixing, bribery and political kick-back
scandal at state-led oil company Petroleo Brasileiro SA in early
2014.


GERDAU SA: July 25 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on May 26
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Gerdau S.A. securities from June 2, 2011 through May
15, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").  The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Gerdau investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Gerdau class action, go to the firm's website at
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-898.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or
Kevin Chan, Esq. toll free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for more information
on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants
issued false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed
to disclose that (1) the Company was engaged in a bribery scheme
in collusion with Brazil's Board of Tax Appeals ("CARF"); (2)
Gerdau had defrauded Brazilian tax authorities of roughly $429
million in taxes; (3) Gerdau's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"),
Defendant Andr‚ Bier Gerdau Johannpeter ("Johannpeter") and other
directors and employees of the Company had engaged in bribery,
money laundering, and influence peddling; and (4) as a result,
Gerdau's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.  When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
July 25, 2016.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's website at
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-898.htmlfor more information. You may
also contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law
Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com
or kchan@rosenlegal.com

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


GLACIER WATER: Certification of Class Sought in "Magee" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned SCOTT MAGEE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GLACIER WATER
SERVICES, INC. and WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-
04364-SSV-KWR (E.D. La.), file with the Court a preliminary motion
for class certification.

Mr. Magee reserves his right to supplement the Motion upon the
conclusion of discovery.  He also asks that the Court suspend the
hearing date on the Motion until discovery has been completed.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3YLnbFmD

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
          3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 534-5005
          Facsimile: (504) 272-2956
          E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com

               - and -

          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          WILLIAM H. BEAUMONT LAW
          3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 483-8008
          E-mail: whbeaumont@gmail.com


GOOGLE INC: Status Hearing in "Weiss" Class Suit Set for June 23
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Edmond E. Chang entered an order in the purported
class action lawsuit titled Joseph Weiss v. Google, Inc., Case No.
1:16-cv-02870 (N.D. Ill.).

The Order noted that a status hearing was held in both Rivera v.
Google, Case No. 16-cv-2714, and Weiss v. Google, Case No. 16-cv-
2870.  Judge Chang said that the Court and counsel discussed
various topics during the status hearing.

First, the Court noted the need to notify the Illinois Attorney
General of the potential constitutional challenge to the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act.  Google presents an alternative
argument to the effect that if the Act is interpreted in the way
that the Plaintiffs allegedly propose, then the Act violates the
Dormant Commerce Clause.

Second, as discussed during the status hearing, the Plaintiffs
will not object to the defense later raising a California choice-
of-law argument as to Plaintiff Weiss later in the litigation.

Third, the Plaintiffs' response to the dismissal motion is due by
June 1, 2016.  The defense reply is due by June 17.

Fourth, in order to avoid duplicative filings, and because the
Rivera proposed class is a subset of the Weiss proposed class, the
Clerk's Office will terminate 16-cv-2870 and place the complaint
in that case on the docket in 16-cv-2714 as another Complaint in
16-cv-2714.  The Plaintiffs' response will be in one filing on
just the one docket (16-cv-2714), and the same goes for the
defense reply and all future filings.

A status hearing is set for June 23, 2016, at 10:30 a.m.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=hs3Uj3pT


GOPRO INC: Faces "Samra" Securities Class Action in Calif. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jagdip Samra, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Nicholas Woodman, Anthony J. Bates,
Edward Gilhuly, Kenneth Goldman, Peter Gotcher, Michael Marks,
Jack Lazar, John Ball, Gopro, Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC,
Barclays Capital, Inc., Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Allen &
Company, LLC, Stifel Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, MCS Capital
Markets, LLC, Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc., Piper Jaffray & Co.,
Raymond James & Associates, Inc., the Defendants, Case No.
CV538653 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 13, 2016), seeks to pursue remedies
under the Securities Act of 1933.

The lawsuit is a securities class action on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired GoPro common stock issued
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's false and misleading
registration statement and prospectus filed in connection with its
June 26, 2014 initial public offering (IPO). On June 11, 2014,
GoPro filed an amended registration statement on Form S - 1/A for
the Company's IPO, which the SEC deemed effective on June 25,
2014, when the Company filed its Registration Statement on Form S-
8 (Registration Statement). On June 26, 2014, GoPro filed its
Prospectus on Form 424134, which forms part of the Registration
Statement (Prospectus).

GoPro sells cameras that are designed for uses ranging from
extreme sports to professional photography and creating and
editing videos. GoPro also sells software and has a mobile App
that pairs with the cameras in which users can edit, manage, and
share their pictures and videos.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc G. Reich, Esq.
          Adam T. Hoover, Esq.
          REICH RADCLIFFE & KUTTLER LLP
          4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 550
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 975 0512
          Facsimile: (949) 975 0514
          E-mail: mgr@reichradcliffe.com
                  adhoover@reichradcliffe.com

               - and -

          Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
          LIFSHITZ & MILLER
          821 Franklin Ave., Suite 209
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 493 9780
          Facsimile: (516) 280 7376
          E-mail: jml@jlclasslaw.com


HARBOR VILLAGE: "Medina" Suit Moved to S. D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------
Yesika Medina, and others similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff, v. Harbor Village Inc., a Florida for Profit
Corporation and Robert G. Niznik, individually, the Defendants,
Case No. 16-004481-CA-01, was removed from the 11th Judicial
Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade, to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The Southern
District Court assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-21710-UU to the
proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. Ursula Ungaro.

Harbor Village provides medical detox and treatment of alcohol and
drug addictions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Courthouse Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com
                  jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael Richard Tricarico, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART PC
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1600
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 374 0506
          Facsimile: (305) 374 0456
          E-mail: michael.tricarico@ogletreedeakins.com


HAT WORLD: Faces "Rando" Suit Over Unlawful Terms and Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Rando, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Hat World, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-02814-JHR-JS
(D.N.J., May 19, 2016), seeks redress for the unlawful commercial
practices employed by the Defendant regarding unlawful terms and
conditions that purport to govern products purchased from the
website www.lids.com

Hat World, Inc. markets hats and related products throughout the
State of New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gerald H. Clarks, Esq.
      Mark W. Morris, Esq.
      Lazaro Berenguer, Esq.
      CLARK LAW FIRM, PC
      811 Sixteenth Avenue
      Belmar, NJ 07719
      Telephone: (732) 443-0333
      Facsimile: (732) 894-9647

         - and -

      Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
      Victoria Knowles, Esq.
      NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP
      4100 Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (946) 706-6464
      Facsimile: (946) 706-6469
      E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com
              vknowles@trialnewport.com


ILLINOIS: "Richard" Suit Against Dept. of Corrections Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel of the Southern District of
Illinois dismisses the case against the Illinois Department of
Corrections, captioned PRINCE RICHARD, # R-17418, Plaintiff, v.
ILLINOIS DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, C. GLADYSE TAYLOR, PAYNE, WEXFORD
HEALTH SOURCES, INC., TROST, JOHN DOE, and KIMBERLY BUTLER,
Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-00069-NJR (S.D. Ill.).

Prince Richard, an inmate currently incarcerated at Menard
Correctional Center, brought a civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 for the deprivation of his constitutional
rights at Menard. He sues the Illinois Department of Corrections
(IDOC), Gladyse Taylor, Wexford Health Sources, Inc., Kimberly
Butler, Doctor Trost, Nurse John Doe, and Counselor Payne for
violating his rights under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth
Amendments. He seeks monetary damages, a CT scan, and class action
injunctive relief in the form of a court order requiring all IDOC
facilities to install ladders on bunk beds.

Richard alleges that defendants subjected him to unconstitutional
conditions of confinement at Menard in violation of the Eighth
Amendment when they assigned him to a top bunk that lacked a
ladder and steps (Count I). That defendants exhibited deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the
Eighth Amendment when they failed to treat the injuries he
sustained after falling from the top bunk on January 18, 2015
(Count II). That defendants exhibited deliberate indifference to
his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment
when they refused to issue him a low bunk or low gallery permit
after he fell from the top bunk on January 18, 2015 Count (III),
and that defendants denied him access to the courts by ignoring
his grievances and thereby preventing him from exhausting his
administrative remedies before bringing this action (Count IV).

Judge Rosenstengel dismissed plaintiff's counts I and IV without
prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. Count III is dismissed without prejudice against
defendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc. for the same reason.

The Illinois Department of Corrections is dismissed with prejudice
from the action. Count II is subject to further review against
defendants Taylor, Payne, Wexford Health Resources, Trost, Nurse
Practitioner John Doe and Butler. Count III is subject for further
review against Taylor, Payne, Trost, Nurse Practitioner John Doe
and Butler.  As to Counts II and III, the Court said plaintiff has
neither sought nor been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis
in the action, and the court will not automatically appoint the
United States Marshal to effect service of process upon defendants
Taylor, Payne, Wexford Health Resources, Trost, and Butler.
However, if plaintiff desires to request the appointment of the
United States Marshal to serve process on these defendants,
plaintiff shall file a motion for service of process at government
expense, within 35 days of the date of entry of the order.

Plaintiff is advised that he is under a continuing obligation to
keep the Clerk of Court and each opposing party informed of any
change in his address and shall be done in writing and not later
than 7 days after a transfer or other change in address occurs.

Defendants are ordered to timely file an appropriate responsive
pleading to the complaint.

Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(a)(2), the action is referred to
United States Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson for further
pre-trial proceedings, including a decision on plaintiff's motion
for recruitment of counsel and a plan for discovery aimed at
identifying defendant Nurse Practitioner John Doe. Further, the
entire matter is referred to United States Magistrate Judge
Wilkerson for disposition, as contemplated by Local Rule
72.2(b)(2) and 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c), should all the parties
consent to such a referral.

A copy of Judge Rosenstengel's memorandum and order dated May 20,
2016, is available at http://goo.gl/VyujFOfrom Leagle.com.

Prince Richard, Plaintiff, Pro Se


INDIANAPOLIS, IN: Sued Over Prisoner Civil Rights Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
MAURICE YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. City of Indianapolis, in its official capacity, Case
No. 1:16-cv-01238-SEB-MPB (S.D. Ind., May 19, 2016), is brought
against the Defendant for Prisoner Civil Rights violation.

City of Indianapolis is the capital of Indiana and the seat of
Marion County.

Maurice Young is a pro se plaintiff.


JENNY CRAIG: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Wage Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel L. Messeloff, Esq. -- Daniel.Messeloff@jacksonlewis.com --
of Jackson Lewis P.C., in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that in a case that could be of significant benefit to
employers in California and elsewhere around the country, the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a ruling that
plaintiffs failed to satisfy the "commonality" requirement
essential to a collective action on their wage-hour claim where
they had the authority to edit the time entries that served as the
basis for their claim. Coleman v. Jenny Craig, Inc., 2016 U.S.
App. LEXIS 7164 (April 6, 2016).

Plaintiff Hashonna Coleman brought suit against Jenny Craig, Inc.
on behalf of herself and other current and former employees for
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and
various California Labor Code sections providing for overtime
payments and premiums for failure to provide or pay for meal and
rest periods.  With respect to the proposed Meal and Rest Break
Class, Coleman alleged that Jenny Craig had a common practice of
forcing hourly employees to miss meal breaks or take short or late
meal breaks, and that the payroll system only paid the
(California) required premium when employees' timecards showed an
entirely-missed meal break.

The evidence showed that Jenny Craig's uniform compensation system
was not programmed to automatically pay employees the premiums for
short or late lunches, because employees were able to submit time
edit requests for premiums whenever their meal breaks were short
or late.  The district court concluded that this feature of the
Company's payroll system did not amount to a policy or practice of
non-payment of premiums for short of late lunches, because
employees themselves could edit and correct any time entries they
believed did not accurately reflect their hours worked.  The
district court concluded that the plaintiffs did not satisfy the
"commonality" requirement for class certification and therefore it
denied Plaintiff's motion to certify a class.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling and held that,
for Coleman to show commonality on her claims, she must show a
common practice of Jenny Craig to force employees to take short or
late meal breaks, but that a common practice of simply not paying
wage premiums, standing alone, is insufficient to show commonality
under the FLSA and California statutes.  Since the lower court
found that Jenny Craig did not have a common practice of forcing
employees to take short or late meal breaks, the Ninth Circuit
held that the court was correct in finding that Coleman had not
proven the existence of a common practice necessary to maintain a
class claim.

The pivotal fact upon which the class certification question
turned for the Ninth Circuit was that employees had the
opportunity to edit their own time entries to ensure that they
were paid for time worked if they had short or late meal breaks.
Any employer with a time keeping system which provides employees
the opportunity to review, edit and certify their time entries
will arguably be in a position to assert that fact as a defense to
any collective action wage claims they may face.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued Over Baby Power-Linked Ovarian Cancer
-------------------------------------------------------------
680 News reports that a Toronto lawyer is launching a class-action
lawsuit on behalf of women who have ovarian cancer linked to the
use of baby powder.

The lawsuit, filed by Paul Miller of Will Davidson LLP, comes in
the wake of several jury awards in the United States against
Johnson & Johnson.

A woman was recently awarded $55 million after being diagnosed
with cancer in 2011.  She claimed to have used talc-based feminine
hygiene products for the better part of 40 years.  A separate jury
awarded the family of another woman who died of ovarian cancer in
2013 $72million.

Mr. Miller says experts have confirmed a casual connection between
the baby powder and cancer when talc is found on biopsy slides.

"It's a terrible situation," Mr. Miller says in a release.
"Johnson & Johnson -- could there be a more trusted name?"

"There are two things you think of: baby power and baby shampoo.
Those should be trusted products."

A handful of Canadian women, ranging in age from 40 to 60, have
joined the lawsuit, claiming to have used baby powder with talc
for the better part of 40 years.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued in Cal. Over Inaccurate Credit History
-----------------------------------------------------------
Naveed Dezfoli, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. JPMorgan Chase Bank and Does 1-100, Case No.
BC621018 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 19, 2016), arises out of the
Defendant's practice of providing derogatory and inaccurate
statements and information relating to the Plaintiff and
Plaintiff's credit history to various credit reporting agencies.

JPMorgan Chase Bank is a multinational banking and financial
services holding company headquartered in New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KELLOGG COMPANY: Falsely Marketed Whole Grain Crackers, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Mantikas, Kristin Burns, and Linda Castle, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kellogg Company,
Case No. 2:16-cv-02552-SJF-AYS (E.D.N.Y., May 19, 2016), arises
out of the Defendant's alleged false and misleading representation
of its Cheez-It Whole Grain crackers as "whole grain" crackers,
when in fact the primary ingredient of the product is enriched
white flour.

Kellogg Company operates a food company, producing and marketing
products under the "Cheez-It" brand name throughout New York,
California, and the rest of the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael R. Reese, Esq.
      George V. Granade, Esq.
      REESE LLP
      100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10025
      Telephone: (212) 643-0500
      Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
      E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
              ggranade@reesellp.com

          - and -

      Maia Kats, Esq.
      William Thanhauser, Esq.
      CENTER FOR SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
      1220 L Street, Northwest, Suite 300
      Washington, DC 20005
      Telephone: (202) 777-8381
      Facsimile: (202) 265-4954
      E-mail: mkats@cspinet.org
              wthanhauser@cspinet.org

          - and -

      Steven A. Skalet, Esq.
      Craig L. Briskin, Esq.
      MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC
      1250 Connecticut Avenue, Northwest, Suite 300
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 822-5100
      Facsimile: (202) 822-4997
      E-mail: sskalet@findjustice.com
              cbriskin@findjustice.com


KERNERSVILLE, NC: Faces Class Action Over Sewer Service Rates
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hewlett, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that
the town of Kernersville and the City-County Utilities Commission
overcharged town residents for sewer service for two and a half
years, resulting in loss of $5 million, a class-action lawsuit
filed earlier in May alleges.

Edward R. Fasano and Debra L. Fasano filed the lawsuit May 13 in
Forsyth Superior Court.

The town contracts with the City-County Utilities Commission to
provide sewer service to more than 8,000 people who either live
within the town limits or just outside the town, according to the
lawsuit.

The lawsuit said that town officials entered into an agreement in
2011 that would lower sewer rates from 2.487 times the rate for
Winston-Salem customers to 1.2 times the rate for town residents.
It would be 1.5 times the rate for people outside the town limits.
The commission agreed to transfer money from what is known as the
Rate Differential Fund to Kernersville.

Town officials and the utility commission had been working on a
new agreement, but by Jan. 1, 2013, nothing had been settled, the
lawsuit said.  The agreement meant that on Jan. 1, the rate would
go to 1.2 times the rate Winston-Salem customers pay.  But
according to the lawsuit, that did not happen.

"Upon information and belief, during 2013, 2014, and most of 2015,
millions of dollars were improperly charged to and paid by
Kernersville sanitary sewer users," the lawsuit said.

And, the lawsuit said, money from the Rate Differential Fund was
never transferred to Kernersville.  In September 2015, the town's
board of commissioners voted to reduce the rate to 1.6 times what
Winston-Salem customers pay.  Plaintiffs said that rate still does
not comply with the 2011 agreement.

Ron Hargrove, director of the City-County Utilities Commission,
said the commission is just the administrator of the fund and has
no control over how that money is spent.

"All of that decision-making is by the town," he said.  "The
dispute is between the town and the customers of that town."
Town Manager Curtis Swisher and Town Attorney John Wolfe III did
not immediately return messages seeking comment.


LAMETTRY'S COLLISSION: Faces Lawsuit Seeking Relief Under ERISA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Debbie Damberg and Tony Severson, as representatives of a class of
similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the LaMettry's 401K
Profit Sharing Plan, Plaintiffs, v. LaMettry's Collission, Inc.,
Steven P. Daniel, and Joanne M. LaMettry, Defendants, CASE 0:16-
cv-01335-JNE-SER (D. Minn., May 18, 2016), was filed on behalf of
all similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the
LaMettry's 401K Profit Sharing Plan ("Plan") to recover financial
losses suffered by the Plan and obtain injunctive and other
equitable relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.

LaMettry's Collission, Inc. is a Minnesota corporation that owns
and operates auto body repair shops throughout the Twin Cities.
Its employees are auto-body technicians, support staff, and
administrators.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     J. Ashwin Madia, Esq.
     Joshua Newville, Esq.
     Cody Blades, Esq.
     MADIA LAW LLC
     345 Union Plaza
     333 Washington Avenue North
     Minneapolis, MN 55401
     Phone: 612.349.2723
     Fax: 612.235.3357
     E-mail: jamadia@madialaw.com


LANNETT CO: Faces Philly Teachers Fund Suit Over Digoxin Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Lannett
Company, Inc., Impax Laboratories, Inc., West-Ward Pharmaceuticals
Corporation, Allergan pie; Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Par
Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-02468-CMR (E.D.
Penn., May 19, 2016), arises from the Defendants' and others'
alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy  to fix,
maintain, and stabilize the prices of generic digoxin or
doxycycline products.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark S. Goldman, Esq.
      Paul Scarlato, Esq.
      GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY PC
      161 Washington St., Suite 1025
      Conshohocken, PA 19428
      Telephone: (484) 342-0700
      E-mail: goldman@lawgsp.com
              scalato@lawgsp.com

         - and -

      Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
      Jay L. Hines, Esq.
      Domenico Minerva, Esq.
      Karin E. Garvey, Esq.
      Matthew J. Perex, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      140 Broadway
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 907-0700
      Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
      E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com
              jhimes@labaton.com
              dminerva@labaton.com
              kgarvey@labaton.com
              mperez@labaton.com

         - and -

      Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
      Paul Costa, Esq.
      Adam J. Pessin, Esq.
      FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, RPC
      One South Broad, Street, Suite 2300
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 567-6565
      Facsimile: (215) 568-5872
      E-mail: rliebennerg@finekaplan.com
              pcosta@finekaplan.com
              apessin@finekaplan.com


M-QUBE INC: 9th Cir. Sends "Geier" Class Suit to Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that the Ninth Circuit agreed May
26, to let M-Qube and Mobile Messenger arbitrate a class action in
Seattle premium text subscriptions allegedly made without consent.

Pow! Mobile, not a party here, is a mobile content provider that
marketed a "reverse auction" game called "Bid and Win." In this
type of game, players bid on prizes, and whoever makes the lowest
unique bid wins. Users could subscribe to Pow! Mobile's cell phone
content service, and play by submitting bids via text message. Bid
and Win's $9.99 monthly subscription charge was billed directly to
the subscriber's cell phone bill.

Defendant m-Qube, Inc. is a "connection aggregator." It markets
mobile games and other subscription-based content to the public.
Defendant Mobile Messenger Americas, Inc. "built a computer
'gateway' to each of the major wireless carriers (e.g., AT&T,
Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile), allowing charities and businesses to
send and receive text messages with customers."

Both Mobile Messenger and m-Qube are "billing aggregators" who
serve as financial intermediaries between customers and content
providers. Defendants' parent company is Messenger Global, Inc.

Margaret Wells, Richard Geier's wife, allegedly subscribed to the
mobile version of Bid and Win. According to defendants, Wells
accepted Pow! Mobile's Terms and Conditions (the "Terms") upon
subscribing. Geier, however, counters that his wife never
subscribed to the service and thus didn't assent to the Terms. The
Terms include a clause compelling arbitration for "any controversy
. . . arising out of or relating to a service agreement between"
Pow! Mobile and its subscriber.

Geier's class action complaint alleges defendants have engaged in
a scheme "that causes Washington consumers to become unknowingly
and unwittingly subscribed to premium text message services."
Geier filed his complaint in state court, but defendants removed
the case to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness
Act. After Geier filed an amended complaint, defendants moved to
compel arbitration.

Without determining whether Wells agreed to the Terms, the
district court held that "defendants are not intended third-party
beneficiaries entitled to enforce the arbitration clause" and thus
denied defendants' motion to compel arbitration.

According to the Ninth Circuit, the signatory to the Terms agrees
to waive all claims against the Company's suppliers. Therefore,
the Company's suppliers are intended third-party beneficiaries of
the Terms. Thus, if defendants are suppliers of the Company, they
may enforce the arbitration clause.

"Whether defendants may enforce the arbitration clause against
Geier requires two findings not made by the district court: Did
Wells assent to the Terms? And, are defendants Pow! Mobile's
suppliers? We remand so that the district court can make these
determinations in the first instance," the Ninth Circuit says.

The case captioned, RICHARD A. GEIER, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. M-QUBE
INC.; MOBILE MESSENGER AMERICAS INC., DBA Mobile Messenger,
Defendants-Appellants., No. 13-36080 (9th Cir.).

A copy of the Ninth Circuit's decision is available at
http://goo.gl/wF8703from Leagle.com.


MAGELLAN: Sued for Denying Mental Health Coverage to Teens
----------------------------------------------------------
Psych-Appeal, Inc., Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. and Zuckerman Spaeder
LLP have filed a class-action lawsuit against Magellan and Blue
Shield of California on behalf of adolescents suffering from
mental health and substance use disorders.  The suit alleges that
the health insurers limit and deny coverage for outpatient and
residential treatment using strict guidelines that are created
internally by Magellan.

"These guidelines are far more restrictive than the standards of
care that are generally accepted within the mental health
community," said Meiram Bendat, president of Psych-Appeal, Inc.
"When insurers develop criteria that distort or disregard
generally accepted treatment standards, profitability trumps
patient safety."

The plaintiffs in the case include a father whose teenage son was
denied residential treatment for substance abuse and major
depression, and a mother whose son was denied intensive outpatient
treatment for the same conditions.

                   About Psych-Appeal, Inc.

Los Angeles-based Psych-Appeal, Inc. --
http://www.psych-appeal.com-- is a law firm exclusively dedicated
to mental health insurance claims, advocating on behalf of
patients, clinicians and treatment facilities to overcome insurer
denials of treatment.


MARRONE BIO: Settles Securities Class Action for $12 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. (the "Company"), a leading provider
of bio-based pest management and plant health products for the
agriculture, turf and ornamental and water treatment markets, on
May 26 disclosed that the Company and other defendants, including
certain of the Company's current and former officers and
directors, have reached an agreement to settle the private
securities class action litigation consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California on
February 13, 2015 as Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P. et al v.
Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. et al, Case No 2:14-cv-02571-MCE-
KJN.  The agreement is subject to review and approval by the court
after notice and an opportunity to object are provided to the
plaintiff class.  The settlement agreement contains no admission
or concession of wrongdoing or liability by the Company or any
other defendant and includes a full release of claims.  The
agreement provides for a settlement payment to the class of
$12,000,000, which will be paid by insurance carriers.
Accordingly, the settlement of these lawsuits will have no adverse
impact on the Company's financial position or operations.

                  About Marrone Bio Innovations

Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. (MBII) -- http://www.marronebio.com
-- aims to lead the movement to a more sustainable world through
the discovery, development and promotion of biological products
for pest management and plant health.


MASSAGE ENVY: Members Sue Over Deceptive Practices
--------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Massage Envy makes members
buy additional monthly massages to receive the massages to which
they were entitled upon signing up, a class action claims in San
Diego Federal Court.


