CAR_Public/160715.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, July 15, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 141




                            Headlines


ACH FOOD: Demmler Appeals Ruling From D. Mass. to 1st Circuit
ACRI DESIGN: "Venegas" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
ALLERGAN PLC: Plumbers & Pipefitters Fund Files Anti-trust Suit
AMERICAN CENTURY: "Wildman" Suit Claims Pension Plan Mismanagement
ANDREWS STAFFING: "Arroyo" Suit Seeks Vacation Pay, Minimum Wages

ASHLEY MADISON: Faces FTC Probe Over Use of Fake Fembot Profiles
AT&T MOBILITY: Roberts Seeks Review of Ruling From N.D. Cal.
AUSTRALIA: Alberta Child Welfare Victims Can File Claims
BASHAM LUMBER: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid Continued to Aug. 27
BEK CATERING: To Halt Fish Processing Following FDA Complaints

BETO'S MEXICAN: Balderas Seeks to Certify Cooks & Cashiers Class
BIOGEN INC: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Securities Action
BROTHER INTERNATIONAL: Hobbs Wants Hearing Date Moved to Aug. 22
BUCKS COUNTY, PA: Seeks Review of E.D. Pa. Ruling in "Taha" Suit
CALIFORNIA: Court Trims Legal Costs Against Adcock

CANADIAN HOCKEY: Junior Players Exempted From Labor Code Rules
CAPITAL ONE BANK: Court Dismisses "Klika" Class Suit
CASH STORE: Payday Loan Users Can File Settlement Claims
CHINA NORTH EAST: Acticon Appeals Ruling in Securities Litigation
CRANE CO: Has Duty to Warn of Dangers of Asbestos-Laden Parts

DAIRY FARMERS: Allen Appeals D. Vermont Ruling to 2nd Circuit
DANZE INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Duncan" Suit
DESIGNATRONICS INC: "Ladyzhensky" Sues Over Age Discrimination
DND FIRE: "Carillo" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
DUPONT: Jury Awards $500,000 in Punitive Damages in C8 Case

DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Approval of Class Settlement Sought in "Palmer"
EAST 33RD: Restaurant Faces "Baten" Lawsuit in N.Y. Under FLSA
FACEBOOK INC: Illinois Face Recognition Law Spurs Class Actions
FCA US LLC: Wins Nod to Transfer "Grimstad" Suit to S.D. New York
FMA ALLIANCE: Romeo & Arpino Claims Tossed, Motz Claim Survives

FMA ALLIANCE: Romeo Asks 2nd Cir. to Review Ruling From E.D.N.Y.
FORD MOTOR: Gov't Investigates Complaints Over Exhaust Gas Odor
FOREMOST INSURANCE: "Arnold" Sues Over Insurance Claim
FTS USA: Thomas' Bid for Partial Summary Judgment Granted in Part
FTS USA: Court Denies Defendant's Second Summary Judgment Bid

FUJITSU GROUP: 401(k) Plan Participants File Class Action
GENERAL CHEMICAL: Creston Water Sues Over Overpriced Alum
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Counts" Suit Over High Emission Vehicles
GEORGE MASON MORTGAGE: Alcorn Granted Leave to File Amended Suit
GLOBAL TEL LINK: "Reese" Sues Over Excessive Phone Charges

GLOBAL TEL LINK: Martin Seeks Certification of Class
GODADDY.COM LLC: Must Defend Against Ventures Edge Suit
GOODFELLOWS OF PASCO: "Rivero" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay, Tips
GRAYCO MANAGEMENT: "Peer" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
HAIR CLUB: Final Approval Hearing in "Clemens" Set for Sept. 22

HCP: Sued for Allegedly Misrepresenting ManorCare's Performance
HEIGHTS TOWER: Court Certifies IMWL Class in "Pietrzycki" Suit
HOME DEPOT: Bell Seeks 9th Cir. Review of E.D. California Ruling
HONEYWELL INTL: Kelly Seeks Certification of Retirees Class
INFINITY INSURANCE: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in "Copelan" Class Suit

J. CREW GROUP: National Suit Moved from S.D.N.Y. to C.D. Cal.
JAIME F. CASTILLO: Court Limits Witnesses in G&G Suit
JAIME F. CASTILLO: Must Reply to Dismissal Bid by Aug. 5
JANSSEN PHARMA: Jury Issues $70MM Verdict in Risperdal Case
JJ 27: "Blandon" Claims Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act