MCGOVERN & COMPANY: Faces Alumaline Suit Over Contract Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alumaline, Inc., on behalf of itself and all other persons
similarly situate as trust fund beneficiaries of Lien Law trusts
of which McGovern & Company, LLC is a trustee v. McGovern &
Company, LLC, 10E53 Owner, LLC, New York Commercial Bank, Quimby
Equipment Co. Inc., S&E Bridge & Scaffold LLC, Gotham Drywall
Inc., Knight Electrical Services Corp., Air Stream Air
Conditioning Corp., H&L Ironworks Corp., Cirocco & Ozzimo Inc.,
Daniel G. McGovern, Salvatore D. Caiola, John Doe 1-10 and ABC
Corp. 1-10, Case No. 652682/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 19, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay the Plaintiff
for the labor, services, equipment and material provided to the
Property located at 10 East 53rd Street, New York, New York,
10022.

The Defendants are engaged in the construction business with
offices located at 286 Madison Avenue, 6th Floor, New York, NY
10017.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert L. Bernstein Jr., Esq.
      BAKER, GREENSPAN & BERNSTEIN, ESQS.
      2099 Bellmore Avenue
      Bellmore, NY 11710
      Telephone: (516) 783-3300
      Facsimile: (516) 783-3310


MDL 1869: Judge Excludes Kalt Expert Opinion in Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Paul L. Friedman of the District of Columbia denied
plaintiffs' motion to exclude expert opinions in the case entitled
In re RAIL FREIGHT FUEL SURCHARGE ANTITRUST LITIGATION This
document relates to: ALL DIRECT PURCHASER CASES, MDL Docket No.
1869, Misc. No. 07-0489 (PLF) (D.D.C.)

At the class certification hearing, Dr. Joseph Kalt offered an
expert opinion. Plaintiffs then filed a motion to exclude opinions
offered by Dr. Kalt, arguing that the court must do an analysis of
Dr. Kalt's report and proffered testimony under Rule 702 of the
Federal Rules of Evidence and Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and make a Daubert determination prior to
the class certification hearing. They maintain that the court
should refuse to consider Dr. Kalt's opinions on class
certification under the standards of Rule 702 and Daubert.

Defendants respond that under the case law, no Daubert hearing is
required prior to class certification, that plaintiffs' motion is
a blatant misuse of the Daubert inquiry, and that none of
plaintiffs' arguments can fairly be described as focusing solely
on principles and methodology, rather than on the conclusions that
they generate. Defendants maintain that the proper forum for
considering the reliability of Dr. Kalt's methodology and the
validity of his opinions is at the class certification hearing
itself.

Judge Friedman denied plaintiffs' motion to exclude opinions
offered by Dr. Kalt.

A copy of Judge Friedman's memorandum opinion and order dated May
20, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/1VqRYnfrom Leagle.com.

RAIL FREIGHT FUEL SURCHARGE ANTITRUST LITIGATION - MDL NO. 1869,
represented by Roger M. Adelman at LAW OFFICES OF ROGER M.
ADELMAN; Richard P. Rouco at WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, LLC, pro hac
vice

DAKOTA GRANITE COMPANY, Plaintiff, represented by Arthur N.
Bailey, Jr. -- abailey@hausfeld.com -- James Joseph Pizzirusso --
jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com -- Michael David Hausfeld --
mhausfeld@hausfeld.com -- Brent W. Landau -- blandau@hausfeld.com
-- William P. Butterfield -- wbutterfield@hausfeld.com -- at
HAUSFELD LLP; Richard M. Hagstrom -- rhagstrom@hjlawfirm.com -- at
HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC; Scott W. Carlson -- Vincent J. Esades --
vesades@heinsmills.com -- at HEINS, MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.; Allen
D. Black -- ablack@finekaplan.com -- at FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK;
Benjamin D. Brown -- bbrown@cohenmilstein.com -- at COHEN MILSTEIN
SELLERS & TOLL PLLC; Douglas A. Millen -- dmillen@fklmlaw.com --
at FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC; Steig D. Olson --
steigolson@quinnemanuel.com -- at QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN LLP; Steven A. Kanner at MUCH SHELIST FREED DENENBERG &
AMENT, P.C.

MCINTYRE GROUP, LTD., Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D. Brown
-- bbrown@cohenmilstein.com -- at COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL
PLLC; Allen D. Black -- ablack@finekaplan.com -- at FINE, KAPLAN &
BLACK; James Shedden, SCHAD DIAMOND & SHEDDEN P.C., Lawrence W.
Schad -- Matthew S. Burns -- Tony Kim atSCHAD DIAMOND & SHEDDEN
P.C.

GVL PIPE & DEMOLITION, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D.
Brown -- bbrown@cohenmilstein.com -- at COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS &
TOLL PLLC; Allen D. Black -- ablack@finekaplan.com -- at FINE,
KAPLAN & BLACK; Simon B. Paris -- sparis@smbb.com -- at SALTZ,
MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C.; Daniel E. Gunstafson --
dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com -- Jason S. Kilene --
jkilene@gustafsongluek.com -- at GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC; Donald L.
Perelman -- dperelman@finekaplan.com -- at FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK;
Patrick Howard -- phoward@smbb.com -- at SALTZ, MONGELUZZI,
BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C.; Thomas A. Muzilla -- tom@muzillalaw.com
-- at THE MUZILLA LAW FIRM, LLC

FERRARO FOODS OF NORTH CAROLINA, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by
Benjamin D. Brown -- bbrown@cohenmilstein.com -- at COHEN MILSTEIN
SELLERS & TOLL PLLC; Allen D. Black -- ablack@finekaplan.com -- at
FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK; Lynn Lincoln Sarko --
lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- Mark A. Griffin --
mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com -- Raymond J. Farrow --
rfarrow@kellerrohrback.com -- T. David Copley --
dcopley@kellerrohrback.com -- at KELLER ROHRBACK LLP

SUBLETTE COOPERATIVE, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D.
Brown -- bbrown@cohenmilstein.com -- at COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS &
TOLL PLLC; Allen D. Black -- ablack@finekaplan.com -- at FINE,
KAPLAN & BLACK; Krishna B. Narine at LAW OFFICE OF KRISHNA B.
NARINE, P.C.

STRATES SHOWS, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Arthur N. Bailey,
Jr., HAUSFELD LLP, Benjamin D. Brown, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS &
TOLL PLLC, Brent W. Landau, HAUSFELD LLP, James Joseph Pizzirusso,
HAUSFELD LLP, Joanne Zack, BONI & ZACK LLC,Joshua D. Snyder, BONI
& ZACK LLC, Michael J. Boni, BONI & ZACK LLC, Allen D. Black,
FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice, Douglas A. Millen, FREED
KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC, pro hac vice, Steven A. Kanner, MUCH
SHELIST FREED DENENBERG & AMENT, P.C. & William P. Butterfield,
HAUSFELD LLP.

WEST ALABAMA SAND & GRAVEL, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Joe R.
Whatley, JR., WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, LLC, Richard P. Rouco,
WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, LLC, pro hac vice, Roger M. Adelman, LAW
OFFICES OF ROGER M. ADELMAN & Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN &
BLACK, pro hac vice.

CEDAR FARMS CO., INC., Plaintiff, represented byDaniel Paul
Dietrich, WILLIAMS SCHIFINO MANGIONE & STEADY, PA, Allen D. Black,
FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice, Jeffrey B. Gittleman, BARRACK,
RODOS & BACINE & William J. Schifino, Jr., WILLIAMS SCHIFINO
MANGIONE & STEADY, P.A..

DAD'S PRODUCTS CO., INC., Plaintiff, represented byJames Joseph
Pizzirusso, HAUSFELD LLP, Michael David Hausfeld, HAUSFELD LLP,
Steig D. Olson, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP & Allen D.
Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice.

ZINIFEX TAYLOR CHEMICALS, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Mary
Jane Fait, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, LLC, Allen D.
Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice, Douglas A. Millen,
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC, pro hac vice & Steven A. Kanner,
MUCH SHELIST FREED DENENBERG & AMENT, P.C..

DUST PRO, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Marc L. Greenwald, QUINN
EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP, pro hac vice, Michael P.
Lehmann, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC, Paul M. Donovan,
LAROE WINN, MOERMAN & DONOVAN, Steig D. Olson, QUINN EMANUEL
URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP, Stephen R. Neuwirth, QUINN EMANUEL
URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP, pro hac vice, William P. Butterfield,
HAUSFELD LLP, Alicia Cobb, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP,
Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice, Christopher L.
Lebsock, HAUSFELD LLP, Daniel Brockett, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP, Douglas A. Millen, FREED KANNER LONDON &
MILLEN LLC, pro hac vice, John Potter, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN LLP, Joseph D. Hammond, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN
LLP, Kyle R. Taylor, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP,
Michael David Hausfeld, HAUSFELD LLP, Sami H. Rashid, QUINN
EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP, Sathya S. Gosselin, HAUSFELD LLP,
pro hac vice, Seth R. Gassman, HAUSFELD, LLP & Steven A. Kanner,
MUCH SHELIST FREED DENENBERG & AMENT, P.C..

QUALITY REFRACTORIES INSTALLATION, INC., Plaintiff, represented by
Eugene A. Spector, SPECTOR, ROSEMAN AND KODROFF PC, Allen D.
Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice, Jay S. Cohen, SPECTOR,
ROSEMAN & KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C. &William G. Caldes, SPECTOR,
ROSEMAN & KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C..

NIZHNEKAMSKNEFTEKHIM USA, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Allen D.
Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice.

DONNELLY COMMODITIES INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, represented by Barry
J. Nace, PAULSON & NACE, Steig D. Olson, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN LLP, Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice,
Douglas A. Millen, FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC, pro hac vice
& Steven A. Kanner, MUCH SHELIST FREED DENENBERG & AMENT, P.C..
US MAGNESIUM LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Paul M. Donovan, LAROE
WINN, MOERMAN & DONOVAN, Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro
hac vice, Douglas A. Millen, FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC, pro
hac vice & Steven A. Kanner, MUCH SHELIST FREED DENENBERG & AMENT,
P.C..

RB RUBBER PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Michelle
Adrien Parfitt, ASHCRAFT & GEREL, Richard P. Rouco, WHATLEY DRAKE
& KALLAS, LLC, pro hac vice, Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK,
pro hac vice, Matthew H. Armstrong, Armstrong Law Firm LLC & Susan
Carole Minkin, ASHCRAFT & GEREL.

M.C. DIXON LUMBER COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Craig
L. Briskin, MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC, Steven A. Skalet, MEHRI &
SKALET, PLLC & Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice.

STERLING STEEL CO., LLC, Plaintiff, represented by David M.
Peterson, PETERSON & ASSOCIATES, PC,Joseph A. Kronawitter, HORN,
AYLWARD & BANDY, LLP, R. Keith Johnston, WALTERS BENDER STROHBEHN
& VAUGHAN, PC & Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac
vice.

CEDAR CREEK WHOLESALE, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Joseph M.
Barton, GOLD BENNETT CERA & SIDENER LLP, Paul F. Bennett, GOLD
BENNETT CERA & SIDENER LLP, pro hac vice, Allen D. Black, FINE,
KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice, Douglas A. Millen, FREED KANNER
LONDON & MILLEN LLC, pro hac vice, Gwendolyn R. Giblin, GOLD
BENNETT CERA & SIDENER LLP, pro hac vice, Steven A. Kanner, MUCH
SHELIST FREED DENENBERG & AMENT, P.C., Steven O. Sidener, GOLD
BENNETT CERA & SIDENER LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas C. Bright, GOLD
BENNETT CERA & SIDENER LLP, pro hac vice.

ALL PLAINTIFFS, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D. Brown, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC,James Joseph Pizzirusso, HAUSFELD
LLP, Michael David Hausfeld, HAUSFELD LLP, Paul M. Weiss, FREED &
WEISS LLC, Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice,
Daniel M. Cohen, CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP, Matthew H.
Armstrong, Armstrong Law Firm LLC & Steven A. Kanner, MUCH SHELIST
FREED DENENBERG & AMENT, P.C..

FAYUS ENTERPRISES, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Christopher
Lovell, LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN LLP,Imtiaz A. Siddiqui, LOVELL
STEWART HALEBIAN LLP, Reginald Terrell, THE TERRELL LAW GROUP, pro
hac vice & Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice.

AGWAY LIQUIDATING TRUST, Consol Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher Lovell, LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN LLP, Imtiaz A.
Siddiqui, LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN LLP & Allen D. Black, FINE,
KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice.

STATELINE BEAN PRODUCERS COOPERATIVE, Consol Plaintiff,
represented by Adam C. Belsky, GROSS BELSKY ALONSO LLP, pro hac
vice, Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice, James
Joseph Pizzirusso, HAUSFELD LLP & Terry Gross, GROSS BELSKY ALONSO
LLP, pro hac vice.

LANCASTER FOUNDRY SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., Consol Plaintiff,
represented by Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice.

SOMERSET INDUSTRIES, INC., Consol Plaintiff, represented by Ronald
J. Aranoff, BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD, LLP & Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN
& BLACK, pro hac vice.

MAROON INCORPORATED, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Christopher
Lovell, LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN LLP, Imtiaz A. Siddiqui, LOVELL
STEWART HALEBIAN LLP & Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro
hac vice.

COMPLETE TRANSPORATION SYSTEMS, INC., Consol Plaintiff,
represented by Adel A. Nadji, AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP, William M.
Audet, AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP & Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN &
BLACK, pro hac vice.

BLUE GRASS TOBACCO COMPANY, Consol Plaintiff, represented by James
E. Cecchi, CARELLA, BYRNE, BAIN, GILFILLAN, CECCHI, STEWART &
OLSTEIN,Lindsey H. Taylor, CARELLA, BYRNE, BAIN, GILFILLAN,
CECCHI, STEWART & OLSTEIN, Stephen A. Weiss, SEEGER WEISS LLP &
Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice.

CARTER DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, Consol Plaintiff, represented by
Theodore J. Leopold, Leopold~Kuvin, P.A., Allen D. Black, FINE,
KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice, Douglas A. Millen, FREED KANNER
LONDON & MILLEN LLC, pro hac vice & Steven A. Kanner, MUCH SHELIST
FREED DENENBERG & AMENT, P.C..

UNITED CO-OPERATIVE FARMERS, INC., Consol Plaintiff, represented
by H. Laddie Montague, BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C., Allen D. Black,
FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice & Eric L. Cramer, BERGER &
MONTAGUE, P.C..

BAR-ALE, INC., Consol Plaintiff, represented by Allen D. Black,
FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice.

ISSAC INDUSTRIES, INC., Consol Plaintiff, represented by Robert N.
Kaplan, KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP & Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN
& BLACK, pro hac vice.

BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant, represented by Andrew Santo
Tulumello -- atulumello@gibsondunn.com -- Randy M. Mastro --
rmastro@gibsondunn.com -- Robert C. Walters --
rwalters@gibsondunn.com -- Veronica S. Lewis --
vlewis@gibsondunn.com -- at GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, L.L.P.; David
G. Meyer -- dmeyer@jonesday.com -- at JONES DAY; Richard Joseph
Favretto -- rfavretto@mayerbrown.com -- Michael E. Lackey, Jr. --
mlackey@mayerbrown.com -- at MAYER BROWN LLP; Shari Ross Lahlou --
slahlou@crowell.com -- at CROWELL & MORING LLP; David Daniel Cross
-- dcross@mofo.com -- at MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP; Linda Sue Stein
-- lstein@steptoe.com -- Samuel M. Sipe -- ssipe@steptoe.com -- at
STEPTOE & JOHNSON, L.L.P.

CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendant, represented by David Daniel
Cross -- dcross@mofo.com -- at MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP; David G.
Meyer -- dmeyer@jonesday.com -- at JONES DAY; Shari Ross Lahlou --
slahlou@crowell.com -- Kent Alan Gardiner -- kgardiner@crowell.com
-- George D. Ruttinger -- gruttinger@crowell.com -- Michael Wyld
Lieberman -- mlieberman@crowell.com -- Richard McMillan, Jr. --
rmcmillan@crowellretiredpartners.com -- at CROWELL & MORING,
L.L.P.

NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant, represented by David
G. Meyer -- dmeyer@jonesday.com -- at JONES DAY; Jennifer B.
Patterson -- jennifer.patterson@kayescholer.com -- Claudia R.
Higgins -- claudia.higgins@kayescholer.com -- Saul P. Morgenstern
-- saul.morgenstern@kayescholer.com -- at KAYE SCHOLER, LLP; David
Daniel Cross -- dcross@mofo.com -- at MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP;
John Murray Nannes -- john.nannes@skadden.com -- Sean Michael Tepe
-- sean.tepe@skadden.com -- at SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER &
FLOM LLP

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant, represented by Alan
Mitchell Wiseman -- awiseman@cov.com -- Thomas Adam Isaacson --
tisaacson@cov.com -- at COVINGTON & BURLING LLP; David Daniel
Cross -- dcross@mofo.com -- at MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP; David G.
Meyer -- dmeyer@jonesday.com -- Tyrone R. Childress --
tchildress@jonesday.com -- at JONES DAY; James Scott Ballenger --
scott.ballenger@lw.com -- Alfred C Pfeiffer -- al.pfeiffer@lw.com
-- Daniel M Wall -- dan.wall@lw.com -- Gregory P Lindstrom --
Timothy L. O'Mara -- tim.o'mara@lw.com -- at LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD, Interested Party, represented by
Virginia Strasser, SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD.

OXBOW CARBON & MINERALS LLC, Interested Party, represented by John
Richard Gerstein, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP.

OXBOW MINING, LLC, Interested Party, represented by John Richard
Gerstein, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP &Roman M. Silberfeld, ROBINS KAPLAN
LLP, pro hac vice

OXBOW CALCINING INTERNATIONAL LLC, Interested Party, represented
by John Richard Gerstein, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP & Roman M.
Silberfeld, ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, pro hac vice

OXBOW MIDWEST CALCINING LLC, Interested Party, represented by John
Richard Gerstein, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP

OXBOW CALCINING LLC, Interested Party, represented by John Richard
Gerstein, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP &Roman M. Silberfeld, ROBINS KAPLAN
LLP, pro hac vice

TERROR CREEK LLC, Interested Party, represented by John Richard
Gerstein, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP &Roman M. Silberfeld, ROBINS KAPLAN
LLP, pro hac vice

JONATHAN LEE RICHES, doing business as ROTHENBERG POLITICAL
REPORT, Movant, Pro Se

DINESH PALIWAL, Movant, Pro Se

HUNTER PARRISH, Movant, Pro Se

PETER H. DIAMANDIS, Movant, Pro Se

SOUTHERN COMPANY, Intervenor, represented by Gabriela Richeimer,
TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP, John Richard Gerstein, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP,
Barry J. Brett, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP, pro hac vice & Daniel N.
Anziska, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP, pro hac vice.

DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, Intervenor, represented by Nathan P. Eimer,
EIMER STAHL LLP, Scott C. Solberg, EIMER STAHL LLP & Stephen H.
Weil, EIMER STAHL LLP

RAYONIER INC., Intervenor, represented by William J. Blechman,
KENNY NACHWALTER, P.A. & Richard Alan Arnold, KENNY NACHWALTER,
P.A.


MDL 2467: Court Rules on Bid for Interlocutory Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------
Direct and indirect purchasers of drywall sue drywall
manufacturers, alleging that they entered into a conspiracy to fix
prices and eliminate job quotes.  Defendants in the present
antitrust claim are American Gypsum Company LLC, Eagle Materials
Inc., New NGC, Inc., Lafarge North American Inc., PABCO Building
Products, LLC, and CertainTeed.

On February 18, 2016, the court denied defendants' motions for
summary judgment as to all except CertainTeed.

Defendants American, Eagle, New NGC, and PABCO, jointly ask the
court to certify its February 18, 2016 summary judgment order for
interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b).

District Judge Michael M. Baylson of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted, in part, and denied, in part defendants,'
request.

Judge Baylson said, "Whatever this Court's decision on the class
action may be, Defendants have satisfied the three preconditions
for interlocutory appeal for the conduit issue. At this juncture,
this Court is considering postponing a final decision on
certification. Delaying the final decision until promptly after
the class certification decision would allow the parties to
consolidate their requests (or oppositions) to the Third Circuit
for interlocutory appeal (assuming the Court grants the instant
Motion). This consolidation may increase the likelihood that the
Third Circuit would grant both motions."

"Also, the Third Circuit may render a decision in Valspar prior to
this Court's class-action certification decision. This would
obviate the need for clarification on the conduit theory issue.
And, if the Third Circuit affirms Valspar in in a precedential
opinion, this Court may reconsider its summary judgement
decision."

The court gives counsel the opportunity to submit a brief,
expressing a preference for either an immediate decision or a
delayed one.

A copy of Judge Baylson's memorandum dated May 20, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/E7YtBLfrom Leagle.com.

The case is entitled IN RE: DOMESTIC DRYWALL ANTITRUST LITIGATION.
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: All Direct Purchaser Actions All
Indirect Purchaser Actions, MDL No. 2437 13-MD-2437 (E.D. Pa.)

IN RE: DOMESTIC DRYWALL ANTITRUST LITIGATION, represented by H.
LADDIE MONTAGUE, JR. -- hlmontague@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE PC.


MERCK: Law Firm Holds Conference to Rally Amicus Support
--------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that on May 26, the
securities class action firm Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
hosted a teleconference for members of the Council of
Institutional Investors, a coalition of public and private pension
and benefits funds.  The purpose of the call was to explain the
stakes in North Sound Capital v. Merck, a case at the 3rd U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals that will inevitably deepen the circuit
split on whether the filing of a securities class action tolls the
statute of repose for individual shareholders.  It's an admittedly
arcane issue, but procedurally significant for investors who want
to opt out of securities class actions and bring their own claims.

As Bernstein Litowitz noted in its email invitation to Council
members, the four federal circuits to have opined on this issue
are divided 2-2.  The 3rd Circuit's decision "will break the tie
among the federal circuits and will likely be reviewed by the
Supreme Court," the email said. (The justices actually agreed to
hear a case presenting the statute of repose question in 2014 but
dropped it when shareholders settled the underlying class action
against banks that underwrote mortgage-backed securities
originated by IndyMac.)

Bernstein Litowitz is encouraging Council members to sign onto a
draft amicus brief in the Merck case that, according to its email,
has already garnered support from more than two dozen public
pension funds. (The brief supports North Sound's position that
individual shareholders have the right to pursue opt-out cases
because a parallel securities class action against Merck tolled
the statute of repose.)  "It is essential," Bernstein Litowitz
wrote, "to ensure the 3rd Circuit is aware of the institutional
investor community's perspective."

There is nothing wrong, of course, with rallying amicus support.
Businesses do it all the time, through joint briefs from companies
whose interests are aligned or through litigation-savvy lobbying
groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Securities
Industry and Financial Markets Association. (SIFMA, in fact, has
already filed an amicus brief at the 3rd Circuit in the Merck
appeal, backing Merck's arguments that the trial judge blew it
when she held individual investors could sue over alleged
misstatements issued more than five years before they filed
complaints.)

Bernstein Litowitz has previously organized pension funds to band
together in amicus briefs to the Supreme Court in important
securities class action cases, including Halliburton's assault on
essential fraud-on-the-market theory and last year's Omnicare
debate over what constitutes an unactionable opinion.  When the
justices were considering the statute of repose issue in the
IndyMac case, the shareholder firm filed amicus briefs for
institutional investors at both the certiorari and merits stages.
As long ago as 2007, when the Supreme Court heard arguments over
the standard for intent to defraud in Tellabs v. Makor, Bernstein
Litowitz represented a coalition of pension funds in an amicus
brief.

But the Merck case marks the first time the firm has spearheaded a
joint pension fund filing in a federal circuit court, according to
partner Blair Nicholas -- blairn@blbglaw.com -- who said Bernstein
Litowitz has taken it upon itself to unify shareholders.  "We are
coordinating the voice of institutional investors," he said.

Mr. Nicholas told Ms. Reuters' Ms. Frankel his firm isn't paid for
drafting amicus briefs for shareholder coalitions, nor for
organizing pension fund groups and spurring other sympathetic
amici, like law professors, to weigh in. D on't worry -- Bernstein
Litowitz, which was lead counsel in securities class actions that
settled for $1 billion in 2015, can afford the unpaid hours.
Holding teleconferences to discuss pressing securities class
action issues with institutional investors is also a nice
marketing opportunity.

But don't underestimate the emerging shareholder amicus movement.
The business lobby has mastered the art of the swarm on litigation
issues it cares about.  Institutional investors are finally
learning what their opponents already know.

Ms. Frankel left phone messages for Merck counsel Daniel Kramer
-- dkramer@paulweiss.com -- of Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton &
Garrison and Daniel Hume -- dhume@kmllp.com -- of Kirby McInerney
but didn't hear back.


MIDLAND FUNDING: Illegally Collects Debt, "Doubleday" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Doubleday, on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Midland Funding LLC and Midland Credit Management Inc., Case No.
5:16-cv-00528-W (W.D. Ok., May 20, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

The Defendants are in the business of purchasing unpaid debts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Minal Gahlot, Esq.
      RAWLS LAW OFFICE PLC
      2404 S Broadway
      Moore, OK 73160
      Telephone: (405) 912-3225
      E-mail: minal@rawlslawoffice.com

NAPLES, FL: Faces "Orstand" Suit Over Gender & Age Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jill Orstand, Susan Fabbrini, and Karen Kateley, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. City of Naples,
Florida, Case No. 2:16-cv-00382-UA-CM (M.D. Fla., May 19, 2016),
arises out of the Defendant's alleged unlawful gender and age
discrimination.

City of Naples, Florida is a political subdivision of the state of
Florida located in Naples, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin H. Yormak, Esq.
      YORMAK EMPLOYMENT & DISABILITY LAW
      9990 Coconut Road
      Bonita Springs, FL 34135
      Telephone: (239) 985-9691
      Facsimile: (239) 288-2534
      E-mail: byormak@yormaklaw.com


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Janson" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Theresa Janson, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. Nationwide Credit, Inc. and John Does 1 to 10, Case No. 2:16-
cv-02870-MCA-LDW (D.N.J., May 21, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Nationwide Credit, Inc. operates a debt collection agency in new
Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NCB MANAGEMENT: FDCPA Class Certification Sought in "Kaleel" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled ELIZABETH J. KALEEL, on behalf
of plaintiff and the class members described herein v. NCB
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-05566 (N.D. Ill.),
asks the Court to enter an order determining that the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act action may proceed as a class action
against NCB.

The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class consisting of (a) all
individuals in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, (b) who were sent
a letter in the proposed form, (c) on or after a date one year
prior to the filing of this action and on or before a date 21 days
after the filing of this action.

Ms. Kaleel further asks that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin,
LLC be appointed counsel for the classes.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AyfZbn0q

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Cassandra P. Miller, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com


NEW YORK, NY: "Powlette" Case v. Agency Closed
----------------------------------------------
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the defendant's motion for
summary judgment on the case captioned JASON POWLETTE, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. CHERYL MORRIS, Director of Ministerial, Family and
Volunteer Services, Defendant, No. 13 Civ. 7378 (KPF)  (S.D.N.Y.).

Jason Powlette and Karvia Hamilton, practicing Rastafarians, filed
a civil rights action claiming, among other things, that
alterations to the New York State Department of Corrections and
Community Supervision's (DOCCS) annual Religious Calendar for the
year 2013 (i) impaired their constitutional right to the free
exercise of their religious beliefs; (ii) violated the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment; and (iii) violated
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The
defendant, Cheryl Morris, conceded the alterations, but claimed
that they were undertaken as a result of valid penological
concerns, and only after consultation with experts in the
Rastafari religion.  Morris moved for summary judgment on the
basis of qualified immunity.

Judge Failla found that Morris has demonstrated that it was
objectively reasonable for her to believe, based on all of the
information that she had sought and obtained, that it was lawful
for her to address legitimate penological interests by removing
Negus Day and adding the Battle of Adwa Victory to the 2013
Religious Calendar.  As a result, Judge Failla held that Morris is
entitled to qualified immunity, and the plaintiffs' Free Exercise,
Establishment Clause, and Equal Protection claims must fail.

A full-text copy of Judge Failla's May 23, 2016 opinion and order
is available at https://is.gd/D6cYZE from Leagle.com.

Jason Powlette, Karvia Hamilton, Errol Prince, Jose DeLeon,
Roberto Pascal, Yamani Ravenell, Felix Tapia, Lavonte Thomas,
Devon Denton, Carlos Hall, Horace Thomas, Plaintiffs, represented
by Brian S. Sokoloff -- bsokoloff@sokoloffstern.com -- Sokoloff
Stern LLP, David Abraham Gold -- dgold@sokoloffstern.com --
Sokoloff Stern LLP & Susan Hull Odessky --
sodessky@sokoloffstern.com -- Sokoloff Stern LLP.

Cheryl Morris, Paul Guenette, Defendants, represented by Daniel A.
Schulze, Attorney General of the State of New York, Michael J.
Keane, Office of The Attorney General, Abigail Everett Rosner,
Attorney General of the State of New York, Anna Hehenberger, New
York State Office of the Attorney General & John Michael Schwartz,
State of New York Office of the Attorney General.


NONG SHIM CO: Indirect-Purchasers Seek Certification of 3 Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re Korean Ramen Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:13-
cv-04115-WHO (N.D. Cal.), ask the Court for an order (i)
certifying the action as a class action; (ii) appointing IPPs
(Stephen Fenerjian, Joyce Beamer, Kendal Martin, Anthony An,
Eleanor Pelobello, Jill Bonnington, Kenny Kang, Christina Nguyen,
Thu-Thuy Nguyen, Yim Ha Noble, Ji Choi, and Charles Chung) as
class representatives; and (iii) appointing Izard Nobel LLP and
Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser LLP as Class Counsel.

The Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs seek certification of a damages
class and an injunction class, each comprised of these persons and
entities:

     All persons and entities that purchased "Korean Ramen
     Noodles" anywhere in the United States [or such subset of
     the United States market as the Court may elect to certify]
     for their own use and not for resale, from March 1, 2003
     through January 31, 2010.  For purposes of this definition,
     "Korean Ramen Noodles" means Nongshim, Ottogi and Samyang
     branded bag, cup or bowl ramen, including fried, dried,
     fresh and frozen noodle products.  Specifically excluded
     from this class are any Defendant; the officers, directors,
     or employees of any Defendant; any entity in which any
     Defendant has a controlling interest; and any affiliate,
     legal representative, heir, or assign of any Defendant.
     Also excluded are the judicial officers to whom this case is
     assigned and any member of such judicial officers' immediate
     family.

IPPs, purchasers of Korean ramen products manufactured or
distributed by the Defendants, brought the class action against
(i) Nong Shim Company, Ltd., (ii) its wholly owned U.S.
subsidiary, Nongshim America, Inc., (iii) Ottogi Company, Ltd.,
(iv) its wholly owned U.S. subsidiary, Ottogi America, Inc.; and
(v) Samyang Foods Company, Ltd., alleging violations of state and
federal antitrust laws and state unfair competition laws.  The
IPPs seek to certify these damages and injunctive classes:

   -- Damages class.  IPPs seek to certify a damages class
      comprising all persons who purchased Ramen Products in the
      United States.  IPPs contend that the California Cartwright
      Act should apply to the claims of all members of the
      damages class, or, at least to states that have repealed
      the Illinois Brick rule;

   -- Alternative damages classes.  If the Court determines that
      it should not apply the law of one state to the claims of
      members of a single multi-state class, IPPs alternatively
      seek to certify a damages class comprising all persons who
      purchased Ramen Products in six states (the states in which
      the proposed class representatives made their purchases);
      and

   -- Injunctive class.  Additionally, for the purposes of
      seeking injunctive relief pursuant to the Sherman Antitrust
      Act, IPPs seeks to certify an injunctive class comprising
      all persons who purchased Ramen Products in the United
      States.

The Court will commence a hearing on November 16, 2016, at 2:00
p.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9XeHqW4D

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alan R. Plutzik, Esq.
          Daniel E. Birkhaeuser, Esq.
          BRAMSON, PLUTZIK, MAHLER & BIRKHAEUSER LLP
          2125 Oak Grove Road
          Walnut Creek, CA 94598
          Telephone: (925) 945-0200
          Facsimile: (925) 945-8792
          E-mail: aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com
                  dbirkhaeuser@bramsonplutzik.com

               - and -

          Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
          Robert A. Izard, Esq.
          IZARD NOBEL LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 305
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 493-6292
          Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
          E-mail: mkindall@izardnobel.com
                  rizard@izardnobel.com

               - and -

          Steven M. Sherman, Esq.
          SHERMAN BUSINESS LAW
          220 Montgomery Street, Suite 1500
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          E-mail: steven@shermanbusinesslaw.com

               - and -

          Gerald S. Ohn, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GERALD S OHN
          1875 Century Park East Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          E-mail: gerald@ohnlaw.com

               - and -

          Marc Gene Reich, Esq.
          REICH RADCLIFFE AND KUTTLER LLP
          4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 550
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          E-mail: mgr@reichradcliffe.com

               - and -

          Thomas Henry Bienert, Jr., Esq.
          BIENERT, MILLER AND KATZMAN, PLC
          903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350
          San Clemente, CA 92673
          E-mail: tbienert@bmkattorneys.com

               - and -

          Young W. Ryu, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF YOUNG W RYU
          9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          E-mail: young.ryu@youngryulaw.com

               - and -

          Sydney J. Hall, Esq.
          SYDNEY J. HALL LAW OFFICE
          1308 Old Bayshore Hwy., #220
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          E-mail: sjhlaw@mail.com


NRA GROUP: Must Respond to Class Certification Motion by June 7
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on May 24, 2016, in the case styled
Joseph Bernal v. NRA Group, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-01904 (N.D.
Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Gary
Feinerman.

The minute entry states that the Plaintiff's amended motion for
class certification is entered and continued.  The Defendant must
respond by June 7, 2016, and reply is due by June 28.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=hR4csTTm


OMNI HOTELS: Faces "Samaan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magued M. Samaan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Omni Hotels Management Corporation, Omni La
Costa Resort, KSL Capital Partners, KSL La Costa Resort
Corporation, and Does 1 through 25, Inclusive, Case No. 3:16-cv-
01206-JAH-BLM (S.D. Cal., May 19, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate La Costa Resort and Spa located in
Carlsbad, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew A. Rosenberry, Esq.
      Amelia A. McDermott, Esq.
      Donald R. Holben, Esq.
      DONALD R. HOLBEN & ASSOCIATES, APC
      5030 Camino De La Siesta, Suite 350
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 220-5555
      Facsimile:  (619) 220-0033
      E-mail: aam@sandiegotrialattorneys.com
              lct@sandiegotrialattorneys.com


ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Faces Class Action Over Toll Road Fines
----------------------------------------------------------
TheNewspaper.com reports that a motorist is suing a local
government agency in California for intentionally luring
unsuspecting motorists onto toll roads so that they could be
billed hundreds of dollars in fines.  In a class action lawsuit
filed on May 23, Ebrahim H. Mahda says he found himself on the
Route 73 toll road on November 26, 2015, and, since he did not
have a FasTrak transponder, he received a demand that he pay $232
weeks later in the mail.  Toll booths were eliminated on Orange
County's toll roads in 2014.

"Defendants operate the toll roads in a way that constitutes an
unfair business practice," Mr. Mahda's attorney, Michael J.
Flannery, wrote to the court.  "For example, there is virtually no
signage visible to drivers that clearly indicates that the driver
is about to enter a stretch of road that will require an
electronic toll paying transponder (i.e., a FasTrak device).
Drivers have a reasonable expectation that there will be a cash or
credit card payment option absent sufficient warning to the
contrary.  Defendants' operate the toll roads in a manner that
misleads and deceives drivers, unfairly leading them to incur toll
charges and penalties."

State Route 73, along with the 133, 241 and 261 toll roads, are
run by the Transportation Corridor Agency, which is a government
entity jointly operated by Orange County and the eighteen cities
near the roads.  The agency collected $241,672,000 in tolls last
year, plus $32,067,000 in penalties. Those fines accounted for 13
percent of revenue -- not counting the additional $17,798,000
collected in monthly "account maintenance fees" charged to
motorists who failed to use the road often enough.  The lawsuit
only focuses on the penalties, asking that they be refunded to
motorists.  The toll road agency's fiscal year 2016 budget admits
there is a problem that will be addressed.

"The agency also has additional initiatives planned for FY16 to
attempt to address violations, such as signage enhancements,
education to the rental car and tourism industries and working
with rental car agencies so their customer's transactions will be
paid by the rental car agencies and not be characterized as
violations," the budget document states.

In Virginia, a similar lawsuit was filed after Transurban, an
Australian toll road operator, imposed $31,000 in penalties on a
motorist who missed $50 in tolls.  A federal judge called the
system "grossly disproportionate."  Earlier in May the judge
certified the class action settlement in the case.  The California
toll roads could face a much broader legal attack that could
deliver a crippling financial blow to the enterprise already
struggling under a massive debt load.


OZONE SOLUTIONS: Laundry Workers Sue for Illness
------------------------------------------------
Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that six
laundry workers at a Las Vegas casino-hotel say in a federal class
action in Las Vegas that Ozone Solutions, which makes industrial
washing machines that mix ozone with water, made them ill with
ozone poisoning.

Eunice Dominguez et al. did not sue their employer, the Luxor
Hotel; they sued Iowa-based Ozone Solutions, which makes the big
machines. All six women say they "have repeatedly sought medical
help [and] have missed considerable amounts of work due to the
symptoms of ozone exposure."  They claim the company "knew that
there were notable problems with the Ozone generators," but did
not disclose them.

"In short, the ozone generators are poisoning plaintiffs," they
say.

Ozone Solutions also maintains the Luxor's five ozone generators,
but Dominguez says the generators often are broken, defectively
designed, do not work properly, and that the company has not been
able to fix the problem.  Because ozone -- the oxygen molecule O3,
rather than O2 -- is an unstable form of the element, it is a
powerful oxidant, which makes it a good cleaner. Unlike O2, ozone
smells like chlorine and can damage mucous tissues, such as lung
linings. It is a primary ingredient of smog, and can exacerbate
and cause respiratory illnesses.

Dominguez claims that Ozone Solutions worked with officials at the
Luxor and its medical provider, Concentra to cover up the ozone
poisoning.

"Plaintiffs were repeatedly told that their conditions were merely
allergies," the complaint state. "Upon information and belief,
Ozone Solutions was in communication with Luxor and Luxor's
contracted medical services provider Concentra to blame any
possible cause of the plaintiffs' consistent and similar medical
conditions on causes other than the Ozone generators. Upon
information and belief, Ozone Solutions worked with Luxor in other
proceedings to defend and aggressively suppress any allegation
that the Ozone generators were the source of the plaintiffs'
multitude of related illnesses.

"However, after so many of the plaintiffs and those similarly
situation showed the same effects of ozone overexposure, there
began to be concessions by Concentra's medical care providers that
it was in fact ozone causing the plaintiffs' conditions."

Neither Concentra nor the Luxor are defendants. The only
defendants are Ozone Solutions and Does 1-10.

Dominguez et al. say Ozone Solutions "concealed the known defects"
and the "unreasonable risks" of its cleaning system and they would
not have agreed to use or even be near the ozone generators had
they known of the dangers.

The lawsuit cites promotional material from the Ozone Solutions
Web page: "Ozone washing increases textile life, reduces energy
costs, allows faster fill rates, shorter wash cycles, and even
shorter drying times. Whiter, softer, sanitized, fresh smelling,
and longer lasting linens and clothes results in huge savings.
. . .  Ozone allows users to achieve high quality standards
without the use of hot water and chemicals, due to it being a
highly effective oxidizer using only cold water."

However, the laundrywomen say: "When inhaled, ozone can damage the
lungs. Relatively low amounts can cause chest pain, coughing,
shortness of breath and throat irritation. Ozone may also worsen
chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma and compromise the
ability of the body to fight respiratory infections."

The result is increased work absences, and higher medical and
hospitalization costs for workers exposed to high concentrations
of ozone, Dominguez says. (Graph 19)

The workers cite 22 medical problems they have suffered from
ozone, including chest pain, bronchospasm, laryngitis,
conjunctivitis, headaches, hoarseness, loss of senses of smell and
taste, nausea and vomiting.  They seek medical expenses and
punitive damages for product liability, failure to warn,
intentional and negligent misrepresentation, negligence and breach
of warranty.

They are represented by Ryan Alexander, who could not be contacted
for comment after business hours May 24. Nor could Ozone
Solutions.


PAM REAL: "Mendoza" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Isael Mendoza, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. Pam Real Thai Food Inc., Ronnasit Panyasiri,
and Pam Panyasiri, Case No. 1:16-cv-03743 (S.D.N.Y., May 19,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Thai restaurant in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Stein, Esq.
      SAMUEL & STEIN
      38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
      New York, NY 10001
      Telephone: (212) 563-9884
      E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com


PETITUSA LLC: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Arenas Sanchez and other similarly situated individuals
v. Petitusa LLC d/b/a Petit and Gianluca Guelfi, Case No. 41719022
(Fla. 11th Ct., May 19, 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 women's apparel retail store in
Miami Beach, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com


PIERRE DUPONT: Faces Class Action Over Use of Unsafe Implants
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Pagliaro and Vanessa Lu, writing for Toronto Star, report
that an 11-year-old boy from Richmond Hill is the key case in a
potential class-action lawsuit against an Ottawa chiropodist who
allegedly profited from his patients' foot problems by
recommending unapproved and "unsafe" implants he developed.

Pierre Dupont, a registered chiropodist in Ontario with a history
of professional misconduct as a dentist in Quebec, is being
accused of manufacturing a foot stent -- an implant used for flat-
footedness and other ailments -- that was never approved by Health
Canada.  According to the statement of claim filed in Ontario
Superior Court, Mr. Dupont then recommended the treatment and
performed the surgeries.

Mr. Dupont told the Star on May 26 that people should wait to pass
judgment, "because all the facts are not on the table yet."

"Everything is not known in this affair at this point," he said.
"There's a lot of things that will be put to the knowledge of the
appropriate person along the road.  It's not my role to expose
everything at this point.  So this is why I prefer not to
comment."

The plaintiff named in the class action is Yuexiao (Patrick)
Zhang, whose mother, Jing Liu, is making the claim on his behalf.
Toronto-based law firm Thomson, Rogers, representing Ms. Liu, is
seeking other patients of Dupont to possibly join the class-action
suit.

Speaking to the Star in Mandarin, Ms. Liu explained her son could
run and play before surgery on his right foot in July 2015, but
his feet were weak, and she and her husband wanted him to have
better opportunities.  After researching procedures, the couple
-- who came to Canada in 2012 -- settled on Dupont's Ottawa Foot
Practice, whose website promises "simple surgery with excellent
results."

Ms. Liu claimed that, after the procedure, her son's foot is like
a fake foot.  She alleged he can't really run or jump anymore.

In the statement of claim, which contains allegations that have
not been proven in court, Ms. Liu alleges that her son "developed
pain and discomfort in his right foot which caused irritation,
irregular gait and loss of balance."  The procedure was not done
on the boy's left foot.

The family is now trying to have the stent removed as soon as
possible and is waiting for referral to a surgeon who can perform
the procedure.

The suit claims Mr. Dupont lacked the surgical and clinical skills
required to insert the implant and that he misrepresented the
stent and the procedure to his clients.

"He showed a total, reckless, wanton and willful disregard for the
health, safety and wellbeing of the plaintiff," the suit alleges.

The claim also names the College of Chiropodists of Ontario and
the Ottawa Foot Practice, run by Mr. Dupont.  In an email, the
College's registrar and chief administrative officer, Felecia
Smith, said the college had "retained counsel and will be
responding to the allegations in due course."

Mr. Dupont was previously a dentist for 10 years in Quebec, where
several patients made complaints against him.  His license was
revoked in 2004 by the provincial body that regulates dentists,
following a disciplinary hearing that found he had failed to meet
the standards of care.  Among other things, he failed to diagnose
a patient's broken jaw and prescribed medication that was not
required or in inappropriate doses, tribunal documents show.

After graduating from the podiatry program at the University of
Quebec in Trois-Rivieres and making attempts to legally practice
podiatry in Quebec -- a move challenged by that province's College
of Podatrists -- Mr. Dupont later moved to Ottawa and was given a
certificate of registration to practice by the College of
Chiropodists, according to the statement of claim.

Provincial regulations prevent the registration of a chiropodist
who has been found guilty of professional misconduct in another
jurisdiction or in another health profession.

The suit alleges the college failed to follow those rules, to
monitor Mr. Dupont, or to properly respond to complaints.

Mr. Dupont told the Star that when he applied to the college he
disclosed his previous misconduct in an interview.

"They interview me.  They do their due diligence," he said.
"Everything has been disclosed and presented to a committee, the
admission committee, and they made a decision accordingly."

Mr. Dupont declined to answer any more specifics about his career
and the finding of misconduct in Quebec.

The suit, launched in Newmarket court, seeks $15 million and
claims the plaintiffs are entitled to special damages, including
medical and rehabilitation expenses.


RELIABLE TOWING: Faces "Bailey" Lawsuit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRYAN BAILEY, Individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. RELIABLE TOWING & STORAGE, INC.,
Defendant, Case 2:16-cv-14168-RLR (S.D. Fla., May 18, 2016),
alleges that Reliable's policy of paying its Driver on a
commission basis violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

RELIABLE TOWING & STORAGE, INC., using at least 18 towing and
transport trucks, provides towing and roadside assistance services
in Port St. Lucie, Fort Pierce, Stuart, and the surrounding areas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bradley W. Butcher, Esq.
     BUTCHER & ASSOCIATES, P.L.
     6830 Porto Fino Circle, Suite 2
     Fort Myers, FL 33912
     Phone: (239) 332-1650
     Fax: (239) 322-1663
     E-mail: ecf@b-a-law.com
              bwb@b-a-law.com

          - and -

     David H. Grounds, Esq.
     Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
     JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
     33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: (612) 436-1800
     Fax: (612) 436-1801
     E-mail: dgrounds@johnsonbecker.com
             jrusch@johnsonbecker.com

          - and -

     Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
     Jesse L. Young, Esq.
     SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
     One Town Square, Suite 1700
     Southfield, MI 48076
     Phone: 248-355-0300
     E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com
             jthompson@sommerspc.com


RIVERSOURCE LIFE: Faces Class Suit Over Deferred Annuities
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Riversource Life Insurance
and Ameriprise Financial Services use illegal methods to target
senior citizens for deferred annuities without properly disclosing
surrender penalties, a class action claims in San Francisco
Federal Court.


ROYAL TRANSPORTATION: "Clark" FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sean F. Cox granted the plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification of the employment case captioned Debra Clark,
Brooksey Irvine, Reginald Morrissette, Melba Pearson, and Ezell
Williams, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Royal Transportation Co., et. al.,
Defendants, Case No. 15-13243 (E.D. Mich.).

Debra Clark, Brooksey Irvine, Reginald Morrissette, Melba Pearson,
and Ezell Williams are all former employees of the defendants,
Royal Transportation Company, Donald Fitzsimmons, Debra
Fitzsimmons, and Shannon Fitzsimmons.  The plaintiffs filed the
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), seeking to
pursue a collective action on behalf of similarly situated drivers
employed by the defendants.  The plaintiffs claimed that the
defendants have violated the FLSA by failing to pay overtime pay
for actual overtime hours worked.  The defendants maintained that
the plaintiffs, and members of the putative class, are exempt from
overtime coverage.

The plaintiffs' filed a Motion for Conditional Certification of an
FLSA Collective Action and for an Order for Notice to the Class.

Judge Cox concluded that the plaintiffs have met the required
standard at this stage in the proceedings, and ordered that the
plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification is granted to the
extent that the court conditionally certifies the action as a
collective action so that notice can be issued.

A full-text copy of Judge Cox's May 24, 2016 opinion and order is
available at https://is.gd/dImHc4 from Leagle.com.

Debra Clark, Brooksey Irvine, Reginald Morrissette, Melba Pearson,
Ezell Williams, Plaintiffs, represented by Maia E. Johnson, Gold
Star Law.

Royal Transportation Company, Donald Fitzsimmons, Debra
Fitzsimmons, Shannon Fitzsimmons, Defendants, represented by
Kenneth M. Gonko, Danielson Group.


RUBY TUESDAY: "Sagastume" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Sagastume and Kevin Gibson, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-
00776 (D. Conn., May 19, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ruby Tuesday, Inc. operates a casual dining restaurant chain in
Connecticut.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph D. Garrison, Esq.
      Joshua R. Goodbaum, Esq.
      GARRISON, LEVIN-EPSTEIN, FITZGERALD & PIRROTTI, P.C.
      405 Orange Street
      New Haven, CO 06511
      Telephone: (203) 777-4425

         - and -

      Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 245-1000

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Michael Palitz, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
      830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (800) 616-4000
      E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com

         - and -

      Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
      Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
      MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
      412 H Street N.E., Ste. 302
      Washington, DC 20002
      Telephone: (202) 470-3520
      E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
              jrathod@classlawdc.com

         - and -

      Elmer Robert Keach III, Esq.
      Maria K. Dyson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT KEACH III, P.C.
      1040 Riverfront Center P. O. Box 70
      Amsterdam, NY 12010
      Telephone: (518) 434-1718


RYE PHYSICAL: Faces "Cypress" Suit over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Simone Cypress, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Rye Physical Therapy & Rehabilitation, P.C., Case No.
7:16-cv-03726-NSR (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2016), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Rye Physical Therapy & Rehabilitation, P.C. offers a full range of
physical therapy services for pediatric, adult and geriatric
patients with a wide variety of physical disorders and
rehabilitation needs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven J. Moser, Esq.
      STEVEN J. MOSER, P.C.
      3 School Street, Suite 207 B
      Glen Cove, NY 11542
      Telephone: (516) 671-1150
      Facsimile: (516) 882-5420
      E-mail: smoser@moseremploymentlaw.com


SAN DIEGO, CA: Cops' Tactics at Trump Rally Cause Outraged
----------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
dozens of San Diego activists gathered May 31, to denounce use-of-
force tactics employed by San Diego police officers to disperse
protestors after Donald Trump's downtown rally.