KATHERINE G. COLLIER: Faces "Hyde" Suit Under FLSA, Md. Wage Law
LASALLE BANK: Dismissal of "Gee" Amended Complaint Affirmed
LAZA IRON: "Cabrera" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
LIPOCINE INC: "Burleson" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation
LIPOCINE INC: "Lewis" Sues Over Share Price Drop

LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Bid to Certify Class in "Hamann" Suit Stricken
LOUISIANA: Sued for Depriving Convicted Felons' Voting Rights
LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Hamann Seeks Certification of Class
LVNV FUNDING: Judge Tosses Debt Collection Class Action
M-QUBE INC: Geier Appeals W.D. Washington Ruling to 9th Circuit

MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Thomas Seeks Certification of Class
MAJOR LEAGUE SOCCER: Faces Class Action Over Player Transfer Fee
MDL 1720: Class Certification, Settlement Approval Vacated
MERIDIAN SENIOR: Faces "Jones" Suit in E.D. Virg.
MODOC COUNTY, CA: "Winkle" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

NATIONAL GRID: Judge Bans Utility Shut Offs for Vulnerable People
OAKHURST DAIRY: Appeal Filed From Ruling in "O'Connor" Class Suit
OBESITY RESEARCH: Cal. App. Reverses Attorney Fees Award
ORLANDO HEALTH: Obtains Favorable Ruling in FICA Refund Case
PACCAR INC: Court Narrows Claims in BK Trucking Co. Suit

PACIFIC MANAGEMENT: "Floyd" Sues Over Security Deposit
PERFUMANIA HOLDINGS: Court Denied Bid for Class Certification
POMONA UNIFIED: JV and BK Seek Certification of ADA Class
PRIDE FINANCIAL: Court Permits Amendment of "Zavian" Complaint
QUICKEN LOANS: Newhart Seeks Certification of Class

RECKITT BENCKISER: Executives Face Public's Ire Over Oxy Deaths
RICE ENERGY: "Robinson" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
RUBY TUESDAY: "Sagastume" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
RUSHMORE LOAN: Sellers Seeks Certification of Consumer Class
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Wagner" Sues Over Defective Washing Machines

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Helwani Files Appeal in DRAM Antitrust MDL
SHARINN & LIPSHIE: Class Certification Sought in "Considine" Suit
SNAPCHAT INC: "Doe" Suit Claims Communications Decency Act Breach
SOURCE 1: "Castro" Suit Alleges FLSA, Ill. Wage Law Violation
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Dismissal of Shareholder Class Action Upheld

ST JUDE MEDICAL: "Rosenfeld" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
STERN & STERN: Faces "Divella" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
THERANOS INC: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Blood Test Kit
TOKYO ELECTRIC: Two Former PMs Set Up Support Fund for US Sailors
U.S. CABLE: Faces "Carswell" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Supplemental Brief in "O'Connor" Due Today
ULLIANCE INC: Lucas Seeks Certification of Class and Subclass
UNITED REFINING: Court Rules on Pending Motions in "Cottillion"
UNITED STATES: Urrutia & Brito Seek for Class Certification
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Medical Society Sues Over Denied Claims

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Class Cert. Bid Taken Under Submission
UNLIMITED LANDSCAPING: "Montells" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
UTGR INC: "Munsif" Suit Asserts FLSA Violation
VALLEJO, CA: Faces Class Action Over Employees' Unpaid OT Wages
VILLA SERENA: "Marquez" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

VIRGIN AMERICA: Smith Seeks Certification of Class & Subclasses
VISTA CLINICAL: "Gear" Suit Has Conditional Class Certification
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Heads Back to Court Over Emissions-Rigging Scandal
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Set to Begin Fee Negotiations
VOLKSWAGEN AG: In Negotiations to Resolve 3.0-Liter Diesel Claims

VOLKSWAGEN AG: Idaho Consumers to Get $12.8MM Settlement Payout
WISCONSIN: Court Allows McKinley to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
ZAGARIS INC: Court Declines to Dismiss or Stay Insurer's Suit
ZION HEALTH: "Shin" Suit Alleges Fraud Over Ionizers
ZOEK: "Alan" Claims Telephone Consumer Protection Act Violation


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMEC's Coverage Suit vs. FFIC Further Stayed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmate's Suit vs. City of New York Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition Co.'s Bid to Junk OSHA Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: School District Declares Asbestos Emergency
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Experts Weigh In On Asbestos Issue at Mills

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Perth Children's Hospital
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Engineers for Automakers Must Redact Agendas
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GM UK Sentenced Following Contamination
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NYC Juries Awards $28MM in Two Trials
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wolverhampton Worker Dies of Asbestos Disease