Members from Alliance San Diego, a social justice organization,
joined representatives from the American Civil Liberties Union of
San Diego and Imperial Counties and other organizations and
activists who were angered over police tactics at last May 27
campaign stump by Trump.

Thousands of protesters gathered outside the San Diego Convention
Center where Trump spoke. About 1,000 of those protestors gathered
May 27 morning in the Barrio Logan neighborhood, about a mile away
from the convention center.  They later marched downtown to shown
their disdain for the Republican presidential candidate who has
called Mexican Americans "rapists" and called the Latino judge in
one of two San Diego class actions against his now-defunct Trump
University "a hater of Donald Trump."

Things did not get ugly until hours after Trump left the stage,
when San Diego police clad in riot gear declared the designated
"Free Speech Zone" outside the convention center an unlawful
assembly, started making arrests, and moved the last remaining
protesters toward the Barrio Logan neighborhood.

Police said the crowd behavior became unlawful when several
protestors tried to breach a secured area and other protestors
became violent and physically confrontational.

Mayor Kevin Faulconer directed Police Chief Shelley Zimmerman to
deploy small tanks and police officers to drive the last
straggling protestors from downtown into Barrio Logan, the
activists claimed.

Christian Ramirez, human rights director for Alliance, called the
police conduct "outrageous" and said it "violated" the tradition
of San Diego activists and police working together to ensure the
safety of residents.

"I brought my child with me and to have riot police and small
tanks in my neighborhood shows the huge disconnect between Mayor
Faulconer and Police Chief Zimmerman and the impact of the
militarization of police in America's finest city," Ramirez told
the crowd.

Ramirez said the arrests and use of force was "an act of
provocation" and could have been potentially "devastating" had the
police clashed with residents in the neighborhood.

Organizer Kiki Ochoa said leaders of the protest told participants
beforehand to be careful about their behavior so children,
disabled people and elderly "abuelitas" could participate in the
march safely. The marchers made their way over to the convention
center at about 1:30 p.m. Friday, Ochoa said, and peacefully
protested outside the venue until police declared an unlawful
assembly.  The activist groups hired their own security guards to
keep people safe, but that still didn't stop the police from using
excessive force on minors and other residents of the heavily
Latino-populated neighborhood, Ochoa said.

"What kind of training does the police have and what do they not
have and desperately need?" Ochoa said. "Why is it so easy to
bring militarized police into the Latino community, but not go
into the Gaslamp?"

None of the protest organizers were arrested. At least 20 people
in Barrio Logan were detained but not arrested, while three others
were arrested in the neighborhood, Ramirez said. Minors under 18
were among those detained and arrested, according to Ramirez.

According to the SDPD's Twitter page, 35 arrests were made during
the Trump protest, with no property damage or injuries reported.

ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties Director Norma Chavez-
Peterson said many San Diego residents are "completely shocked and
outraged" at the police presence at Trump's rally.

Chavez-Peterson pointed out that, when she helped organize the
biggest protest ever held in San Diego in 2006, which drew more
than 100,000 people, there was no "para-military" force by SDPD
officers.  She also speculated that based on first-hand accounts
of police officers moving pro-Trump supporters closer to
protestors, it may have caused tension and "didn't seem like an
effective tactic."

"Organizing peaceful protests has been part of our DNA for a long
time, but something went wrong May 27. We can do better. We have
done better," Chavez-Peterson said.

The ACLU is working to document first-hand accounts of what
happened and will help guide protestors who want to file
complaints with the SDPD or file court complaints, according to
Chavez-Peterson.

SDPD Public Information Officer Scott Wahl said the department is
"proud of the professionalism, restraint and patience" displayed
by officers he said "provided a safe environment to allow for the
freedom of speech."

"Our decision to declare an unlawful assembly came as a result of
violent behavior and unlawful acts within the crowd of protestors.
We are very pleased with the outcome of May 27 event," he said.

Wahl did not return phone and email requests to confirm the number
of people arrested in the Barrio Logan neighborhood or other
details of what instructions officers were given.

The mayor's office did not return an email request for comment.


SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Pay Employees OT, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Lindsey, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Schlumberger Technology Corporation, Case No. 5:16-cv-
00458 (W.D. Tex., May 19, 2016), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime premiums for hours worked in excess of
40 per week.

Schlumberger Technology Corporation is a provider of technology
for reservoir characterization, drilling, production, and
processing to the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Telephone: (501) 221-0088
      Facsimile: (888) 787-204
      E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


SETERUS INC: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Zirogiannis" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Sandra J. Feuerstein entered an order in the lawsuit
styled NICHOLAS ZIROGIANNIS, on behalf of plaintiff and a class v.
SETERUS, INC., Case No. 2:15-cv-05884-SJF-ARL (E.D.N.Y.):

   -- denying, without prejudice to renewal at the close of
      discovery, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification;
      and

   -- denying as moot the Plaintiff's motion to "enter and
      continue plaintiffs motion for class certification."

The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.  The amended complaint alleges that in
attempting to collect a debt allegedly incurred by the Plaintiff,
the Defendant sent a letter that violates the FDCPA by failing to
state the amount of the debt.  The amended complaint further
asserts class action allegations on behalf of persons with New
York addresses, who were sent a letter in the form of the one sent
to the Plaintiff.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cnOJcU3N


SIMON & SCHUSTER: Sued in N.Y. Over Low E-Book Royalty Payments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sheldon Blau, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., and any related companies,
Case No. 154249/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 19, 2016), alleges that
the Defendants is engaged in a pattern and practice of paying the
Plaintiff and others similarly situated royalty payments for the
distribution of licenses for electronic books, or "e-books," at a
rate for book "sales," or some other rate lower than that required
for "license" transactions.

Simon & Schuster, Inc. is a New York domestic corporation, engaged
in the publishing business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
      Michael Tompkins, Esq.
      Brett 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


SN SERVICING: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Ledon, an individual on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. SN Servicing Corporation, Case No. 1:16-cv-
21789-RNS (S.D. Fla., May 19, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

SN Servicing Corporation engages in the management and sale of
real estate owned properties in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SNAPCHAT INC: Collects Biometric Info, "Martinez" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that echoing a federal class
action, consumers say Snapchat violates Illinois law by collecting
and using biometric information.  The case is, Jose Luis Martinez
and Malcolm Neal v. Snapchat Inc., in Los Angeles Superior Court
Central District.


SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Group of Policyholders Files Amended Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stuff.co.nz reports that a group of about 50 Canterbury homeowners
hope to return to the High Court to state their case again insurer
Southern Response.

The group of 46 Southern Response policyholders launched legal
action last year saying the Government-owned insurer had
misrepresented policies, imposed delays in processing and settling
claims and understated the true costs of rebuilds and repairs.

The case was rejected by the High Court in February, but the group
filed an amended claim to the court on May 27.

Class action lawyer Grant Cameron said the new application met
concerns raised about the case in the High Court by Justice Mander
in February.

"Justice Mander felt there was insufficient clarity about the
commonality of interests between members of the class to enable
him to grant the application, however we are confident the fresh
application meets that concern," he said.

"Over the past two months there has been an immense amount of work
completed . . . we are confident that the court will see the high
degree of commonality on the majority of issues and that periphery
differences can be easily case-managed by the court".

He said the claims in the case had also been amended.

"It now alleges that all policyholders in this action are a victim
of an overarching strategy being maintained by Southern Response
which is designed to minimize its fiscal exposure.  It does this
through a number of tactics and it is only through the means of a
class action that the pattern of misconduct can be easily
identified."

In February, Mark O'Brien, QC, representing Southern Response,
said the firm was committed to resolving claims and emphasized
that Southern Response had received 7000 over cap claims.

"But there's only 46 in this class action."


SPECTRUM CENTER: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bilaliyah Sabir, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Spectrum Center, Inc., Educational Services of
America, Inc., Chancelight, Inc., and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. RG16816404 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 19, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay all wages for
all hours worked at the correct rates of pay.

The Defendants operate 25 schools and programs in California,
Florida and Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SYSTEM INC: Bid for Class Certification in "Bryan" Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Sandra J. Feuerstein denied without prejudice to renewal
at the close of discovery the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification in the lawsuit titled ELIZABETH BRYAN, on behalf of
plaintiff and a class v. I.C. SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 2:15-cv-
06984-SJF-GRB (E.D.N.Y.).

On December 11, 2015, the Plaintiff, individually and on a behalf
of a class, commenced the action against I.C. System, Inc.,
alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The complaint alleges that in attempting to collect a debt
allegedly incurred by the Plaintiff, the Defendant sent a letter
that falsely published that it had an A+ rating from the Better
Business Bureau.  The complaint further asserts class action
allegations on behalf of persons with New York addresses, who were
sent a letter by the Defendant that contained the allegedly false
statements.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=148WNkWv


TARGET CORP: Judge Dismisses Background Check Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
Minnesota federal judge has dismissed a class action lawsuit filed
against Target alleging the popular retail chain included
"impermissible" and "extraneous" information in a background check
disclosure.

Judge Donovan Frank of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota sided with Target in granting the retailer's motion to
dismiss earlier in May.

Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, or FCRA, if an employer
intends to obtain a report about a job applicant, the employer
must notify the applicant.  Such notification must be in a
separate document without any unrelated information.

The named plaintiff in the action, Minnesota resident Thomas J.
Just, alleged Target included extraneous terms and conditions in
its Consent & Disclosure document and in so doing, willfully
violated the FCRA.

"Two non-binding advisory opinions by the FTC (Federal Trade
Commission) suggest that limited information beyond the disclosure
and authorization may be included in the disclosure document,
including, for example, a brief description of the nature of the
reports covered by the disclosure and authorization and a
statement of the job applicant's right to request information
about the nature and scope of the reports," Judge Frank wrote in
his May 12 opinion.

"Here, Target's Consent & Disclosure plainly includes more than a
statement that a consumer report may be obtained for employment
purposes and an authorization permitting procurement of that
report.  It does not, however, contain a liability waiver or
release.  And, Target argues, the information challenged by Just
is 'part and parcel of providing a full disclosure and securing a
meaningful authorization'; it is not extraneous information
intended to benefit Target at the expense of job applicants."

The judge said he need not decide whether Just plausibly states a
claim that Target violated the stand-alone disclosure requirement
under the FCRA because Just must also plausibly allege that any
violation by Target was committed willfully.

Under the FCRA, statutory damages -- rather than actual damages
-- are only available when a defendant's conduct is willful.  Any
person who willfully fails to comply with "any requirement
imposed" is liable for statutory damages of $100 to $1,000.

Because Just does not claim actual damages, he must allege
willfulness in order to maintain his lawsuit, Judge Frank said.

"Because the federal courts of appeal, the FTC and the statutory
text provide insufficient guidance about the meaning of the FCRA's
stand-alone disclosure requirement, Target's reading of the
requirement is not objectively unreasonable," the judge wrote in
the 13-page opinion.  "Accordingly, if Target violated the FCRA's
stand-alone disclosure requirement, such violation was not
willful."

Because the court concluded that Target did not act willfully, any
proposed amendment of the complaint would be "futile," Judge Frank
said, dismissing the case with prejudice, meaning the plaintiff is
barred from filing another case on the same claim.

Just, who had applied for full-time work with Target multiple
times, most recently in 2014 and 2015, filed his class action
complaint against the Minneapolis-based retailer in the Minnesota
federal court in November 2015.

He argued that Target's Consent & Disclosure document -- which
gives a company permission to procure a background report -- is
not a stand-alone document that consists solely of the disclosure
and authorization.

Just argued in his 10-page complaint that the document contains
language that is "completely irrelevant" to the disclosure, and
could confuse an applicant about the purpose of the document.

The plaintiff's background check had revealed that he had
convictions from 1993 and 1994.

Based on the information, Target withdrew a job offer it had
extended to Just.

Minneapolis law firm Baillon Thome Jozwiak & Wanta LLP represented
Just.  Nilan Johnson Lewis PA, also in Minneapolis, represented
Target.


TEXAS CRICKET: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Esmeralda Lopez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
v. Texas Cricket Academy LLC f/k/a Bombay Street Food LLC a/k/a
Bombay Chopstix and Thirunavukkaras Kumaran, Case No. 3:16-cv-
01375-N (N.D. Tex., May 19, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate multiple restaurants and a food truck
operation under the Bombay Chopstix brand as well as at least one
restaurant under the Biryani Pot brand.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      Robert L. Manteuffel, Esq.
      Joshua A. Petersen, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.C.
      6310 LBJ Freeway, Ste. 112
      Dallas, TX 75240
      Telephone: (972) 233-2264
      Facsimile: (972) 386-7610
      E-mail: zabogado@aol.com
              rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net
              josh.a.petersen@gmail.com


THERANOS: Faces Second False Advertising Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Arielle Duhaime-Ross, writing for The Verge, reports that Theranos
was hit with a second class action lawsuit on May 26 -- one day
after an angry customer filed the first.

The suit alleges that Theranos breached its contract with
customers by "providing tests that were not of the promised high
level of accuracy and quality."  The lawsuit also goes after
Theranos for false advertising, not performing proper quality
control, and for failing to use the fingerprick technologies that
it advertised to customers when drawing their blood, according to
the complaint.

The Verge contacted Theranos for comment.  In response,
spokesperson Brooke Buchanan sent The Verge the same statement she
sent on May 25.  "The lawsuit filed against Theranos is without
merit," she wrote in an email.  "The company will vigorously
defend itself against these claims."

Like the May 25 lawsuit, a single customer filed against Theranos
on May 26 in the district of Northern California.  The lawsuit
seeks damages payments for customers, and payments for attorney's
fees.  The suit also requests a court order to tell Theranos to
stop using "unlawful, deceptive, fraudulent, and unfair business
practices."  It's not yet clear if the lawsuit will move ahead; it
has not yet been certified, and may be combined with other cases
as it proceeds.

This has been a particularly difficult 24 hours for the blood-
testing startup.  In addition to getting hit with the first
lawsuit, The Wall Street Journal reported on May 25 that the
drugstore chain Walgreens failed to verify that Theranos'
technology worked before it partnered with the company in 2013.
Theranos currently operates 40 clinics inside Walgreens locations.


TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR: Faces Drivers' Suit Over Illegal Fines
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Kearn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
toll roads, which make up 20 percent of the highways in Orange
County, Calif., collect millions of dollars in illegal fines by
failing to warn when a transponder is needed, a frustrated driver
says in Santa Ana, Calif. class action.

Ebrahim E. Mahda sued the Transportation Corridor Agencies dba The
Toll Roads on May 24 in Federal Court. The agency is a joint
powers authority legislatively created to build and operate Orange
County's toll roads.

Mahda claims that "these toll roads are operated in a manner that
misleads the public, in violation of California law. In
particular, the roads themselves are poorly marked, and
unsuspecting consumers are subject to improper and unlawful fines
because their cars are not equipped with an electronic toll paying
transponder known as FasTrak."

The offending highway include State Routes 73, 133, 241, and 261,
Mahda says.  He was nailed on Route 73 last November, without a
FasTrak transponder, and says he did not know he needed one. Two
weeks later he received notice in the mail of a $6 for each
violation, with recurring penalties of $57.50 if he did not pay by
Jan. 9.

By the time he could pay the fine, Mahda says, he owed $232.

FasTrak devices are mounted on windshields and communicate with
toll-charging and ticketing machines as they pass. Mahda claims
that drivers like him are fined for evading tolls though they had
no idea, or fair warning, that they were doing so.

The Toll Roads did not respond to emailed requests for comment.

Mahda seeks class certification, an injunction, restitution and
disgorgement of at least $5 million in improperly collected fines.

He is represented by Michael Flannery -- mflannery@cuneolaw.com
-- with Cuneo, Gilbert & Laduca of St. Louis, who did not respond
to emailed requests for comment.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Bonke" Suit Claims Driver Misclassification
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAY BONKE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-
situated, Plaintiffs, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; RAISER, LLC;
JOHN DOES I-V and JANE DOES I-V; BLACK CORPORATIONS I-V; WHITE
LIMITED LIABLITY COMPANIES I-V; and GREEN PARTNERSHIPS I-V,
Defendants, Case 2:16-cv-01534-SPL (D. Ariz., May 18, 2016), seeks
damages and equitable relief arising from Defendants'
misclassification of Uber Drivers as independent contractors.

Defendant Uber owns and operates the Uber transportation service
and is authorized to conduct business and does conduct business
throughout the State of Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David W. Lunn, Esq.
     DKL Law, PLLC
     14555 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 240
     Scottsdale, AZ 85254
     Phone: (480) 500-1360

          - and -

     Marie Napoli, Esq.
     NAPOLI LAW PLLC
     1301 Avenue of the Americas
     10th Floor
     New York, NY 10019
     Phone: (212) 397-1000

          - and -

     Brittany Weiner, Esq.
     IMBESI LAW P.C.
     450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
     New York, NY 10123
     Phone: (212) 736-0007


UHAUL: Motion for Class Certification Sought in "Engle" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Engle moves the Court to allow him to pursue the lawsuit
captioned Raymond Engle v. Uhaul, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00027-
WHR-MJN (S.D. Ohio), as a class action.

Mr. Engle alleges that Eskenazi Health Center has erroneously
subjected him to incurred cost that should have been covered via
the Veterans' Affairs.  For this reason, the Plaintiff contends,
he cannot surmise that he is the only victim in this cause of
action.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vkM0qU7q


UK CLEANERS: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Feliciano Sanchez and Eulalio Mares, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. U.K. Cleaners, Inc., d/b/a Turtle Bay
Cleaners, Sook Hyun Kim and In Ja Gwon, Case No. 1:16-cv-03729
(S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay the appropriate minimum wage and overtime
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a full service dry cleaner/laundromat owned
located at 911 Second Avenue New York, NY 10017.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com


UNION CARBIDE: Dismissal of "Sahu" Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit affirmed the
district court's judgment entered on July 30, 2014, dismissing a
lawsuit filed against Union Carbide Corporation (UCC).

A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's May 24, 2016 summary
order is available at https://is.gd/BzufNm from Leagle.com.

Owners and occupants of land near a pesticide factory in Bhopal,
India, in several iterations of lawsuits, have sought relief
against UCC for injuries resulting from hazardous contaminants
attributed to the plant's inadequate waste management system.  The
factory was owned and operated by Union Carbide India Limited
(UCIL), a corporation incorporated in India in 1934.  A majority
of UCIL's stock, during the Bhopal plant's operations, from 1969
to 1984, was owned by UCC, a U.S. corporation.

The plaintiffs, Jagarnath Sahu and several other similarly
situated property-owners (collectively, "Sahu"), have brought an
action to recover for property damage, alleging claims sounding in
nuisance, trespass, strict liability, and negligence.  Building on
the record established in a separate suit filed in 2004 to recover
for personal injuries, Sahu claimed new evidence established UCC's
responsibility, and sought leave to take a deposition of a former
UCC employee, Lucas John Couvaras, to provide additional evidence
to oppose summary judgment, and to preserve his testimony in light
of his advanced age.  The district court ruled that the evidence
was not sufficient to establish UCC's participation in the
creation of the injury on any theory of liability, denied the
request for a deposition, and dismissed the lawsuit.

The case is JAGARNATH SAHU, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, OHMWATI BAI, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, MOHAN LAL SEN, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, QAMAR SULTAN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, MEENU RAWAT, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, MAKSOOD
AHMED, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
KRISHNA BAI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, KANTI DEVI CHAUHAN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, RAGHUNATH VISHWAKERMA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, HARCHARAN CHAURASIA,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
MOHAMMAD BAHADUR SHAH, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, SHASHI BHAGEL, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, KAMALA BAI SHRIVASTAV, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, HARISHANKAR TOMAR,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, SHANTI
AIHRWAR, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, ASGARI BEE, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, ZAMIL KHAN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNION CARBIDE
CORPORATION, MADHYA PRADESH STATE, Defendant-Appellee, No. 14-
3087-cv (2nd Cir.).

RICHARD L. HERZ -- rick@earthrights.org -- Earthrights
International, Washington, DC (Reena Gambhir --
rgambhir@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Washington, DC, H. Rajan
Sharma, Sharma & DeYoung LLP, New York, NY, and Curtis V. Trinko
-- ctrinko@trinko.com -- LLP, New York, NY, on the brief),
Appearing for Appellant.

WILLIAM A. KROHLEY -- wrohley@kelleydrye.com -- (William Charles
Heck -- wheck@kelleydrye.com -- on the brief) Kelley, Drye &
Warren, LLP, New York, NY, appearing for Appellee.


UNITED STATES: 2 Subclasses Certified in Government Workers' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Susan G. Braden of the United States Court of Federal Claims
certified two subclasses in the case, CILICIA A. DeMONS, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, No. 13-779 C (Fed.
Cl.).

Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the United States of America in
the United States Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C., and
are asking for money damages as back pay plus interest for the
amount of premium pay that they claim was not paid to all eligible
Hybrid employees or specialized health care employees who file a
timely claim form as class members.

On April 29, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for approval of
notices to the class, approval of amendments to the class
certifications to reflect consolidation of the cases, and to
appoint the class action administrator.

On May 4, 2016, plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for leave to
withdraw the April 29, 2016 motion and substituted a new joint
motion to approve notices to the class, approval of amendments to
the class certifications to reflect consolidation of the cases,
and to appoint the class action administrator.

Judge Braden grants plaintiffs' May 4, 2016 unopposed motion to
withdraw the April 29, 2016 motion but denied the parties' May 4,
2016 joint motion.

Judge Braden certified 2 subclasses in the case.

DeMONS Subclass One: All General Schedule employees, as defined by
5 U.S.C. Section 2105, who were employed between July 1, 2012 and
February 28, 2016 by the Department of Veterans Affairs in one of
the following occupations:

1. Certified or Registered Respiratory Therapist, Licensed
Physical Therapist, Licensed Practical Nurse, Licensed Vocational
Nurse, Pharmacist, Occupational Therapist, Graduate Nurse or Nurse
Pending Graduation by the Veterans Health Administration,
Audiologist, Audiologist-Speech Pathologist, Speech Pathologist,
Biomedical Engineer, Corrective Therapist or Kinesiotherapist,
Dental Assistant, Dental Hygienist, Dietitian, Marriage and/or
Family Therapist, Licensed Professional Mental Health Counselor,
Medical Instrument Technician, Medical Records Technician, Medical
Support Assistant, Medical Technologist, Nuclear Medicine
Technologist, Occupational Therapy Assistant, Orthotist or
Orthotist-Prosthetist, Pharmacy Aid or Pharmacy Technician,
Physical Therapy Assistant, Prosthetic Representative,
Psychologist, Diagnostic Radiologic Technician or Technologist,
Therapeutic Radiologic Technician or Technologist, Social Worker,
Blind Rehabilitation Specialist or Blind Rehabilitation Outpatient
Specialist, Medical Support Assistant, Nursing Assistant,
Therapeutic Medical Physicist or Medical Physicist, and

     a. who regularly and customarily worked on a tour of duty any
part of which was within the period beginning 6 p.m. and ending 6
a.m., and/or on a tour of duty any part of which was within 12:00
midnight Friday and ending 12:00 midnight Saturday (not including
any Sunday hours); and

     b. who received night differential pay of 10% and/or Saturday
premium pay of 25% or more, pursuant to 38 U.S.C. Sections
7454(b)(1), (b)(2), for each such hour of service between 6 p.m.
and ending 6 a.m., and/or for each such hour of service between
12:00 midnight Friday and 12:00 midnight Saturday (not including
any Sunday hours); and

     c. who received pay during periods of authorized paid leave,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sections 6301-6391, for any part of a tour of
duty between 12:00 midnight Friday to 12:00 midnight Saturday (not
including any Sunday hours) that was reduced in an amount equal to
the Saturday premium pay to which such employees would have been
entitled, if they performed regular and customary work on
Saturdays instead of using authorized paid leave; and/ord. hybrid
employees who were designated to receive premium pay on the same
basis as nurses, who received pay during periods of authorized
paid leave, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sections 6301-6391, for any part
of such tours of duty between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m., that was reduced
in an amount equal to the night differential pay that VA employees
would have been entitled, if they performed regular and customary
work at night, instead of using authorized paid leave.

DeMONS Subclass Two: All General Schedule employees, as defined by
5 U.S.C Sec. 2105, who were employed between July 1, 2012 and
February 28, 2016 by the VA in one of the following occupations:

1. Series 0060 Chaplain; Series 0101 Social Science; Series 0102
Social Science Aid and Technician; Series 0181 Psychology Aid and
Technician; Series 0184 Sociology; 0186 Social Services Aid and
Assistant; Series 0187 Social Services; Series 0188, Recreation
Specialist; Series 0189, Recreation Aid and Assistant; Series
0401, General Biological Science; Series 0403, Microbiology;
Series 0404, Biological Science Technician; Series 0405,
Pharmacology; Series 0413, Physiology; Series 0415, Toxicology;
Series 0601, General Health Science; Series 0625, Autopsy
Assistant; Series 0636, Rehabilitation Therapy Assistant (Except
for Occupational Therapy Assistant and Physical Therapy
Assistant); Series 0637, Manual Arts Therapist; Series 0638,
Recreation/Creative Arts Therapist; Series 0639, Education
Therapist; Series 0640, Health Aid and Technician (Except for
Certified Respiratory Therapist); Series 0645, Medical Technician;
Series 0646, Pathology Technician; Series 0651, Respiratory
Therapist; Series 0664, Restoration Technician; Series 0670,
Health System Administration; Series 0671, Health System
Specialist; Series 0673, Hospital Housekeeping Management; Series
0683, Dental Laboratory Aid and Technician; Series 0690,
Industrial Hygienist; Series 0698, Environmental Health Aid and
Technician; Series 0699, Student Nurse Technician (Title code 63
only); Series 0701, Veterinary Medical Science; Series 0704,
Animal Health Technician; Series 1020, Medical Illustrator; Series
1060, Photographer (Medical); Series 1301, General Physical
Science; Series 1306, Health Physics; Series 1310, Physics; Series
1311, Physical Science Technician; Series 1320, Chemistry; Series
1601, Biomedical Equipment Support Specialist; Series 1725, Public
Health Educator; Series 1910, Quality Assurance; and

     a. who regularly and customarily worked on a tour of duty any
part of which was within the period beginning 12:00 midnight
Friday and ending 12:00 Saturday; and

     b. who received premium pay of 25% or more, pursuant to 38
U.S.C. Section 7454(b)(3), for each such hour of service between
12:00 midnight Friday and 12:00 midnight Saturday; and

     c. who received pay during periods of authorized paid leave,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sections 6301-6391, for any part of a tour of
duty from 12:00 midnight Friday to 12:00 midnight Saturday that
was reduced in an amount equal to the Saturday premium pay,
pursuant to 38 U.S.C. Section 7454(b)(3), to which such employees
would have been entitled, if they performed their regular and
customary work on Saturdays, instead of using authorized paid
leave.

The Epiq Systems Inc. is certified as class action administrator.

On or before July 1, 2016, the administrator will provide a
summary notice of the certification to each member of a subclass,
designated herein, by postcard, to last known addresses. The cost
of the postcard and mailing will be paid by class counsel. The
summary notice will refer to www.myleavepay.com, a website
operated and maintained by the administrator. The website will
post the court's official notice, and a copy of the claim that a
putative class member may file by internet or mail to DeMons P.O.
Box 4349, Portland, Oregon 97208-4349, no later than August 15,
2016.

A copy of Judge Braden's memorandum opinion and order dated May
20, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/gjeLIRfrom Leagle.com

Plaintiffs, represented by:

     Ira M. Lechner, Esq.
     Katz & Ranzman, P.C.
     4530 Wisconsin Ave NW #250
     Washington, DC 20016
     Telephone: 202-659-4656

USA, Defendant, represented by Hillary Adrienne Stern, U. S.
Department of Justice - Civil Division


VALSPAR CORP: Shareholder Launches Class Suit Over Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Sean Kelly, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
Valspar shareholder claims in a class action that the company
didn't disclose crucial material information about the fairness of
its proposed merger with Sherwin-Williams.

Tom Mitsopoulos brought a class-action lawsuit against Valspar's
board of directors for allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties
by allowing Sherwin-Williams to acquire the company "without
providing stockholders with material information necessary for an
informed vote" on the merger.

That information is missing from the company's proxy statement
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission last month,
according to the May 24 lawsuit.

"Intended to solicit stockholder approval of the proposed
transaction, the proxy fails to disclose material financial
projections prepared by Valspar management and used in the
financial analyses of the proposed transaction performed by
Valspar's advisors, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. and
Goldman Sachs & Co.," the 18-page complaint states.

In a press release dated March 21, Valspar announced that the
company was entering into a definitive agreement to merge with
Sherwin-Williams, and Valspar stockholders will get $113 per
share.

But that price could be adjusted, Mitsopoulos claims, because
regulators may require Sherwin-Williams to divest assets to
satisfy antitrust concerns.

The merger agreement downplays this scenario.

"In what both companies believe to be the unlikely event that
divestitures are required of businesses totaling more than $650
million of Valspar's 2015 revenues, the transaction price would be
adjusted to $105 in cash per Valspar share," a joint press release
states. "Sherwin-Williams would have the right to terminate the
transaction in the event that required divestures exceed $1.5
billion in 2015 revenues."

Ever since the announcement of the merger, Valspar's share price
has leveled out at about $107 per share.

Based in Minnesota, paint maker Valspar has been in business since
1806. Both Valspar and Sherwin-Williams are big players in the
U.S. house paint market, selling their paints through big-box
retailers like Lowe's and Home Depot. According to a Bloomberg
report, this may be cause for antitrust scrutiny.

Not only does Sherwin-Williams gain market share in the U.S. do-
it-yourself paint market through the merger, but it also boosts
the company's presence in the international markets and industrial
coatings markets, according to Bloomberg.

he Valspar board considered a merger deal with two other unnamed
companies, but by late January the board concluded that "no other
company could 'offer greater value and closing certainty' than
Sherwin-Williams, [and so] the board determined that it would not
contact any additional parties for a potential strategic
transaction," Mitsopoulos' lawsuit alleges.

And so on March 19, the Valspar board unanimously approved the
merger agreement after reviewing "financial projections as well as
the fairness opinions prepared and provided by Merrill Lynch and
Goldman Sachs," according to the complaint.

Although Valspar "describes the fairness opinions provided by
Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs and the various valuation analyses
performed in support of these opinions," both financial advisors
"relied on certain internal projections for fiscal years 2016-2020
in rendering their fairness opinions," the complaint states.

Mitsopoulos claims the proxy discloses revenue, adjusted earnings
before interest and taxes, and adjusted earning per share, but
omits some of the internal projections used by Valspar's financial
advisors to recommend the merger.

According to the class-action complaint, the omissions include:
"future stock prices and dividends per share, 'as reflected in
Valspar forecasts,' used in the present value of future stock
price and dividends analysis . . . unlevered free cash flow, 'as
reflected in the Valspar Forecasts,' used in the discounted cash
flow analysis . . . terminal year normalized free cash flow for
Valspar, 'as reelected in the Valspar forecasts,' used in the
discounted cash flow analysis . . . and the definitions of free
cash flow and unlevered free cash flow used by Goldman Sachs and
Merrill Lynch."

"Without this information, Valspar's public stockholders are
unable to fully understand the analyses and, thus, are unable to
determine what weight, if any, to place of the fairness opinion
rendered in support of the proposed transaction," the lawsuit
states.

As such, Mitsopoulos and the class seek injunctive and other
equitable relief for the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

Mitsopoulos is represented by Brian Long of Rigrodsky & Long PA in
Wilmington, Del., and by Donald Enright of Levi & Korsinsky in
Washington, D.C.

The case captioned, TOM MITSOPOULOS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, V. THE VALSPAR
CORPORATION, JACK J. ALLEN, JOHN M. BALLBACH, JOHN S. BODE,
WILLIAM M. COOK, JEFFREY H. CURLER, SHANE D. FLEMING, IAN R.
FRIENDLY, JANEL S. HAUGARTH, GARY E. HENDRICKSON, MAE C. JEMISON,
and DAVID D. LUMLEY, Defendants (Del. Ch.).


WHIRLPOOL CORP: "Candelario" Suit Claims Unfair Terms of Use
------------------------------------------------------------
LUCIA CANDELARIO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFF, V. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION,
DEFENDANT, Case 3:16-cv-02810-PGS-TJB, (D. N.J., May 18, 2016),
alleges that the Defendant imposed unfair, one-sided provisions on
its Terms of Use in violation of certain statutory and common law
standards and New Jersey's Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty
and Notice Act.

WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION markets a variety of kitchen appliances and
products throughout the State of New Jersey, via its website,
www.kitchenaid.com

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gerald H. Clark, Esq.
     Mark W. Morris, Esq.
     Lazaro Berenguer, Esq.
     CLARK LAW FIRM, PC
     811 Sixteenth Ave.
     Belmar, NJ 07719
     Phone: (732)443-0333
     Fax: (504) 524-5763

          - and -

     Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
     Victoria Knowles, Esq.
     NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP
     4100 Newport Place, Suite 800
     Newport Beach, CA 92660
     Phone: (949) 706-6464
     Fax: (949) 706-6469


* Law Professors Support CFPB's Plan to Ban Class Action Waivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
C. Ryan Barber, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
more than 200 law professors and other scholars rushed out of the
gate to back the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's plan to
prohibit arbitration clauses preventing class actions, as the
formal comment period on the proposal recently opened.

Calling the proposal "critically important to protect consumers,"
the group of 210 professors submitted a letter on May 24 arguing
that class actions complement resource-strained state and federal
agencies in enforcing the law.

The professors wrote that, by allowing financial-services
companies to "eradicate consumer class actions, we are allowing
these companies to insulate themselves from enforcement of our
laws.  This harms not only individual consumers but also the
public at large."

The roster of signatories includes a nationwide selection of
experts in consumer law, including Georgetown University Law
Center professor David Vladeck, a former director of the Federal
Trade Commission's bureau of consumer protection.

The letter heavily cited the CFPB's arbitration study, which
Congress mandated in the Dodd-Frank financial reform law.  Drawing
from that study, the professors said class actions provided
meaningful relief to consumers.

The mere prospect of facing a class action can also deter
companies from misconduct, the professors said.  "Companies engage
in risk management calculations and are less likely to risk
violating consumer laws if they know they may be sued in class
actions for such violations," the professors wrote.

In testimony before Congress and the CFPB, critics of the proposal
have argued that arbitration provides consumers an efficient
alternative to lengthy class actions.

Those critics, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, contend that a
ban on class action waivers would have the effect of eliminating
arbitration in the financial sector.

Testifying on the chamber's, Mayer Brown partner Andy Pincus --
apincus@mayerbrown.com -- told a House subcommittee that many
companies subsidize arbitration programs, lowering the costs for
consumers who bring claims.  If the CFPB banned class action
waivers, he said, rational companies would not "finance two
dispute resolution systems" and continue paying for arbitration
programs.

But, citing the CFPB study, the professors wrote that consumers
are rarely aware that they are subject to arbitration agreements,
though millions are covered by such clauses.  The CFPB study found
that only a few hundred file individual arbitration claims each
year, mostly for claims exceeding $1,000.

"In other words, a minuscule number of consumers bring individual
arbitrations to recover low-dollar claims," the professors wrote.
The CFPB study also found that consumers rarely bring lawsuits in
court, and in the letter, the professors wrote that "it is easy to
see why."  For a consumer and a lawyer, they wrote, a small claim
in not worth the trouble.

The professors also quoted this passage from a 2004 decision by
Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit: "The realistic alternative to a class action is not 17
million individual suits, but zero individual suits, as only a
lunatic or a fanatic sues for $30."


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal on Aearo Indemnification Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court ruling on the dispute relating to the
indemnification of Aearo Holding Corp. remains pending, according
to 3M Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016.

The Company states, "On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company
purchased the stock of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo
Technologies.  Aearo manufactured and sold various products,
including personal protection equipment, such as eye, ear, head,
face, fall and certain respiratory protection products.

"As of March 31, 2016, Aearo and/or other companies that
previously owned and operated Aearo's respirator business
(American Optical Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. and
Cabot Corporation ("Cabot")) are named defendants, with multiple
co-defendants, including the Company, in numerous lawsuits in
various courts in which plaintiffs allege use of mask and
respirator products and seek damages from Aearo and other
defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to
asbestos, silica-related, or other occupational dusts found in
products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the
workplace.

"As of March 31, 2016, the Company, through its Aearo subsidiary,
had accruals of $21 million for product liabilities and defense
costs related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos and
silica-related claims. Responsibility for legal costs, as well as
for settlements and judgments, is currently shared in an informal
arrangement among Aearo, Cabot, American Optical Corporation and a
subsidiary of Warner Lambert and their respective insurers (the
"Payor Group"). Liability is allocated among the parties based on
the number of years each company sold respiratory products under
the "AO Safety" brand and/or owned the AO Safety Division of
American Optical Corporation and the alleged years of exposure of
the individual plaintiff. Aearo's share of the contingent
liability is further limited by an agreement entered into between
Aearo and Cabot on July 11, 1995. This agreement provides that, so
long as Aearo pays to Cabot a quarterly fee of $100,000, Cabot
will retain responsibility and liability for, and indemnify Aearo
against, any product liability claims involving exposure to
asbestos, silica, or silica products for respirators sold prior to
July 11, 1995. Because of the difficulty in determining how long a
particular respirator remains in the stream of commerce after
being sold, Aearo and Cabot have applied the agreement to claims
arising out of the alleged use of respirators involving exposure
to asbestos, silica or silica products prior to January 1, 1997.
With these arrangements in place, Aearo's potential liability is
limited to exposures alleged to have arisen from the use of
respirators involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica
products on or after January 1, 1997. To date, Aearo has elected
to pay the quarterly fee. Aearo could potentially be exposed to
additional claims for some part of the pre-July 11, 1995 period
covered by its agreement with Cabot if Aearo elects to discontinue
its participation in this arrangement, or if Cabot is no longer
able to meet its obligations in these matters.

"In March 2012, Cabot CSC Corporation and Cabot Corporation filed
a lawsuit against Aearo in the Superior Court of Suffolk County,
Massachusetts seeking declaratory relief as to the scope of
Cabot's indemnity obligations under the July 11, 1995 agreement,
including whether Cabot has retained liability for coal workers'
pneumoconiosis claims, and seeking damages for breach of contract.
In 2014, the court granted Aearo's motion for summary judgment on
two claims, but declined to rule on two issues: the specific
liability for certain known coal mine dust lawsuits; and Cabot's
claim for allocation of liability between injuries allegedly
caused by exposure to coal mine dust and injuries allegedly caused
by exposure to silica dust. Following additional discovery, the
parties filed new motions for summary judgment. In February 2016,
the court ruled in favor of Aearo on these two remaining issues,
and ordered that Cabot, and not Aearo, is solely responsible for
all liability for the coal mine dust lawsuits under the 1995
agreement. Cabot has appealed.

"Developments may occur that could affect the estimate of Aearo's
liabilities. These developments include, but are not limited to:
(i) significant changes in the number of future claims, (ii)
significant changes in the average cost of resolving claims, (iii)
significant changes in the legal costs of defending these claims,
(iv) significant changes in the mix and nature of claims received,
(v) trial and appellate outcomes, (vi) significant changes in the
law and procedure applicable to these claims, (vii) significant
changes in the liability allocation among the co-defendants,
(viii) the financial viability of members of the Payor Group
including exhaustion of available insurance coverage limits,
and/or (ix) a determination that the interpretation of the
contractual obligations on which Aearo has estimated its share of
liability is inaccurate. The Company cannot determine the impact
of these potential developments on its current estimate of Aearo's
share of liability for these existing and future claims. If any of
the developments described above were to occur, the actual amount
of these liabilities for existing and future claims could be
significantly larger than the amount accrued.

"Because of the inherent difficulty in projecting the number of
claims that have not yet been asserted, the complexity of
allocating responsibility for future claims among the Payor Group,
and the several possible developments that may occur that could
affect the estimate of Aearo's liabilities, the Company cannot
estimate the amount or range of amounts by which Aearo's liability
may exceed the accrual the Company has established."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Had $39MM Insurance Receivables at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company's receivable for insurance recoveries related to the
respirator mask/asbestos litigation was $39 million, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016.

The Company states, "The Company estimates its respirator
mask/asbestos liabilities, including the cost to resolve the
claims and defense costs, by examining: (i) the Company's
experience in resolving claims, (ii) apparent trends, (iii) the
apparent quality of claims (e.g., whether the claim has been
asserted on behalf of asymptomatic claimants), (iv) changes in the
nature and mix of claims (e.g., the proportion of claims asserting
usage of the Company's mask or respirator products and alleging
exposure to each of asbestos, silica, coal or other occupational
dusts, and claims pleading use of asbestos-containing products
allegedly manufactured by the Company), (v) the number of current
claims and a projection of the number of future asbestos and other
claims that may be filed against the Company, (vi) the cost to
resolve recently settled claims, and (vii) an estimate of the cost
to resolve and defend against current and future claims.

"Developments may occur that could affect the Company's estimate
of its liabilities. These developments include, but are not
limited to, significant changes in (i) the number of future
claims, (ii) the average cost of resolving claims, (iii) the legal
costs of defending these claims and in maintaining trial
readiness, (iv) changes in the mix and nature of claims received,
(v) trial and appellate outcomes, (vi) changes in the law and
procedure applicable to these claims, and (vii) the financial
viability of other co-defendants and insurers.

"As a result of the Company's cost of resolving claims of persons
who claim more serious injuries, including mesothelioma and other
malignancies, the Company increased its accruals in the first
quarter of 2016 for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities by $11
million. In the first quarter of 2016, the Company made payments
for legal fees and settlements of $14 million related to the
respirator mask/asbestos litigation. As of March 31, 2016, the
Company had accruals for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities of
$141 million (excluding Aearo accruals). This accrual represents
the low end in a range of loss. The Company cannot estimate the
amount or upper end of the range of amounts by which the liability
may exceed the accrual the Company has established because of the
(i) inherent difficulty in projecting the number of claims that
have not yet been asserted or the time period in which future
claims may be asserted, (ii) the complaints nearly always assert
claims against multiple defendants where the damages alleged are
typically not attributed to individual defendants so that a
defendant's share of liability may turn on the law of joint and
several liability, which can vary by state, (iii) the multiple
factors described above that the Company considers in estimating
its liabilities, and (iv) the several possible developments
described above that may occur that could affect the Company's
estimate of liabilities.

"As of March 31, 2016, the Company's receivable for insurance
recoveries related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation was
$39 million. The Company estimates insurance receivables based on
an analysis of its policies, including their exclusions, pertinent
case law interpreting comparable policies, its experience with
similar claims, and an assessment of the nature of each claim and
remaining coverage. The Company then records an amount it has
concluded is likely to be recovered. Various factors could affect
the timing and amount of recovery of this receivable, including
(i) delays in or avoidance of payment by insurers; (ii) the extent
to which insurers may become insolvent in the future, and (iii)
the outcome of negotiations with insurers and legal proceedings
with respect to respirator mask/asbestos liability insurance
coverage.

"The Company has unresolved coverage with claims-made carriers for
respirator mask claims. The Company is also seeking coverage under
the policies of certain insolvent insurers. Once those claims for
coverage are resolved, the Company will have collected
substantially all of its remaining insurance coverage for
respirator mask/asbestos claims."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Faces Suits by 2,110 Claimants at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company is a named defendant, with multiple co-defendants, in
numerous lawsuits in various courts that purport to represent
approximately 2,110 individual claimants, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016.

The Company states, "As of March 31, 2016, the Company is a named
defendant, with multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits in
various courts that purport to represent approximately 2,110
individual claimants, compared to approximately 2,130 individual
claimants with actions pending at December 31, 2015.

"The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and
currently pending against the Company allege use of some of the
Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages from the
Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury from
workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or other
occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace. A minority of the
lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the
Company generally allege personal injury from occupational
exposure to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the
Company, which are often unspecified, as well as products
manufactured by other defendants, or occasionally at Company
premises.

"The Company's current volume of new and pending matters is
substantially lower than it experienced at the peak of filings in
2003. The Company expects that filing of claims by unimpaired
claimants in the future will continue to be at much lower levels
than in the past. Accordingly, the number of claims alleging more
serious injuries, including mesothelioma and other malignancies,
will represent a greater percentage of total claims than in the
past. The Company has prevailed in all ten cases taken to trial,
including eight of the nine cases tried to verdict (such trials
occurred in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2007, and 2015), and an
appellate reversal in 2005 of the 2001 jury verdict adverse to the
Company. The remaining case, tried in 2009, was dismissed by the
court at the close of plaintiff's evidence, based on the court's
legal finding that the plaintiff had not presented sufficient
evidence to support a jury verdict. The plaintiff in the 2015
trial has filed an appeal to the Missouri Court of Appeals.
Briefing is complete and a decision from the court is pending.

"The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that
its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when
used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances.
Consequently the Company believes that claimants are unable to
establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are
attributable to the Company's respiratory protection products.
Nonetheless the Company's litigation experience indicates that
claims of persons with malignant conditions are costlier to
resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it therefore
believes the average cost of resolving pending and future claims
on a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it
experienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims were
asserted by medically unimpaired claimants.

"As previously reported, the State of West Virginia, through its
Attorney General, filed a complaint in 2003 against the Company
and two other manufacturers of respiratory protection products in
the Circuit Court of Lincoln County, West Virginia and amended its
complaint in 2005. The amended complaint seeks substantial, but
unspecified, compensatory damages primarily for reimbursement of
the costs allegedly incurred by the State for worker's
compensation and healthcare benefits provided to all workers with
occupational pneumoconiosis and unspecified punitive damages. The
case was inactive from the fourth quarter of 2007 until late 2013,
other than a case management conference in March 2011. In November
2013, the State filed a motion to bifurcate the lawsuit into
separate liability and damages proceedings. At the hearing on the
motion, the court declined to bifurcate the lawsuit. No liability
has been recorded for this matter because the Company believes
that liability is not probable and estimable at this time. In
addition, the Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or
range of loss given the lack of any meaningful discovery responses
by the State of West Virginia, the otherwise minimal activity in
this case and the fact that the complaint asserts claims against
two other manufacturers where a defendant's share of liability may
turn on the law of joint and several liability and by the amount
of fault, if any, a jury might allocate to each defendant if the
case is ultimately tried."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Katy Continues to Face Claims at April 1
---------------------------------------------------------
Katy Industries, Inc., continues to face asbestos claims,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 1, 2016.

The Company states, "There are a number of product liability,
asbestos and workers' compensation claims pending against the
Company and its subsidiaries.  Many of these claims are proceeding
through the litigation process and the final outcome will not be
known until a settlement is reached with the claimant or the case
is adjudicated.  The Company estimates that it can take up to ten
years from the date of the injury to reach a final outcome on
certain claims.  With respect to the product liability, asbestos
and workers' compensation claims, the Company has provided for its
share of expected losses beyond the applicable insurance coverage,
including those incurred but not reported to the Company or its
insurance providers, which are developed using actuarial
techniques. Such accruals are developed using currently available
claim information, and represent management's best estimates,
including estimated legal fees, on an undiscounted basis.  The
ultimate cost of any individual claim can vary based upon, among
other factors, the nature of the injury, the duration of the
disability period, the length of the claim period, the
jurisdiction of the claim and the nature of the final outcome."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaman Continues to Defend Suits at April 1
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kaman Corporation continues to defend itself against asbestos-
related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended April 1, 2016.

The Company states, "Like many other industrial companies, the
Company and/or one of its subsidiaries may be named as a defendant
in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos integrated into certain products sold or distributed by
the Company and/or the named subsidiary. A substantial majority of
these asbestos-related claims have been covered by insurance or
other forms of indemnity or have been dismissed without payment.
The rest have been resolved for amounts that are not material to
the Company, either individually or in the aggregate. Based on
information currently available, we do not believe that the
resolution of any currently pending asbestos-related matters will
have a material adverse effect on our business, financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had $50.6MM Accrued Liability at April 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation had $50,623,000 accrued asbestos-related
liability as of April 1, 2016, according to the Company's Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended April 1, 2016.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/i8Z0rH



ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Faced 482 Suits at March 31
------------------------------------------------
MRC Global Inc. was named a defendant in approximately 482
lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2016.

The Company states, "We are one of many defendants in lawsuits
that plaintiffs have brought seeking damages for personal injuries
that exposure to asbestos allegedly caused. Plaintiffs and their
family members have brought these lawsuits against a large volume
of defendant entities as a result of the defendants' manufacture,
distribution, supply or other involvement with asbestos, asbestos
containing-products or equipment or activities that allegedly
caused plaintiffs to be exposed to asbestos.  These plaintiffs
typically assert exposure to asbestos as a consequence of third-
party manufactured products that our MRC Global (US) Inc.
subsidiary purportedly distributed.  As of March 31, 2016, we are
named a defendant in approximately 482 lawsuits involving
approximately 1,106 claims.  No asbestos lawsuit has resulted in a
judgment against us to date, with a majority being settled,
dismissed or otherwise resolved.  Applicable third-party insurance
has substantially covered these claims, and insurance should
continue to cover a substantial majority of existing and
anticipated future claims.  Accordingly, we have recorded a
liability for our estimate of the most likely settlement of
asserted claims and a related receivable from insurers for our
estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that the amounts of
recovery are probable.  It is not possible to predict the outcome
of these claims and proceedings. However, in our opinion, the
likelihood that the ultimate disposition of any of these claims
and legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our
consolidated financial statements is remote."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Had 13K Cases as of March 25
----------------------------------------------------------
There were 13,000 asbestos-related cases against Mallinckrodt
public limited company as of March 25, 2016, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 25, 2016.