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Discovered at No1 William Street
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Discovery Linked to Brisbane Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Trial Ordered in Recklessness Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Centeno Workers Protest Asbestos Health Risks
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Queensland Govt Bldg

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pensioner Dies From Washing Father's Clothes
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Upholds $3MM Verdict
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Walton Factory Worker Dies of Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carpenter Dies After 40-Year Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contaminated-Clothing Doctrine Extended

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illinois County Leads Nation in Asbestos Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Dies of Cancer After Asbestos Contact
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure to Asbestos in Okla. Schools Reduced
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Rampant in OC Schools, Jury Finds
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Marine Accuses Manufacturers of Negligence

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Discovered Beneath Gym Floor
ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Chinese Trains in NZ Despite Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dunedin Near Top For Asbestos Concerns
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Concerned About Asbestos at Old Morgue
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family's Last Ditch Attempt at Compo for Vet

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ga. Supreme Court Reverses $4MM Verdict
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos in Science Lab Gave Teacher Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Indigenous Australians Have Highest Death Rate
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CES Countersues SiteTech Over Asbestos Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RI Suit vs. Andrea Electronics Remain Pending

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suits vs. HB Fuller Remain Pending at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Enjoines "Berry" Suit vs. Johns-Manville


                            *********


ACH FOOD: Demmler Appeals Ruling From D. Mass. to 1st Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Joseph Demmler filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Demmler v. ACH Food Companies, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-13556-LTS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Boston.

Demmler's class action lawsuit stemmed from allegedly false
labeling ACH placed on botthles of barbecue sauce.

In a June 9, 2016, District Judge Leo Sorokin granted Defendant's
motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

The appellate case is captioned as Demmler v. ACH Food Companies,
Inc., Case No. 16-1932, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          David Pastor, Esq.
          PASTOR LAW OFFICE, LLP
          63 Atlantic Ave., 3rd Floor
          Boston, MA 02110-0000
          Telephone: (617) 742-9700
          E-mail: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com

               - and -

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLP
          35 E. State St.
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (610) 891-9880
          Facsimile: (610) 891-9883
          E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com
                  nzipperian@sfmslaw.com

The Defendant-Appellee is represented by:

          Benjamin Mills, Esq.
          David L. Wallace, Esq.
          HERBERT SMITH FREEHILLS LLP
          450 Lexington Ave.
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (917) 542-7832
          E-mail: benjamin.mills@hsf.com
                  david.wallace@hsf.com

               - and -

          Joshua Louis Solomon, Esq.
          POLLACK SOLOMON DUFFY LLP
          133 Federal St., Suite 902
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 439-9800
          E-mail: jsolomon@psdfirm.com


ACRI DESIGN: "Venegas" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------
Ismael Venegas, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Acri Design & Trade, Corp. and Gustavo Torres, Defendants, Case
No. 0:16-cv-61546-RNS (S.D. Fla., June 30, 2016), seeks double
damages and reasonable attorney fees for all overtime wages still
owing pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is a corporation operating within Broward County where
Plaintiff was employed as a delivery person.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     J.H. Zidell, Esq.
     J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
     300 71st Street, Suite 605
     Miami Beach, FL 33141
     Tel: (305) 865-6766
     Fax: (305) 865-7167
     Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


ALLERGAN PLC: Plumbers & Pipefitters Fund Files Anti-trust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health and Welfare Trust Fund, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Allergan PLC, Actavis, PLC, Impax Laboratories, Inc., Lannett
Company, Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Par Pharmaceutical
Companies, Inc., West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp., Defendants, Case
No. 2:16-cv-03635-CMR (E.D. Pa., July 1, 2016), seeks damages,
injunctive relief, and all other relief available under federal
antitrust laws, state antitrust laws, and state consumer
protection laws.

The action accuse Defendants of conspiring to fix, maintain,
and/or stabilize the prices of generic digoxin or doxycycline.
Plaintiff indirectly purchased, paid, and/or provided
reimbursement for these products made by one or more Defendants at
supracompetitive prices.

Lannett is a Delaware corporation that has its principal place of
business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Lannett is a distributor
of generic digoxin and generic doxycycline.

Impax is a Delaware corporation that has its principal place of
business in Hayward, California. Impax's generics division is
called Global Pharmaceuticals and is a manufacturer and
distributor of generic digoxin.

Par is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
in Chestnut Ridge, New York. It supplies and distributes a generic
version of Lanoxin (R) (digoxin) tablets made by Covis Pharma.