The Company states, "Beginning with lawsuits brought in July 1976,
the Company is also named as a defendant in personal injury
lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
materials. A majority of the cases involve product liability
claims based principally on allegations of past distribution of
products containing asbestos. A limited number of the cases allege
premises liability based on claims that individuals were exposed
to asbestos while on the Company's property. Each case typically
names dozens of corporate defendants in addition to the Company.
The complaints generally seek monetary damages for personal injury
or bodily injury resulting from alleged exposure to products
containing asbestos. The Company's involvement in asbestos cases
has been limited because it did not mine or produce asbestos.
Furthermore, in the Company's experience, a large percentage of
these claims have never been substantiated and have been dismissed
by the courts. The Company has not suffered an adverse verdict in
a trial court proceeding related to asbestos claims and intends to
continue to defend these lawsuits. When appropriate, the Company
settles claims; however, amounts paid to settle and defend all
asbestos claims have been immaterial. As of March 25, 2016, there
were approximately 13,000 asbestos-related cases pending against
the Company.

"The Company estimates pending asbestos claims and claims that
were incurred but not reported and related insurance recoveries,
which are recorded on a gross basis in the unaudited condensed
consolidated balance sheets. The Company's estimate of its
liability for pending and future claims is based on claims
experience over the past five years and covers claims either
currently filed or expected to be filed over the next seven years.
The Company believes that it has adequate amounts recorded related
to these matters. While it is not possible at this time to
determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of these asbestos-
related proceedings, the Company believes, given the information
currently available, that the ultimate resolutions of all known
and anticipated future claims, after taking into account amounts
already accrued, along with recoveries from insurance, will not
have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results
of operations and cash flows."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Xylem Still Indemnified by ITT at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
Xylem Inc. said its former parent, ITT Corporation, continues to
indemnify the company from asbestos-related claims, according to
the company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016.

The Company states, "From time to time claims may be asserted
against Xylem alleging injury caused by any of our products
resulting from asbestos exposure. We believe there are numerous
legal defenses available for such claims and would defend
ourselves vigorously. Pursuant to the Distribution Agreement among
ITT, Exelis and Xylem, ITT has an obligation to indemnify, defend
and hold Xylem harmless for asbestos product liability matters,
including settlements, judgments, and legal defense costs
associated with all pending and future claims that may arise from
past sales of ITT's legacy products. We believe ITT remains a
substantial entity with sufficient financial resources to honor
its obligations to us.

"As part of our 2011 spin-off from our former parent, ITT, Exelis
Inc. and Xylem will indemnify, defend and hold harmless each of
the other parties with respect to such parties' assumed or
retained liabilities under the Distribution Agreement and breaches
of the Distribution Agreement or related spin agreements. The
former parent's indemnification obligations include asserted and
unasserted asbestos and silica liability claims that relate to the
presence or alleged presence of asbestos or silica in products
manufactured, repaired or sold prior to October 31, 2011, the
Distribution Date, subject to limited exceptions with respect to
certain employee claims, or in the structure or material of any
building or facility, subject to exceptions with respect to
employee claims relating to Xylem buildings or facilities. The
indemnification associated with pending and future asbestos claims
does not expire. Xylem has not recorded a liability for material
matters for which we expect to be indemnified by the former parent
or Exelis Inc. through the Distribution Agreement and we are not
aware of any claims or other circumstances that would give rise to
material payments from us under such indemnifications. On May 29,
2015, Harris Inc. acquired Exelis.  As the parent of Exelis,
Harris Inc. is responsible for Exelis's indemnification
obligations under the Distribution Agreement."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Plaintiff Verdict
----------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that an Ohio appellate court has
affirmed a compensatory verdict entered in favor of an asbestos
plaintiff, but reversed a trial court order that granted
Honeywell's directed verdict on punitive damages, opining that
enough evidence had been presented to support a finding that
Bendix "manifested a flagrant disregard of the safety of persons
who might be harmed by the product in question."

In the Ohio Court of Appeals, 8th District, Cuyahoga County,
remanded the case to the trial court to conduct a new trial on
plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Missouri Court Remands Asbestos Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing Reported that a Missouri federal court has
remanded an asbestos action, noting that none of the remaining
defendants in the lawsuit have opposed the plaintiff efforts.

In the May 19 order, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri said that the defendants that had joined in
the removal efforts had since been dismissed from the case.

Plaintiff Sheree Murray filed the complaint, contending that her
husband, Leroy Murray, was exposed to asbestos-containing products
manufactured by the defendants. As a result of the exposure,
Murray developed lung cancer, the plaintiff said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tetney Man Dies of Asbestos-related Cancer
-----------------------------------------------------------
Louth Ledger reported that a coroner has recorded that a Tetney
man died as a result of 'industrial disease', after developing
cancer caused by historic exposure to asbestos in the workplace.

Last May 25, an inquest at Spilsby Coroner's Court heard that
Raymond Pickering Moffatt died at his home on September 8 last
year.

Mr Moffatt, 90, who lived in Tetney Lock, had suffered from
malignant mesothelioma (a form of cancer associated with exposure
to asbestos) in the later years of his life, and had undergone
biopsies and cancer treatment in the months before his death.

Mr Moffatt's daughter, Wendy Fulcher, attended the inquest. She
explained that, following her father's diagnosis, he mentioned to
her that he had been exposed to asbestos in the workplace while
employed by the Bahrain Petroleum Company as a maintenance
engineer between 1946 and 1966.

This information about Mr Moffatt's employment history had not
previously been formally recorded, and Ms Fulcher repeated the
statement under oath at the request of the assistant Coroner for
Central Lincolnshire, Richard Marshall.

The Coroner noted that Mr Moffatt had received a letter from the
Department for Work and Pensions in July 2015, in which they had
accepted an industrial injuries claim that had been submitted by
Mr Moffatt in relation to his illness.

Recording a verdict of industrial disease, the coroner noted that
Mr Moffatt had lived a long life despite his illness, and offered
his condolences to the family.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mystery Surrounds Asbestos Death of Pensioner
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kathie Griffiths, writing for Telegraph & Argus, reported that
mystery surrounds the death of a 71-year-old retired cleaner who
had never knowingly come into contact with asbestos, but died from
a cancer usually caused by the deadly mineral.

Pauline Verity of Bradford Road, Keighley, worked at a butcher's
making sausages, then at Bingley's Andertons Engineering making
fastening clips before spending more than 20 years at Morton Close
Nursing Home in Crossflatts. The final two years of her working
life were as a cleaner at Trinity All Saints in Bingley.

Assistant Bradford coroner Mary Burke recorded an open conclusion
into Mrs Verity's death because there was no proof the divorcee
had ever been exposed to levels of asbestos which could have
caused her mesothelioma.

The inquest heard how, after Mrs Verity's diagnosis in 2012, she
told her lifetime partner, Margaret Randall, and medical experts
she could not recall coming into contact with asbestos.

"It's correct to say an individual may not have known there had
been exposure to asbestos but they may have previously not been
aware of all the circumstances. It's a condition which can be
triggered decades after such exposure," said Ms Burke.

"When she [Mrs Verity] was diagnosed she was asked if she was
aware of any exposure but couldn't recall any. It doesn't mean she
had not been exposed to asbestos. There is recognised in medical
literature a view that there is a small percentage of cases that
may be naturally occurring. That may be the case for Mrs Verity
but I can't be sure so I'm recording an open conclusion into her
death."

Mrs Verity, whose son and granddaughter were with her when she
died at home on May 23, had seen her GP about shortness of breath.

Until falling ill she had been fit enough to walk her dogs for
hours, the inquest was told, but doctors had told her after the
diagnosis that it was unlikely she would reach her 70th birthday.

Ms Burke said in the vast majority of mesothelioma cases, asbestos
exposure was the only known cause of the terminal condition and it
usually affected people who worked with the substance many years
before its dangers were known.

Mrs Verity had three bouts of chemotherapy but had got to the
stage when she did not want more treatment, the inquest was also
told.

Mesothelioma is a type of cancer that develops mainly in the
lining of the lungs. More than 2,600 people are diagnosed with the
condition each year in the UK, with most cases diagnosed in people
aged 60 to 80.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Discovered at McLachlan Park
------------------------------------------------------
Jarrard Potter, writing for The Daily Examiner, reported that work
has resumed at McLachlan Park after it was halted when asbestos
was found in soil being excavated at the site.

Clarence Valley Council works and civil director Troy Anderson
said contractors using excavators uncovered a section of broken
water pipe, which contained asbestos, in existing soil last
Wednesday.

"We stopped work and put measures in place to make sure none of
the asbestos could become airborne," he said.

"This included wetting the site and covering the stockpile."

Mr Anderson said the Environmental Protection Authority has been
notified and an asbestos control plan has been approved by the
EPA.

"We will follow that control plan and the removal of the asbestos-
containing material should be routine," he said.

Mr Anderson said asbestos-contaminated spoil from the site would
be taken to a designated asbestos control point at the regional
landfill.

"I commend the contractors and everyone involved for the measured
and responsible way this has been handled," he said.

"Our number one priority has been public safety, and that has been
achieved."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Dockyard Workers at Center of Legal Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joanne McCarthy, writing for Newcastle Herald, reported that
Newcastle Dockyard and asbestos manufacturer James Hardie knew
from 1962 that thousands of dockyard workers risked early death
from asbestosis, mesothelioma and lung cancer.

Now the State of NSW, on behalf of the Dockyard, and Amaca Pty
Ltd, on behalf of James Hardie, are arguing their share of
responsibility for compensation, in a NSW Dust Diseases Tribunal
case involving eight former Newcastle Dockyard workers.

Judge William Kearns slammed James Hardie for "decades of silence"
that left thousands of Newcastle Dockyard workers "the most
vulnerable" and "most uninformed of all people dealing with"
asbestos products needed for ship building.

He found Newcastle Dockyard and its owner, the State of NSW, knew
the dangers of asbestos in 1962 because of a Dockyard asbestos
case in the Industrial Relations Commission.

History: The State Dockyard at Newcastle where thousands of
workers were exposed to the risks of asbestos-related conditions
until asbestos was phased out by 1977.

In a decision on May 20 Judge Kearns found the State responsible
for the lion's share of compensation that has already been paid to
the eight workers, at an average of $400,000 to each worker, with
Amaca responsible for up to 40 per cent of compensation in the
case of one worker.

A number of the eight workers have already died.

But any court case is too late for Mariea Foxford, of Merewether,
whose husband John died of mesothelioma in 2007 after making a
statement tendered in the case of the eight Dockyard workers, but
before he could seek compensation following his years as a
Newcastle Dockyard purchasing officer.

"He was too sick, too quickly, to claim, and it was too much for
me at the time to even think about a solicitor," Mrs Foxford said.

"It was terrible. It's a terrible way to die. He would have been
here for probably another 20 years if he didn't get mesothelioma,
because he was always fit as a fiddle. The doctor told him he had
it and he sort of fell to pieces."

For Ken Searle, of Tighes Hill, who gave evidence in the case, the
legacy of years at the Dockyard from 1973 is pleural plaque -- a
marker of past asbestos exposure -- and the on-going threat of a
more serious asbestos-related condition.

"I remember being told by a foreman that 'Asbestos won't hurt you.
There's nothing wrong with it'," Mr Searle said.

"He was diagnosed with mesothelioma and bang, he was dead.

"There was no concern about the asbestos when I started. The dust
would fly up in the air and they'd use a broom to just push it
about."

A doctor's confirmation that he had pleural plaque was a shock,
but "I figure if I don't die from that I'll go from something
else, won't I?"

He knew a lot of former Dockyard workers who "don't go to the
doctor because they don't want to know they've got it".

Mr Searle, 69, was a friend of the late Kevin Allars, the lead
plaintiff in the case of the eight workers.

"He was about eight years younger than me. He was a fit bloke and
a surfer. He came out of the surf one day saying he couldn't
breathe. A doctor told him to go home and get his affairs in order
because he only had two months to live. We buried him a few months
later," Mr Searle said.

In a speech in 2013 Judge Kearns said more than 200 people who
sought compensation under a NSW Dust Diseases Tribunal process
from 2005 were dead before their matters were completed.

Newcastle lawyer Gerard McMahon, from Turner Freeman, has handled
up to 30 asbestos cases a year for the past 16 years, including
many former Dockyard cases.

He represented Mr Allars and two of the other eight Dockyard
workers in the case before Judge Kearns, that returns to the
tribunal next week. Two of the three men are dead.

He said the case was "a positive thing" because it might give some
guidance in future cases where the State of NSW, companies like
Amaca and other defendants argue their share of responsibility in
compensation cases.

While there had been hundreds of Newcastle Dockyard cases, the
numbers were declining because of the time since asbestos was
phased out, between 1975 and 1977.

The number of "third wave" cases -- where people including the
children of workers developed asbestos-related conditions -- had
increased over the past 15 years, he said.

The general building industry was "probably the biggest killer"
when it came to asbestos deaths, Mr McMahon said.

Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australian president Barry Robson
said James Hardie "demonstrates a corporate mindset that continues
to see victims as a liability, rather than people".

"I still get calls from workers that they've just been diagnosed,"
he said.

About 700 Australians each year die of mesothelioma. They die, on
average, about 155 days after they're diagnosed, Mr Robson said.

"Asbestos-related conditions are a bigger killer than the road
toll but you don't hear enough about it, because it's not a sexy
disease."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Dumpster Left in Detroit Neighborhood
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Spencer, writing for Fox2Detroit.com, reported that a
neighborhood on Detroit's east side is concerned after a dumpster
marked with asbestos warnings was left in the middle of their
street.

"It actually says danger, tight on the front," Negus Vu says in a
video he took when New Era Detroit discovered the dumpster. You
can watch parts of that video in the report in the video player
above from FOX 2's Dave Spencer.

In homes built prior to 1970, asbestos was a common fire retardant
but it was banned in 1977 for its link to lung cancer -- which is
why this warning label was taken seriously.

"When we had to read it and look we said, 'Wow, it's kind of too
late now. We don't have any protective gear. We are just walking
down the street,'" Vu says.

Photo Asbestos dumpster left in Detroit neighborhood for weeks
FOX 2 learned the dumpster was put there by a city contractor
weeks ago.That's when this neighbor was put on notice.

"They put little things on the door; it didn't say anything about
asbestos, though. It just says close your windows, your doors and
keep your pets in. Stuff like that," one homeowner in the area
told Spencer.

The house that was there at 5151 Burns is nothing more than a
vacant lot now. It was knocked down, according to the city, on May
12. But before they did any demolition, they moved that dumpster
into place as a way to keep people safe.

Brian Farkas, the director of special projects for the Detroit
Building Authority, issued this statement on the dumpster:

"In instances where the presence of asbestos is determined, highly
trained workers go into the house prior to it being knocked down
to remove the asbestos and place it into a specialized and sealed
container to protect neighbors from any exposure."

But if the house was removed on May 12, why was this contaminated
container still in place weeks later? In fact, if the New Era
Detroit march seen in video hadn't happened, would it still be
there?

"Fortunately we were there to see this and film it and put it out
there on social media, which brought light to the situation," says
Vu.

FOX 2 to call the city, and the following day the dumpster was
taken away, according to the city.

"The sealed dumpster should have been removed by the contractor
more quickly than it was. Once we became aware of the issue, the
dumpster was removed the next day," Farkas said.

"That's not the only time that we seen something like that. But
it's the first time that the video has got out," Vu says.

The city says this is an effort to keep the public safe and they
encourage people to make sure that's exactly whats happening.

"Anytime a neighbor has any questions or concerns about one of our
demolition projects, we encourage them to call 844-DET-DEMO right
away," Farkas says.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Westmont Hilltop High School
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fox8TV.com reported that construction workers for the Westmont
Hilltop High School say they found asbestos in the basement of the
building.

The Johnstown Tribune Democrat reports plumbing contractors
spotted what they are calling suspect material on the ground while
installing sanitary sewer lines. A follow up report confirmed the
material is asbestos containing insulation. This despite two
hazardous material studies done before renovations began earlier
this year. Contractors say taking care of the asbestos will mean
about a 40 thousand dollar cost to the District.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Ruling Defines Suppliers Duty to Warn
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Sellers, writing for Bloomberg News, reported that a raw
asbestos supplier breached its duty to warn a distributor about
the dangers of its product under a "sophisticated intermediary"
doctrine adopted by the California Supreme Court May 23 ( Webb v.
Special Elec. Co., Inc., 2016 BL 163642, Cal., No. S209927,
5/23/16 ).

Special Electric Co. failed to warn Johns-Manville Corp. about the
highly toxic nature of the raw crocidolite asbestos it sold in the
1970s, and couldn't reasonably expect that company to warn
downstream users of the dangers, the court said.

The ruling upheld a court of appeals decision that Special
Electric was wrongly granted a judgment in its favor for the
exposures of William Webb, who handled asbestos-containing pipe in
the 1970s and developed mesothelioma in 2011.

Under the doctrine announced by the court, a supplier of toxic raw
materials may discharge its duty to warn if it knows a
sophisticated user is aware or should be aware of the product's
dangers, and it "reasonably relies on the purchaser to convey
appropriate warnings to downstream users who will encounter the
product."

Here, that standard wasn't met because evidence showed Johns-
Manville was generally aware of asbestos dangers, but "no evidence
established it knew about the particularly acute risks posed by
the crocidolite asbestos Special Electric supplied," the court
said.

Chief Justice Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye, joined by Justice Ming W.
Chin, concurred in the judgment but said rule adopted by the
majority was too broad.

A supplier should, at the least, know a buyer is actually aware of
a product's dangers to establish reasonable reliance on the
purchaser to warn users, Cantil-Sakauye argued.

Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan wrote the opinion, joined by
Associate Justices Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, Goodwin Liu, Mariano-
Florentino Cu‚llar and Leondra R. Kruger.

Chief Justice Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye concurred in the judgment,
joined by Associate Justice Ming W. Chin.

The law offices of Ted W. Pelletier, as well as Paul & Hanley
represented William W. Webb and Jacqueline Webb.

Hugo & Parker, as well as Horvitz Levy represented Special
Electric Co.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Suing Americon Says Exposure Led to Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Abella, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reported
that a widow is suing Ameron International Corp., Armstrong
International, Inc., Aurora Pump Co. and multiple other companies,
alleging negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation and other counts
in connection with asbestos exposure.

Jody Shaffer, individually and as special administrator of the
estate of Charles Shaffer, deceased, filed a complaint on May 3 in
St. Clair County Circuit Court against the defendants, alleging
that they failed to exercise ordinary care and caution for the
safety of decedent.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that decedent
Charles Shaffer was exposed to and inhaled asbestos fibers,
causing him to develop lung cancer, which ultimately led to his
death on June 8, 2014. The plaintiff holds the defendants
responsible because they allegedly included asbestos fibers in
their products when defendants knew or should have known that said
asbestos fibers are toxic and poisonous, failed to provide
adequate instructions and warnings, and failed to conduct tests on
the asbestos containing products manufactured.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment in her
favor in a sum in excess of $50,000, punitive damages and such
other relief that the court may deem appropriate. She is
represented by Randy L. Gori and Barry Julian of Gori, Julian &
Associates PC in Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 16L244


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit vs. Air Liquid Blames Death on Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Abella, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reported
that an estate special administrator is suing Air Liquid Systems
Corporation, Aldrich Company, Arvinmeritor, Inc., Aurora Pump
Company, and many other companies, citing alleged failure to warn,
negligence and insufficient measures taken to prevent injuries, in
connection with asbestos exposure.

Jo Michele Grondy, individually and as special administrator of
the estate of Thomas H. Wyllie, deceased ,filed a complaint on May
10 in St. Clair County Circuit Court against the defendants,
alleging that they allegedly failed to exercise ordinary care and
caution for safety.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that on June 27,
2014, the plaintiff and decedent first became aware that decedent
had developed mesothelioma, which was wrongfully caused by
exposure to and inhalation of asbestos fibers. The decedent died
of mesothelioma on Oct. 15, 2014, the suit says. The plaintiff
holds the defendants responsible because they allegedly included
asbestos fibers in their products when they knew or should have
known that said asbestos fibers are toxic and poisonous, failed to
provide adequate instructions and warnings, and other allegations.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment against
the defendants in an amount to exceed $50,000, punitive damages
and for such other and further relief as the court may deem
appropriate. She is represented by Ethan A. Flint of Flint Law
Firm LLC in Glen Carbon.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 16L254


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Probe Into Wife's Asbestos-related Death
---------------------------------------------------------
Christine Sexton, writing for Basildon Canvey Southend Echo,
reported that a grieving husband has appointed lawyers to find out
how his wife died of cancer caused by exposure to deadly asbestos.

Paul Anthony, from Benfleet, has instructed expert asbestos-
related disease lawyers at Irwin Mitchell to find out how his
beloved 58-year-old wife Tracey came in contact with deadly
asbestos which caused her terminal cancer, mesothelioma.

Mrs Anthony died just weeks after her diagnosis is appealing for
her former colleagues to come forward to help with an
investigation into her exposure to the deadly substance years ago.

Mrs Anthony was diagnosed with mesothelioma on July 2, 2015 and
died just seven weeks later on August 22. The disease only
develops decades after exposure to asbestos, usually through
working in close proximity to the substance when it is disturbed.

Mr Anthony, 54, said: "Tracey's death was all so sudden. One month
she had her diagnosis and the next she was gone.

"I know nothing can bring her back to me, but I just need to know
how she came in to contact with asbestos."

Mrs Anthony -- then Tracey McLaughlin -- left school in 1973 and
went on to work for many firms in and around south Essex.

Specialist asbestos lawyers at Irwin Mitchell are keen to hear
from anyone who worked with her at any point during her career.

Ian Bailey, an expert asbestos-related disease lawyer at Irwin
Mitchell, representing Paul, said: "We see first-hand the terrible
consequences that asbestos exposure can have on so many lives, not
just victims affected by mesothelioma but also their loved ones.

"Paul has been left devastated by Tracey's sudden death and is
understandably desperate for answers.

"We would be keen to hear from anyone who worked with her across
her roles in Purfleet, London, Southend and Benfleet.

"Any information could prove vital in helping Paul get the answers
he deserves."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Refines Parameters of Mine Cleanup Area
------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Franz, writing for Flathead Beacon, reported that the EPA
recently expanded the boundaries of OU3, an area that includes the
former W.R. Grace and Co. mine site and the surrounding forest.
The entrance station to the former mine, pictured on June 1, 2015.

The Environmental Protection Agency has expanded the parameters of
the cleanup area around the former asbestos mine near Libby that
was the epicenter of one of the biggest Superfund projects in
American history.

Project Manager Christina Progress said the EPA has expanded the
boundaries of Operable Unit 3 -- the administrative area that
includes the shuttered W.R. Grace & Co. mine north of Libby --
from 35,000 acres to 47,000 acres. Progress said the change came
after the EPA conducted additional dust and bark sampling last
year in the Rainy Creek Drainage.

While the Superfund cleanup in Libby and Troy is winding down,
cleanup efforts are just beginning around the shuttered
vermiculate mine just north of Libby. Since it closed, thousands
of people have been sickened and hundreds of died because of
prolonged exposure to the asbestos laden vermiculate produced in
Lincoln County until 1990.

Last year, the EPA and other local agencies tested dirt and bark
around the mine to see how much asbestos it contained. They also
conducted a small controlled burn to see what type of toxins would
be released into the air in the event of a wildfire near the old
mine. The testing showed that there is more hazardous material
than previously believed northeast of the mine site. Progress said
more testing is planned for this summer.

"That boundary could move as additional data comes in this
summer," she said.

W.R. Grace is currently working with the EPA on preparing two
separate feasibility studies that will look at how OU3 should be
cleaned up. One study will focus on the forested area around the
mine and the other will include the mine site and nearby rivers.
Progress said officials wanted to do a feasibility study on the
forested area sooner because of the concern about wildfires.
Officials hope to finish both studies in late-2016 or 2017. Once
those studies are completed, the EPA will put together a proposed
cleanup plan and then issue a record of decision.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Sophisticated Intermediary" Defense Adopted
-------------------------------------------------------------
Don Willenburg, Esq. -- dwillenburg@gordonrees.com -- Gordon &
Rees LLP, in an article for Lexology.com, wrote that on May 24 the
California Supreme Court formally adopted the "sophisticated
intermediary" defense for product suppliers. The court
significantly restricted applicability of the defense, however,
and ruled that there was insufficient evidence in this case that
Johns-Manville qualified as such an intermediary.

Webb v. Special Electric Co., Inc. articulated the defense as
follows: "a [product] supplier may discharge its duty to warn end
users about known or knowable risks in the use of its product if
it: (1) provides adequate warnings to the product's immediate
purchaser, or sells to a sophisticated purchaser that it knows is
aware or should be aware of the specific danger, and (2)
reasonably relies on the purchaser to convey appropriate warnings
to downstream users who will encounter the product."

Perhaps the most significant hurdle to use of the defense in the
future is the requirement that "a product supplier must show not
only that it warned or sold to a knowledgeable intermediary, but
also that it actually and reasonably relied on the intermediary to
convey warnings to end users."

The challenge posed by that requirement was exemplified here,
where the Supreme Court ruled that Special Electric, a 2-person
broker of raw crocidolite asbestos, had a duty to warn asbestos
behemoth Johns-Manville and the downstream users of Johns-Manville
products that incorporated Special Electric-brokered raw material.
In part, this reflected a welcome understanding about the
divergent toxicities of the different minerals classified together
as asbestos. "Although the record clearly shows Johns-Manville was
aware of the risks of asbestos in general, no evidence established
it knew about the particularly acute risks posed by the
crocidolite asbestos Special Electric supplied."

Webb identified four other reasons why the evidence did not
justify the trial court's decision to grant a defense JNOV in the
face of a jury verdict finding negligence.

   1. "The evidence is disputed about whether Special Electric
consistently provided warnings to Johns-Manville during the
relevant time frame." Note that it is not just "warnings," but
"consistent warnings."

   2. "[P]laintiffs presented evidence that at least one Special
Electric salesperson told customers crocidolite was safer than
other types of asbestos fiber, when the opposite was true. If the
jury credited this evidence, it may have found it unreasonable for
Special Electric to believe Johns-Manville was so sophisticated
that a warning about the particular dangers of crocidolite
asbestos was not called for."

    3. Further, "the record does not establish as a matter of law
that Special Electric actually and reasonably relied on Johns-
Manville to warn end users like William Webb about the dangers of
asbestos. We recognize that direct proof of actual reliance may be
difficult to obtain when, as in the case of latent disease, the
material was supplied to an intermediary long ago. However, actual
reliance is an inference the factfinder should be able to draw
from circumstantial evidence about the parties' dealings."

    4. "[T]he jury could have reasonably determined that any
reliance on Johns-Manville would have been unjustified. Plaintiffs
presented testimony from a former Johns-Manville employee
criticizing the company's handling of asbestos warnings and
asserting it had failed to warn its own workers about the hazards
of asbestos before the mid-1970s."

While this evidence may be slim, it was enough to support the
jury's finding of negligence and thus to overrule the trial
court's grant of JNOV to the defense. The evidence in the case may
also have been sufficient to support a jury finding that Special
Electric was entitled to rely on the sophisticated intermediary
defense, but the issue was presented only to the court and not to
the jury.

Webb overruled an earlier Court of Appeal decision that had
rejected the sophisticated intermediary defense on the rationale
that "that doctrine, where it applies at all, applies only if a
manufacturer provided adequate warnings to the intermediary." Webb
ruled that "[t]his assertion cannot be reconciled with our
analysis in Johnson [v. American Standard, the key California
"sophisticated user" decision]. . . .Insofar as it expresses a
different view,Stewart v. Union Carbide Corp. . . . is
disapproved." So in at least some cases a defendant that provides
no warnings can rely on the sophisticated intermediary defense.

A footnote that is off the main point is nevertheless a troubling
sign for product liability defendants, because it appears to allow
very speculative evidence about whether a plaintiff ever
encountered a defendant's product. "Plaintiffs introduced evidence
that Webb was exposed to dust from Johns-Manville products
containing trace amounts of crocidolite at roughly the same time
Special Electric was supplying crocidolite asbestos to Johns-
Manville. While evidence of the link could be stronger, it is
nonetheless sufficient for the jury to have found that Special
Electric's asbestos was a substantial factor in causing Webb's
mesothelioma." "[E]vidence of the link could be stronger" is an
understatement. This footnote portends both an easier path for
plaintiffs to "prove" exposure, and a court not willing to put
much "substantial" in "substantial factor."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford's Jurisdiction Appeal Goes to 5th Dist.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Maher, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reported that the
Fifth District Appellate Court has been ordered to hear Ford Motor
Co.'s appeal on whether Madison County has personal jurisdiction
over the Michigan-based auto maker in an asbestos case brought by
Florida plaintiffs.

The Illinois Supreme Court issued a supervisory order directing
the lower court to hear the appeal in the case of Dale and Irene
Jeffs who sued last year on mesothelioma claims. Dale Jeffs, now
deceased, had worked as an insulator for various contractors at
various sites from 1968-1995, including time at Ford's plant in
Michigan.

The plaintiffs are represented by the Maune firm in St. Louis.

Ford, represented by attorneys at the Greensfelder firm in
Belleville, moved to dismiss last June, arguing that there is no
alleged Illinois exposure occurring during Jeffs' time working for
Ford.

Associate Judge Stephen Stobbs denied Ford's motion last November,
relying on a statement made by the company to the Illinois Supreme
Court expressing its substantial contacts with the state.

Ford sought leave to appeal Stobbs' decision, but a three member
panel of Justices -- Melissa Chapman, Bruce Stewart and Judy Cates
-- denied Ford's petition on Feb. 10.

The case will now return to the Fifth District for arguments.

Background

In Stobbs' order denying Ford's personal jurisdiction motion to
dismiss, he noted a Supreme Court brief filed in Folta v. Ferro
Engineering, which stated:

"Ford is one of the world's leading automotive manufacturers. Ford
manufactures and assembles automobiles across six continents and
provides related products and services. Ford conducts substantial
business in Illinois and operates as assembly plant in Chicago
that manufactures several vehicles, including the Taurus, MKS,
Police Interceptor, and Explorer. Ford employs over 4,000 people
at the Chicago Assembly Plant. In the past five years, Ford has
invested over half a billion dollars in its business operations in
Illinois."

Stobbs concluded that Ford "has availed itself of the protection
of the Illinois Courts and the benefits of Illinois law and by its
own admission conducts substantial, not de minimus, business in
Illinois.

"Ford's contacts with the State of Illinois are substantial,
therefore significantly more than the minimum contacts required by
federal due process standards."

Ford cited a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Daimler case,
arguing that there is no basis to exercise general personal
jurisdiction in Illinois for the case at hand.

In Daimler, the court held that "'a court may assert jurisdiction
over a foreign corporation to hear any and all claims against [it]
only when the corporation's affiliations with the State in which
suit is brought are so constant and pervasive as to render [it]
essentially 'at home' in that forum State.'"

Ford's principal place of business is in Michigan and its state of
incorporation is Delaware.

Ford also argued that the plaintiff's reliance on personal
jurisdiction by consent, pursuant to the Illinois Business
Corporation Act, is misplaced.

Stobbs was unconvinced.

He held that while Ford's corporate offices are in Michigan, it
has a certificate of authority to conduct business in Illinois,
owns property in Illinois, has authorized dealers in Illinois,
employs people in Illinois and maintains a registered agent to
accept service of process in Illinois.

He wrote that Ford voluntarily conducts regular business in
Illinois and has done so since 1922. The defendant has also
litigated numerous cases in this state, including other asbestos
cases in Madison County, without objecting to personal
jurisdiction.

"Considering all the factors, the Court finds that Plaintiff has
met her burden of establishing jurisdiction over this Defendant
and that the exercise of jurisdiction, in this case, is not
inconsistent with notions of fair play and substantial justice,
the fundamental consideration in finding constitutional
jurisdiction," Stobbs concluded.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 15-L-533


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oregon Jury Sets Record with $8.75MM Award
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bergman Draper Ladenburg on May 26 announced a landmark verdict in
a lawsuit brought on behalf of David and Patricia Hoff of
Beaverton, Oregon. Mr. Hoff was exposed to a deadly carcinogen in
the 1970s when his work as a carpenter brought him into contact
with asbestos-containing drywall joint cement during commercial
construction projects.

In August 2015, three years after his retirement, Mr. Hoff was
diagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the lung.
Mesothelioma does not present until decades after initial
exposure. The disease is caused by breathing microscopic asbestos
fibers and even short exposures can cause cancer many years later.
Mesothelioma is not curable and, despite aggressive treatment, Mr.
Hoff was too ill to testify at trial.

The jury found Kaiser Gypsum, the manufacturer of the joint
cement, negligent in failing to warn workers about the dangers of
asbestos used in their products. The jury also found Kaiser Gypsum
strictly liable for the sale of a defective, unreasonably
dangerous product. Three other companies involved with similar
products reached out of court settlements before the case was
submitted to the jury for deliberation.

Bergman Draper Ladenburg's trial team of Brian Ladenburg, Craig
Sims and Kaitlin Wright began working with the Hoffs during the
fall of 2015 and noted the decision to go to trial reflected a
tremendous commitment by the Hoff family. "The Hoffs wanted to
ensure that companies realize they will be held accountable for
exposing workers to toxic substances that cause cancer," explained
Craig Sims. "The jury reinforced this message, but nothing can
make up for the negligent disregard for the lives of workers who
used their products."

Kaiser Gypsum manufactured asbestos-containing joint cement in
their plant in Seattle, Washington. These products were banned by
the Consumer Products Safety Commission in 1978 because of the
health risks of high asbestos fiber release during their use.
Evidence was presented at trial, however, showing that the company
knew about the risks associated with asbestos at least a decade
earlier. Internal Kaiser documents indicated that Kaiser was aware
of the link between asbestos and mesothelioma as early as 1965,
yet Kaiser never included the link to cancer on any warnings on
its products and continued to sell them without a cancer warning
until 1978.

Brian Ladenburg explained the critical importance of maintaining
accountability of exposing workers to asbestos when such exposures
were known to cause cancer, even though the exposures took place
decades ago. New cases of mesothelioma are diagnosed at a rate of
2,500-3,000 per year, almost all associated with past asbestos
exposure.

The victory was the result of a strong collaborative effort by the
Bergman Draper Ladenburg trial team. Ladenburg and Sims tried the
case with Bergman Draper Ladenburg attorney Kaitlin Wright over
the course of three-and-a-half weeks before the Hon. Judith A.
Matarazzo of the Multnomah County Circuit Court. All three
attorneys played critical roles during a lengthy and challenging
trial.

About Bergman Draper Ladenburg

Bergman Draper Ladenburg (www.bergmanlegal.com) is a Pacific
Northwest law firm with offices in Seattle and Portland that
focuses on representing individuals and families who have been
harmed by powerful interests. For more than 18 years it has
protected the interests of asbestos victims in proceedings
involving some of the largest manufacturers of asbestos products.
The firm focuses on zealously advocating on behalf of cancer
victims who were exposed to asbestos.

Firm founder Matthew Bergman was a top negotiator for two
groundbreaking settlements: a nationwide $5.1 billion settlement
with Owens Corning, of which $61 million was set aside for Puget
Sound-area claimants; and a $4.3 billion settlement with
Halliburton, which allotted $30 million for asbestos claimants in
the region. For individual clients the firm has collected over
$630 million in settlements and verdicts. Bergman Draper Ladenburg
attorneys speak at national and international conferences and
industry engagements on all areas of asbestos law.

Contacts
Bergman Draper Ladenburg
Matthew Bergman, 206-957-9510
matt@bergmanlegal.com
or
GreatWork Strategic Communications
Diane Aboulafia, 206-232-5160
diane@greatworkcommunications.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. High Court Rules for Exposed Worker
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eric Needs, writing for Legal Reader, reported that the California
State Supreme Court rules for worker exposed to asbestos,
reinstating a multimillion-dollar jury verdict for the family of a
worker who inhaled asbestos dust from his job and later died of
lung cancer. The ruling provided some legal protection, but not in
this case, to suppliers of dangerous products who rely on
manufacturers to warn consumers.

From 1969 to 1979 William B. Webb worked as a warehouseman and
truck driver for a company in Los Angeles County that shipped
cement piping containers of crocidolite, the most dangerous form
of asbestos. Around 10 times per year he delivered pipes where he
inhaled dusty reside with no warning of the hazards. In 2011 Webb
was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a fatal lung cancer caused by
asbestos, and died after he and his wife filed suit.

The defendants include Special Electric Co., which supplied the
asbestos without a warning label, and the pipe manufacturers, the
now-bankrupt Johns-Manville Corp., which only until the 1980s were
warnings were included, according to the court testimony.

A jury found both companies at fault, awarding Webb's family $5
million in damages, however the trial judge overturned the verdict
a against Special Electric, saying the supplier had no duty to
warn users like Webb because it should have been able to rely on
Johns-Manville to recognize the dangers and provide the warnings.
The state's high court unanimously disagreed.

The court said suppliers of dangerous but legal products must
provide warnings to workers and consumers who may be exposed to
the dangers. The warnings are not required, but when someone else
in the chain of distribution is aware of the dangers and is
reasonably trusted by the supplier to provide the warnings, said
the court.

But in this case, while Johns-Manville knew of the risks posed by
asbestos, there was no evidence that the manufacturer knew the
crocidolite from Special Electric was seven times more likely as
other forms of asbestos to cause cancer, said the court. It also
said at least one sales representative from Special Electric told
customers that crocidolite was safer than other forms of asbestos.

"The record does not establish . . . that Special Electric
actually and reasonably relied on Johns-Manville to warn end-users
like William Webb about the dangers of asbestos," Justice Carol
Corrigan said in the ruling reinstating the jury verdict.

Ted Pelletier, who represented Webb's family, said the ruling is a
victory for "victims everywhere of hazardous products at the hands
of manufacturers and suppliers" and provides "a very limited
exception" for some suppliers.

James Parker, the lawyer for Special Electric, said the company is
disappointed by the outcome, butt the court recognizes the
suppliers of dangerous products can avoid liability when they can
prove the manufacturers "are sophisticated and know of the
dangers."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 14 Cos. Remain Defendants in "Arbogast"
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge James K. Bredar of the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland granted partial summary judgment to the
defendants in the case captioned CHARLES LEMUEL ARBOGAST, JR., et
al., Plaintiffs. v. A.W. CHESTERTON CO. et al., Defendants, Civil
No. JKB-14-4049 (D. Md.).

Plaintiffs, who are husband and wife Charles Lemuel Arbogast, Jr.,
and Barbara Arbogast, sued 27 defendants -- of whom twenty-four
remain in the case -- and alleged they, as manufacturers and/or
distributors of various products, caused Charles Arbogast to be
exposed to asbestos, which led to his diagnosis of mesothelioma.
The complaint contains four counts, including Count I (strict
liability), Count II (negligence), Count III (aiding and abetting
and conspiracy), and Count IV (loss of consortium). Plaintiffs
demand compensatory damages in excess of $75,000.

Various motions are pending that, if granted, will streamline the
case considerably. Plaintiffs have stated they do not oppose the
motions, or parts thereof, that are subject of this memorandum. In
addition, Plaintiffs have not offered any evidence of aiding and
abetting and conspiracy in opposition to any motion for summary
judgment. The Court infers, then, that Plaintiffs are not pursuing
those claims against any Defendant and will grant partial judgment
on that basis. If Plaintiffs believe the Court's view as to their
aiding and abetting and conspiracy claims is in error, then they
may file a motion with supporting evidence asking for a revision
of this ruling.

As a result of the various rulings made today, the following
Defendants remain in the case: CBS Corporation of Delaware; Crane
Company; Eaton Corporation; Foster Wheeler, LLC; Foster Wheeler
Energy Corporation; General Electric Company; Georgia-Pacific,
LLC; Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company; MCIC, Inc.; Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company; Schneider Electric USA, Inc.; Sepco Corporation
(but subject to automatic bankruptcy stay); Union Carbide
Corporation; and Uniroyal Holding, Inc.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum dated May 5, 2016 is available
at https://is.gd/rN4Irl from Leagle.com.

Charles Lemuel Arbogast, Jr., Plaintiff, is represented by David M
Layton, Esq. -- Ashcraft and Gerel LLP, John Eugene Herrick, Esq.
-- jherrick@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC & John E Guerry,
III, Esq. -- jguerry@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC.

Barbara Arbogast, Plaintiff, is represented by David M Layton,
Ashcraft and Gerel LLP, John Eugene Herrick, Motley Rice LLC &
John E Guerry, III, Motley Rice LLC.

CBS Corporation of Delaware, Defendant, is represented by Clare
Marie Maisano, Esq.-- cmmaisano@ewhlaw.com -- Evert Weathersby
Houff.

Crane Co., Defendant, is represented by Neil Joseph MacDonald,
Esq. -- nmacdonald@macdonaldlawgroup.com -- MacDonald Law Group,
LLC, David A Fusco, Esq. -- david.fusco@klgates.com -- K and L
Gates LLP, James B Insco, II, Esq. -- james.insco@klgates.com -- K
and L Gates LLP, pro hac vice, Michael J Sechler, Esq. --
michael.sechler@klgates.com -- K and L Gates LLP & Thomas E
Birsic, Esq. -- thomas.birsic@klgates.com -- K and L Gates LLP.
Eaton Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Michelle Noorani,
Esq. -- mnoorani@wtplaw.com -- Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP &
Warren N Weaver, Esq. -- wweaver@wtplaw.com -- Whiteford Taylor
and Preston LLP.

Foster Wheeler, LLC., Defendant, is represented by R Thomas
Radcliffe, Jr., Esq. -- tradcliffe@dehay.com -- Dehay and Elliston
LLP & Patrick C Smith, Esq. -- psmith@dehay.com -- Dehay and
Elliston LLP.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by R
Thomas Radcliffe, Jr., Dehay and Elliston LLP & Patrick C Smith,
Dehay and Elliston LLP.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Donald S
Meringer, Meringer Zois and Quigg LLC, David J Quigg, Meringer
Zois and Quigg LLC,Erik D Nadolink, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP,
pro hac vice & David Speziali, Speziali Greenwald and Hawkins PC.
Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Defendant, represented by F Ford Loker, Jr.,
Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Leianne S McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Michael L Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P Harris, Jr.,
Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R Schroll, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Robin Silver, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Cary I schachter,
Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D Cook, Wilcox and Savage & James E
Hooper, Wheeler Trigg Kennedy LLP.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by
Theodore F Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable LLP
& M Elizabeth O Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young LLP,
pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Defendant, represented by Louis E Grenzer, Jr., Bodie,
Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Neil
Joseph MacDonald, MacDonald Law Group, LLC.

Sepco Corporation, Defendant, represented by F Ford Loker, Jr.,
Miles and Stockbridge PC, Laura A Cellucci, Miles and Stockbridge
PC, Leianne S McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Matthew R Schroll,
Miles and Stockbridge PC & Richard M Lee, Selman Breitman LLP, pro
hac vice.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Danielle
Grilli Marcus, Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP.

Goodrich Corporation, Movant, represented by John C Ruff, DeHay
and Elliston LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid for Default Judgment in "Barbarino" Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Peter H. Moulton of the Supreme Court, New York County,
granted the motion for a default judgment on liability in the case
captioned JOAN BARBARINO, individually and as Executrix of the
Estate of ROY BARBARINO, deceased Plaintiff, v. BASF CATALYSTS,
LLC et al., Defendants, Docket No. 190072/14, 2016 NY Slip Op
30840(U)(N.Y.Sup.), and referred the issue of the amount of
damages to a special referee.

Plaintiff, whose deceased husband was employed by the New York
City Transit Authority as a transit bus body mechanic, was
diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2014. Plaintiff moves for a default
judgment against R.C.A. Rubber Company ("RCA") pursuant to CPLR
Section 3215. While plaintiff does not ask for a specific amount
of damages, she attaches a proposed judgment in the amount of
$2,100,000. Alternatively, plaintiff seeks a default on liability
and an inquest on damages.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated May 5, 2016 is available at
https://is.gd/POKB6I from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Strikes Expert Disclosures in "Begin"
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois, struck the
Plaintiff's expert disclosures in the case titled WILLIAM D. BEGIN
and GINNY BEGIN, Plaintiff, v. AIR & LIQUID CORPORATION, CRANE
CO., WARREN PUMPS LLC, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, UNION
CARBIDE CORPORATION, and GOULD PUMPS, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:15-cv-830-SMY-DGW (S.D. Ill.).

As a discovery violation sanction and pursuant to Rule 37(c)(1),
Plaintiffs are not allowed to use expert witnesses Dr. Arnold R.
Brody, Dr. Barry I. Castleman, William Ewing, Dr. Arthur Frank,
Dr. Edwin Holstein, Captain William A. Lowell, Dr. John C. Maddox,
Dr. Eugene J. Mark, Dr. Gerald Markowitz, Dr. Steven Markowitz,
Arnold P. Moore, or Dr. David Rosner to "supply evidence on a
motion, at a hearing, or at trial." Plaintiffs shall proceed in
this matter without expert evidence.

This matter is before the Court on the Discovery Disputes brought
to the Court's attention on April 29, 2016. Defendant Crane Co.
objected to the expert disclosures filed by Plaintiffs on March
18, 2016 (Doc. 337), arguing that they failed to comply with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2). At the April 29, 2016
conference, Plaintiffs raised disputes as to Requests to Produce
and Interrogatories served on October 7, 2015. In particular,
Plaintiffs state that Defendant Crane Co. failed to produce Navy
contracts that may be pertinent to their experts' opinions. In
light of these disputes, this Court held an in person hearing on
May 6, 2016 in which Plaintiffs and Defendants appeared by
counsel.

A full-text copy of the Order dated May 10, 2016 is available at
https://is.gd/AaKOyM from Leagle.com.

William D. Begin, Plaintiff, is represented by Laci Marie Whitley,
Esq. -- lwhitley@toverdict.com -- Flint & Associates, LLC &
Timothy P. Hulla, Esq. -- thulla@toverdict.com -- Flint &
Associates, LLC.

Ginny Begin, Plaintiff, is represented by Laci Marie Whitley,
Flint & Associates, LLC & Timothy P. Hulla, Flint & Associates,
LLC.

Air & Liquid System Corporation, Defendant, is represented by
Keith B. Hill, Esq. -- khill@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et
al., James R. Grabowski, Esq. -- jgrabowski@heylroyster.com --
Heyl, Royster et al. & Michael D. Schag, Esq. --
mschag@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al..
Crane Co., Defendant, is represented by Carl J. Geraci, Esq. --
cgeraci@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC, Jessica Schmit, Esq. -
- jschmit@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC & Benjamin J. Wilson,
Esq. -- bwilson@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC.

Warren Pumps LLC, Defendant, is represented by James R. Grabowski,
Heyl, Royster et al., Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. &
Michael D. Schag, Heyl, Royster et al..

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Jeffrey T.
Bash, Esq. -- J.Bash@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard
& Smith LLP & Justin S. Zimmerman, Esq. --
J.Zimmerman@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith
LLP.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Julia Yasmin
Tayyab, Esq. -- yasmin.tayyab@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis et
al. & Undray Wilks, Esq. -- undray.wilks@morganlewis.com --
Morgan, Lewis et al.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Amtrak's Protectve Order Bid Partially Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in
part and denied in part Amtrak's (National Railroad Passenger
Corporation) motion to compel and denied in substantial part the
Insurers' motions for a protective order in the case captioned
CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS at LLOYD'S, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL
RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, No. 14-CV-4717
(FB)(E.D.N.Y.).

In this declaratory judgment action, plaintiff-insurers seek,
inter alia, a determination as to whether a series of liability
insurance policies, issued to defendant National Railroad
Passenger Corporation ("Amtrak") more than three decades ago,
obligates plaintiff-insurers to reimburse Amtrak for costs
incurred in connection with environmental waste allegedly found on
Amtrak's property.

Currently pending before the Court are certain aspects of Amtrak's
motion to compel discovery, as well as a motion for a protective
order filed by plaintiff-insurers concerning Amtrak's entitlement
to production of reinsurance agreements under Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iv)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP").

A full-text copy of the Memorandum and Order dated May 16, 2016 is
available at https://is.gd/tCJMpf from Leagle.com.

Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, Plaintiff, is represented by Aisha
E. Bembry, Esq. -- aisha.bembry@lewisbaach.com -- Lewis Baach
PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Esq. -- joseph.ruby@lewisbaach.com -- Lewis
Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Esq. --
mark.leimkuhler@lewisbaach.com -- Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,
Martin R. Baach, Esq. -- martin.baach@lewisbaach.com -- Lewis
Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Esq. --
ronald.abramson@lewisbaach.com --  Lewis Baach PLLC.

Accident & Casualty Co., Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E.
Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro
hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,
Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson,
Lewis Baach PLLC.

Accident & Casualty Insurance Company Of Winterthur, Plaintiff,
represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby,
Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Accident & Casualty Insurance Company of Winterthur (No. 2 A/C),
Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC,
Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J.
Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis
Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Accident & Casualty Insurance Company of Winterthur (No. 3 A/C),
Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC,
Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J.
Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis
Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Aegon NV, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach
PLLC,Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J.
Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis
Baach PLLC, pro hac vice &Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

AG De 1830 Compagnie Belge D'Assurances Generales Incendie
Accidents Et Risques Divers SA, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E.
Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro
hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,
Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson,
Lewis Baach PLLC.

American Home Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha
E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro
hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,
Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson,
Lewis Baach PLLC.

Amsterdan -- London Verzekeering Maatschappij NV, Plaintiff,
represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby,
Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Ancon Insurance Company (UK) Limited, Plaintiff, represented by
Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald
Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Argonaut Northwest Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by
Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald
Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Assicurazioni Generali SPA (UK Branch), Plaintiff, represented by
Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald
Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Bishopsgate Insurance Company Limited, Plaintiff, represented by
Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald
Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Britamco Pool, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis
Baach PLLC,Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J.
Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis
Baach PLLC, pro hac vice &Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

CNA Reinsurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E.
Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro
hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,
Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson,
Lewis Baach PLLC.

CNA Reinsurance Company Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha
E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro
hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,
Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson,
Lewis Baach PLLC.

Cornhill Insurance Company Limited, Plaintiff, represented by
Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald
Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Credit De Namur, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis
Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark
J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach,
Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach
PLLC.

Delta-Lloyd Non-Life Insurance Company Limited, Plaintiff,
represented byAisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby,
Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Delta-Lloyd Schadeverzekering NV, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha
E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro
hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,
Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson,
Lewis Baach PLLC.

Stronghold Insurance Company Limited, Plaintiff, represented by
Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC & Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach
PLLC.

The Dominion Insurance Company Limited, Plaintiff, represented by
Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC & Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach
PLLC.

Northwestern National Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by
Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC & Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach
PLLC.

Europeesche Verzekering Maatschappij Nv, Plaintiff, represented by
Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC & Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach
PLLC.

Excess Insurance Company Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha
E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC & Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC.
Helvetia-accident Swiss Insurance Company (As Part of Gibbon "E"
Group), Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach
PLLC & Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Gresham Fire & Accident Insurance Society Limited, Plaintiff,
represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC & Joseph L. Ruby,
Lewis Baach PLLC.

Gresham Insurance Society Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha
E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC & Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC.
Harper Insurance Ltd F/k/a/Turegum Ins Co, Plaintiff, represented
by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald
Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Instituto De Reasseguros Do Brasil (Irg) -- London Branch,
Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC,
Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J.
Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis
Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Interlloyd Verzekering Maastschappij Nv, Plaintiff, represented by
Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald
Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Koning & Boeke Van 1819, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E.
Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro
hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,
Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson,
Lewis Baach PLLC.

La Belgique, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis
Baach PLLC,Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J.
Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis
Baach PLLC, pro hac vice &Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

L'assicurazioni D'Italia, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E.
Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro
hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,
Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson,
Lewis Baach PLLC.

Le Assicurazioni D'Italia Spa, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E.
Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro
hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,
Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson,
Lewis Baach PLLC.

Les Assurances Generales De France, Plaintiff, represented by
Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald
Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Les Proprietaires Reunis S.A. D. Assurances I.A.R.D., Plaintiff,
represented byAisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby,
Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

L'Etoile, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach
PLLC,Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J.
Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis
Baach PLLC, pro hac vice &Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

London & Edinbugh General Insurance Company, Plaintiff,
represented byAisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby,
Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

London and Edinburgh General Insurance Company Limited, Plaintiff,
represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby,
Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Maas Lloyd Nv Schadeverzekeringsmaatschappu, Plaintiff,
represented byAisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby,
Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Mercator Algemene Verzekerings Maatschappu Nv, Plaintiff,
represented byAisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby,
Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

N.V. Rotterdamse Assurantiekas, N.V. Verz Mij De Noodern,
Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC,
Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J.
Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis
Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Namur Assurances du Credit, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E.
Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro
hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,
Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson,
Lewis Baach PLLC.

National Casualty Company, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E.
Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro
hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,
Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson,
Lewis Baach PLLC.

National Casualty Company of America Limited, Plaintiff,
represented byAisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby,
Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Nissan Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by
Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald
Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Noorholland Brandw, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry,
Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,
Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R.
Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis
Baach PLLC.

Norwich Union Fire Insuarnce Socity Limited, Plaintiff,
represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby,
Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Providential Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E.
Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro
hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,
Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson,
Lewis Baach PLLC.

Rheinland Versicherungs Ag, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E.
Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro
hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,
Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson,
Lewis Baach PLLC.

Royal Belge Sa, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis
Baach PLLC,Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J.
Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis
Baach PLLC, pro hac vice &Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Royal Nederland Schadeverzekering Nv, Plaintiff, represented by
Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald
Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Royale Belge Incendie Reassurances SA., Plaintiff, represented by
Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald
Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Simcoe & Erie General Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by
Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald
Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

St Katherine Insurance Company PLC, Plaintiff, represented by
Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald
Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Taisho Marine & Fire Insurance Company Limited, Plaintiff,
represented byAisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby,
Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Terra Nova Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E.
Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro
hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,
Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson,
Lewis Baach PLLC.

The Sumitomo Marine and Fire Insurance Company, Limited,
Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC,
Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J.
Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis
Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Unionamerica Insurance Company Limited, Plaintiff, represented by
Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald
Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Winterthur Swiss Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by
Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald
Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Wurttembergisch Feuerversicherrung AG, Plaintiff, represented by
Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald
Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Yasuda Fire & Marine Insurance Company(UK) Limited, Plaintiff,
represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby,
Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Diligentia, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach
PLLC &Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC.

National RailRoad Passenger Corporation, Defendant, is represented
by Rhonda D. Orin, Esq. -- rorin@andersonkill.com -- Anderson Kill
& Olick LLP, Angela Singleton, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP,
Daniel John Healy, Esq. -- dhealy@andersonkill.com -- Anderson
Kill, LLP & Vivian Costandy Esq. -- vcostandy@andersonkill.com --
Michael, Anderson Kill.

Allianz Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by Anthony R.
Gambardella, Esq. -- anthony.gambardella@rivkin.com --  Rivkin
Radler LLP, Lawrence Adam Levy, Esq. -- lawrence.levy@rivkin.com -
-  Rivkin Radler LLP, Michael A. Kotula, Esq. --
michael.kotula@rivkin.com --  Rivkin Radler LLP & Robert A.
Maloney, Esq. -- robert.maloney@rivkin.com --  Rivkin Radler LLP.

American Home Assurance Company, Defendant, represented by Richard
Bryan, rbryan@jackscamp.com -- Jackson & Campbell, P.C., Steven
Gary Adams, Esq. -- Law Offices of Michael F. Klag, Christopher
Michael Quinlan, Esq. -- cquinlan@jackscamp.com -- Jackson &
Campbell, P.C. & Kristen Vine, Esq. -- kvine@jackscamp.com --
Jackson & Campbell, P.C..

American Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by Anthony
R. Gambardella, Rivkin Radler LLP, Lawrence Adam Levy, Rivkin
Radler LLP,Michael A. Kotula, Rivkin Radler LLP & Robert A.
Maloney, Rivkin Radler LLP.

Munich Reinsurance America, Inc., formerly known as American
Reinsurance Company, Defendant, is represented by William Eugene
Mcgrath Jr., Esq. -- wmcgrath@smithstratton.com -- Smith Stratton.
Argonaut Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by Brian
Michael Reid, Esq. -- reid@litchfieldcavo.com -- Litchfield Cavo
LLP, pro hac vice & Vincent J. Velardo, Esq. --
velardo@litchfieldcavo.com -- Litchfield Cavo LLP.

Banco De Seguros Del Estado, Defendant, represented by Ernesto
Palomo, Locke Lord LLP, Jeffrey Steven Kramer, Locke Lord LLP,
Joseph N. Froehlich, Locke Lord LLP & Robert A. Badgley, Karbal
Cohen Economou Silk Dunne LLC.

Continental Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by John S.
Favate, Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto, Kathryn M. Frost, Elenius
Frost & walsh,Arthur A. Povelones, Hardin, Kundla, McKeon &
Poletto, P.A., George Richard Hardin, Hardin Kundla McKeon &
Poletto & William Patrick Lalor, Elenius Frost & Walsh.

Evanston Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Robert P.
Siegel, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP.

First State Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Alison P.
Baker, SHIPMAN AND GOODWIN LLP & Katherine Hance, Shipman &
Goodwin LLP.

Granite State Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Richard
Bryan, Jackson & Campbell, P.C., Steven Gary Adams, Law Offices of
Michael F. Klag, Christopher Michael Quinlan, Jackson & Campbell,
P.C. & Kristen Vine, Jackson & Campbell, P.C..

Insurance Company of The State of Pennsylvania, Defendant,
represented byRichard Bryan, Jackson & Campbell, P.C., Steven Gary
Adams, Law Offices of Michael F. Klag, Christopher Michael
Quinlan, Jackson & Campbell, P.C. &Kristen Vine, Jackson &
Campbell, P.C..

Interstate Reinsurance Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Anthony R. Gambardella, Rivkin Radler LLP, Lawrence Adam Levy,
Rivkin Radler LLP,Michael A. Kotula, Rivkin Radler LLP & Robert A.
Maloney, Rivkin Radler LLP.

Landmark Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Richard
Bryan, Jackson & Campbell, P.C. & Kristen Vine, Jackson &
Campbell, P.C..

Lexington Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Richard
Bryan, Jackson & Campbell, P.C., Steven Gary Adams, Law Offices of
Michael F. Klag, Christopher Michael Quinlan, Jackson & Campbell,
P.C. & Kristen Vine, Jackson & Campbell, P.C..

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA,
Defendant, represented by Richard Bryan, Jackson & Campbell, P.C.,
Steven Gary Adams, Law Offices of Michael F. Klag, Christopher
Michael Quinlan, Jackson & Campbell, P.C. & Kristen Vine, Jackson
& Campbell, P.C..

Northbrook Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Anthony R.
Gambardella, Rivkin Radler LLP, Lawrence Adam Levy, Rivkin Radler
LLP,Michael A. Kotula, Rivkin Radler LLP & Robert A. Maloney,
Rivkin Radler LLP.

Wausau International Underwriters, Defendant, represented by
Claude N. Grammatico, Epstein, Gialleonardo, Frankini, Kristin S.
Heres, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP & Wm. Gerald McElroy,
Jr., Zelle LLP.

Yosemite Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Mark W.
Zimmerman, Clausen Miller, Steven J. Fried, Clausen Miller PC &
Elise D. Allen, Clausen Miller P.C..

Allstate Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Anthony R.
Gambardella, Rivkin Radler LLP, Lawrence Adam Levy, Rivkin Radler
LLP,Michael A. Kotula, Rivkin Radler LLP & Robert A. Maloney,
Rivkin Radler LLP.

XL Insurance (Bermuda) Ltd, Defendant, represented by Whitney
Morgan Smith, Cahill Gordon and Reindel.

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., Defendant, represented by Claude
N. Grammatico, Epstein, Gialleonardo, Frankini, Kristin S. Heres,
Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP & Wm. Gerald McElroy, Jr., Zelle
LLP.

Certain London Market Insurance Companies, Defendant, Pro se.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Reverses Summary Judgment in "Botts"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed
the district court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the
case captioned ROGER BOTTS and CAROL BOTTS, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee, No. 14-35007 (9th
Cir.) for further proceeding.

Roger and Carol Botts appeal the district court's grant of summary
judgment to the government.

The district court erred in finding that Botts failed to produce
evidence from which a finder of fact could reasonably conclude
that asbestos exposure at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard resulting
from violations of the Navy's mandatory rules after March 1970 was
a substantial factor in causing Roger Botts' mesothelioma.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum dated May 16, 2016 is available
at https://is.gd/zSk0NE from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Objection to Spoliation Instruction Sustained
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled KATHY BOYER, individually and as Special
Administrator of the Estate of Milton Boyer, Plaintiff, v.
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, Defendant. No. 14-cv-286-wmc (W.D. Wis.),
Judge William M. Conley of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Wisconsin sustained defendant Weyerhaeuser
Company's objection to plaintiff's spoliation instruction.

Plaintiff Kathy Boyer submitted a proposed spoliation inference
instruction, along with a hard hitting brief in support of that
instruction, which asserts that the evidence supports a finding
that defendant Weyerhaeuser Company acted in bad faith in losing
or destroying many documents about the use of asbestos materials
and of asbestos emissions into the community. In response to that
brief, defendant Weyerhaeuser served a Rule 11 motion, which
contended that plaintiff significantly misrepresented defendant's
discovery production. Apparently, the serving of this Rule 11
motion prompted plaintiff to file an amended brief, because it is
several pages shorter than her original filing and omits certain
information, including most notably a list of documents plaintiff
originally contended "Weyerhaeuser possessed and then caused to be
destroyed or lost."

A full-text copy of the Opinion and Order dated May 5, 2016 is
available at https://is.gd/tneNVo from Leagle.com.

Kathy Boyer, Plaintiff, is represented by Michael P. Cascino, Esq.
-- Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., Alyssa R. Segawa, Esq. --
Galiher DeRobertis Waxman, Anthony Carr, Gary Galiher, Ilana
Waxman, James Nicholas Hoey, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd.,
John Everett Guerry, III, Esq. -- rguerry@motleyrice.com -- Motley
Rice LLC, John Eugene Herrick, Esq. -- jherrick@motleyrice.com --
Motley Rice LLC, Meredith Kay Clark, Esq. --
mkclark@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Nathan David Finch,
Esq. -- nfinch@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Robert G. McCoy,
Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., Thomas David Hoyle, Motley Rice
LLC & William C Swett, Esq. -- Motley Rice LLC.

Weyerhaeuser Company, Defendant, is represented by Joshua J.
Metcalf, Esq. -- joshua.metcalf@formanwatkins.com -- Forman
Watkins & Krutz, LLP, Mitch McGuffey, Esq. --
mitch.mcguffey@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP,
Ruth F. Maron, Esq. -- ruth.maron@formanwatkins.com -- Forman
Watkins & Krutz, LLP, Tanya D. Ellis, Esq. --
tanya.ellis@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP,
Thomas Benton York, Esq. -- thomas.york@formanwatkins.com --
Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP & Walter G Watkins, III, Esq. --
walter.watkins@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP.
Marshfield DoorSystems, Inc., Interested Party, is represented by
Sherry Dawn Coley, Esq. -- scoley@dkattorneys.com -- Davis &
Kuelthau, S.C. & Joshua Lee Johanningmeier, Esq. --
jjohanningmeier@gklaw.com -- Godfrey & Kahn S.C..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Refuses to Review Daubert Motions Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William M. Conley of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Wisconsin denied several asbestos
plaintiffs' "motion for reconsideration and clarification
regarding February 19, 2016, decision and, alternatively, for
leave to amend complaints."

While not all of the bases apply to each of the cases, the
plaintiffs, as a group, seek reconsideration of one or more of the
following rulings: (1) the court's grant of summary judgment based
in part on defendant Weyerhaeuser's Daubert motion as to
plaintiffs Jacobs, Masephol and Seehafer; (2) "extending" the
exclusivity provision of the Wisconsin's Workers Compensation Act
to an employee's take-home asbestos exposure; and (3) the court's
grant of summary judgment in Weyerhaeuser's favor on plaintiffs'
private nuisance claims.

Judge Conley also granted in part and denied in part Defendant
Weyerhaeuser's motions to strike the plaintiffs' reply briefs.

The cases are KATHY BOYER, Individually and as Special
Administrator on behalf of the Estate of Milton Boyer, Plaintiff,
v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, Defendant; BRIAN HECKEL, Individually and
as Special Administrator on behalf of the Estate of Sharon Heckel,
Plaintiff, v. CBS CORP., GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., METROPOLITAN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, and WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, Defendants; DIANNE
JACOBS, Individually and as Special Administrator on behalf of the
Estate of Rita Treutel, Plaintiff, v. RAPID AMERICAN CORPORATION,
and WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, Defendants, RAPID AMERICAN CORPORATION,
Cross-claimant, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, Cross-defendant; KATRINA
MASEPHOL, Individually and as Special Administrator on behalf of
the Estate of Richard Masephol, Plaintiff, v. WEYERHAEUSER
COMPANY, and METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants;
VIRGINIA PRUST, Individually and as Special Administrator on
behalf of the Estate of Valmore Prust, Plaintiff, v. WEYERHAEUSER
COMPANY, and METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants;
JANICE SEEHAFER, Individually and as Special Administrator on
behalf of the Estate of Roger Seehafer, Plaintiff, v. WEYERHAEUSER
COMPANY, Defendant.; and THERESA SYDOW, Individually and as
Special Administrator on behalf of the Estate of Wesley Sydow,
Plaintiff, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, and METROPOLITAN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Nos. 14-cv-286-wmc, 13-cv-459-wmc,
12-cv-899-wmc, 14-cv-186-wmc, 14-cv-143-wmc, 14-cv-161-wmc, 14-cv-
219-wmc (W.D. Wis.).

A full-text copy of the Opinion and Order dated May 5, 2016, is
available at https://is.gd/Tb1Ymg from Leagle.com.

Richard Masephol, Plaintiff -- The Estate of, is represented by
Michael P. Cascino, Esq. -- Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd.,
Alyssa R. Segawa, Esq. -- Galiher DeRobertis Waxman, Anthony Carr,
Gary Galiher, Ilana Waxman, James Nicholas Hoey, Cascino Vaughan
Law Offices, Ltd., John Everett Guerry, III, Esq. --
rguerry@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, John Eugene Herrick,
Esq. -- jherrick@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Meredith Kay
Clark, Esq. -- mkclark@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Nathan
David Finch, Esq. -- nfinch@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC,
Robert G. McCoy, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., Thomas David
Hoyle, Motley Rice LLC & William C Swett, Esq. -- Motley Rice LLC.

Katrina Masephol, Plaintiff, is represented by John Eugene
Herrick, Motley Rice LLC, Meredith Kay Clark, Motley Rice LLC &
Nathan David Finch, Motley Rice LLC.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by
Smitha Chintamaneni, Esq. -- schintam@vonbriesen.com -- von
Briesen & Roper.

Weyerhaeuser Company, Defendant, is represented by Joshua J.
Metcalf, Esq. -- joshua.metcalf@formanwatkins.com -- Forman
Watkins & Krutz, LLP, Mitch McGuffey, Esq. --
mitch.mcguffey@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP,
Ruth F. Maron, Esq. -- ruth.maron@formanwatkins.com -- Forman
Watkins & Krutz, LLP, Tanya D. Ellis, Esq. --
tanya.ellis@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP,
Thomas Benton York, Esq. -- thomas.york@formanwatkins.com --
Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP & Walter G Watkins, III, Esq. --
walter.watkins@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP.
Marshfield DoorSystems, Inc., Interested Party, is represented by
Sherry Dawn Coley, Esq. -- scoley@dkattorneys.com -- Davis &
Kuelthau, S.C. & Joshua Lee Johanningmeier, Esq. --
jjohanningmeier@gklaw.com -- Godfrey & Kahn S.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weyerhaeuser's Bid in Limine Partially Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned KATHY BOYER, individually and as Special
Administrator of the Estate of Milton Boyer, Plaintiff, v.
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, Defendant, No. 14-cv-286-wmc (W.D. Wis.),
Judge William M. Conley of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Wisconsin granted in part, denied in part,
and reserved in part Defendant Weyerhaeuser Company's motions in
limine.

Judge Conley also denied Plaintiff Kathy Boyer's motion in limine
to reconsider rulings on government regulations as evidence of
negligence; granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's motions
in limine; granted in part and denied in part Defendant's motion
for leave to file supplemental expert reports.

Plaintiff filed three motions in limine specific to Boyer's
claims. First, plaintiff seeks an order excluding evidence or
argument that plaintiff Kathy Boyer has received, has been
entitled to receive, or has applied for disability benefits.
Plaintiff argues that this evidence is not material to any issue
of liability, and that it is also immaterial to damages because of
the collateral source rule. Defendant opposes the motion, arguing
that the evidence is material to damages because it will correct
any jury inference that Kathy Boyer "either could not work due to
her husband's illness, or was previously a homemaker by choice
such that she brought no income into the home. Defendant further
argues that the evidence is not barred by the collateral source
rule.

Second, Plaintiff seeks an order excluding any comment, argument
or evidence that any of plaintiff's witnesses, including Charles
Reno, filed any past grievances or workers' compensation claims
against Weyerhaeuser. Plaintiff contends that this evidence is not
relevant, and in anticipation of defendant's opposition, further
argues that any relevance is outweighed by the risk of confusion
and waste of time. For its part, defendant responds that this
evidence is highly relevant to each witness's credibility and
bias.

Third, in a separately-filed motion styled "motion in limine,"
plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the court's June 2, 2015,
opinion and order preventing plaintiff from relying on
Environmental Protection Agency regulations in establishing the
standard of care. In that order, the court granted defendant's
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' nuisance claims on the basis that
the Clean Air Act preempts state law nuisance claims, at least "to
the extent that plaintiffs intend to rely on NESHAP [National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants] or other
regulatory standards under the CAA to prove negligent conduct
under either a private or public nuisance claim." Plaintiffs
previously moved for reconsideration of that decision, which the
court also denied.

Despite the court's instruction not to re-file the same motions in
limine, defendant did just that, albeit in an abundance of caution
to ensure that its arguments were preserved. More appropriately,
defendant identifies a few, specific nuances by which it seeks to
differentiate this court's rulings in Pecher. Some of defendant's
motions also concern evidentiary challenges not resolved fully in
Pecher. The court gives further consideration to some of these
motions, while finding the others not worth additional discussion.

A full-text copy of the Opinion and Order dated May 5, 2016 is
available at https://is.gd/Y0M94e from Leagle.com.

Kathy Boyer, Plaintiff, is represented by Michael P. Cascino, Esq.
-- Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., Alyssa R. Segawa, Esq. --
Galiher DeRobertis Waxman, Anthony Carr, Gary Galiher, Ilana
Waxman, James Nicholas Hoey, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd.,
John Everett Guerry, III, Esq. -- rguerry@motleyrice.com -- Motley
Rice LLC, John Eugene Herrick, Esq. -- jherrick@motleyrice.com --
Motley Rice LLC, Meredith Kay Clark, Esq. --
mkclark@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Nathan David Finch,
Esq. -- nfinch@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Robert G. McCoy,
Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., Thomas David Hoyle, Motley Rice
LLC & William C Swett, Esq. -- Motley Rice LLC.

Katrina Masephol, Plaintiff, is represented by John Eugene
Herrick, Motley Rice LLC, Meredith Kay Clark, Motley Rice LLC &
Nathan David Finch, Motley Rice LLC.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by
Smitha Chintamaneni, Esq. -- schintam@vonbriesen.com -- von
Briesen & Roper.

Weyerhaeuser Company, Defendant, is represented by Joshua J.
Metcalf, Esq. -- joshua.metcalf@formanwatkins.com -- Forman
Watkins & Krutz, LLP, Mitch McGuffey, Esq. --
mitch.mcguffey@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP,
Ruth F. Maron, Esq. -- ruth.maron@formanwatkins.com -- Forman
Watkins & Krutz, LLP, Tanya D. Ellis, Esq. --
tanya.ellis@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP,
Thomas Benton York, Esq. -- thomas.york@formanwatkins.com --
Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP & Walter G Watkins, III, Esq. --
walter.watkins@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP.
Marshfield DoorSystems, Inc., Interested Party, is represented by
Sherry Dawn Coley, Esq. -- scoley@dkattorneys.com -- Davis &
Kuelthau, S.C. & Joshua Lee Johanningmeier, Esq. --
jjohanningmeier@gklaw.com -- Godfrey & Kahn S.C..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6th Cir. Affirms Order Denying Sanctions Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed
the district court's orders and denied Philips Electronics North
America Corporation's and its Dutch parent company, Koninklijke
Philips, N.V.'s motion for sanctions in the case styled ELBERT
COX, JR.; CECIL WAYNE FRANKLIN; JOHN SPEARS; WANDA BEASLEY; DONALD
KING; LINDSEY PENNINGTON; TERESA PRESTON; BEVERLY PRESLEY,
Personal Representative of the Estate of Annabell Gordon,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS, N.V., a Netherlands
Corporation, aka Royal Philips Electronics, N.V. Koninklijke;
PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation, Defendants-Appellees, No. 15-6048 (6th Cir.).

Former employees at a glass and bulb manufacturing plant brought
this action against their employer, Philips Electronics North
America Corporation and its Dutch parent company, Koninklijke
Philips, N.V. ("KPNV"), for injuries arising from exposure to
hazardous chemicals during their employment. The district court
dismissed the employees' claims against KPNV for want of personal
jurisdiction, dismissed their claims against Philips as
statutorily barred, and declined to award them costs in serving
KPNV process. The employees appeal those rulings, while KPNV and
Philips seek sanctions.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated May 9, 2016 is available at
https://is.gd/Zytjgr from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford USA Wins Bid for Summary Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of New York reversed the order of the
Appellate Division granting Defendant Ford USA's motion for
summary judgment dismissing 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 (N.Y. App.).

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.

The 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 judgment.

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 Decision dated May 3, 2016 is available at
https://is.gd/1Q6Lpq from Leagle.com.

Anton Metlitsky, Esq. -- ametlitsky@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers
LLP for appellant.

James M. Kramer, Esq. for respondents.

Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, amicus
curiae.


                            *********

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  * * *