Allergan PLC is a $23B diversified global pharmaceutical company
into global generics, dermatology and aesthetics, CNS, eye care,
urology, gastro-intestinal, cystic fibrosis, cardiovascular and
infectious diseases. It is based in Dublin, Ireland and U.S.
Administrative Headquarters in Parsippany, New Jersey, USA.
(Source: http://www.allergan.com/).

Actavis plc is a pharmaceutical corporation with its global
headquarters in Dublin, Ireland, and with administrative
headquarters in New Jersey.

Mylan, Inc. is a global generics and specialty pharmaceutical
company based in the Netherlands.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lee Albert, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
      NEW YORK, NY 10168
      Tel: (212) 682-5340
      Fax: (212) 884-0988
      Email: lalbert@glancylaw.com


AMERICAN CENTURY: "Wildman" Suit Claims Pension Plan Mismanagement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Wildman and Jon Borcherding, individually and as
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on
behalf of the American Century Retirement Plan, Plaintiffs, v.
American Century Services, LLC, the American Century Retirement
Plan Retirement Committee, American Century Investment Management,
Inc., American Century Companies, Inc., Christopher Bouffard,
Bradley C. Cloverdyke, John A. Leis, Tina S. Ussery-Franklin,
Margaret E. Van Wagoner, Gudrun S. Neumann, Julie A. Smith, Margie
A. Morrison and John Does 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00737
(W.D. Mo., June 30, 2016), seeks disgorgement of all revenues
received from the Plan; equitable monetary relief; enjoinment from
further violations of fiduciary responsibilities, obligations and
duties; equitable relief; pre-judgment interest; attorney fees and
costs pursuant to under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974.

The Retirement Plan is defined as a contribution plan covering
eligible employees and former employees of American Century.
Defendants allegedly loaded the Plan exclusively with American
Century's investment offerings, without investigating whether Plan
participants would be better served by investments managed by
unaffiliated companies.

American Century Services, LLC is the plan sponsor, controlling
and managing the operation and administration of the Plan.

Christopher Bouffard, Bradley C. Cloverdyke, John A. Leis, Tina S.
Ussery-Franklin, Margaret E. Van Wagoner, Gudrun S. Neumann, Julie
A. Smith and Margie A. Morrison are members of the board of
American Century.

Ankcorn is represented by:

      Mark A. Kistler, Esq.
      Michael F. Brady, Esq.
      Mark Kistler, Esq.
      BRADY & ASSOCIATES
      10985 Cody Street, Suite 135
      Overland Park, KS 66210
      Email: brady@mbradylaw.com
             mkistler@mbradylaw.com

             - and -

      Kai H. Richter, Esq.
      Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
      Jacob T. Schutz, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
      80 S 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: 612-256-3200
      Facsimile: 612-338-4878
      Email: krichter@nka.com
             cengstrom@nka.com


ANDREWS STAFFING: "Arroyo" Suit Seeks Vacation Pay, Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Esmeralda Arroyo, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
employees Plaintiff v. Andrews Staffing, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2016-CH-08718 (Ill. Cir., June 30, 2016), seeks all earned
vacation pay due, liquidated damages, unpaid minimum wages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of this action under the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

Defendant has employed temporary labourers, such as the Plaintiff,
to provide services for a fee pursuant to a contract to various
third party client companies in Illinois. She claims she was
denied earned vacation pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alvar Ayala, Esq.
      Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
      WORKERS' LAW OFFICE PC
      53 W. Jackson blvd., Suite 701
      Chicago, IL 60605
      Tel: (312) 795-9121


ASHLEY MADISON: Faces FTC Probe Over Use of Fake Fembot Profiles
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Parry, writing for Dailymail.Com, reports that Ashley
Madison is being investigated by the Federal Trade Commission
after a report found it was using fake fembot profiles to attract
more men.

The scandal hit website, which was hit by a devastating hack last
year, created tens of thousands of false accounts to dupe members
into paying for its services, according to a data scientist.
Around 40,000 profiles were set up on the affair site using just
six email addresses owned by the website's operators on two
separate days, the report revealed.

It followed claims in previous reports that the extra-marital
dating network created 100,000 of these so-called "engager"
profiles -- sometimes referred to as Ashley Angels -- to trick
users into believing they were talking to real people.
As members have to pay to read their online messages, the scheme
could have almost doubled the website's revenue, the scientist
claims.

Without the fembot profiles, the site's male-to-female user ratio
was five to one, the executives said.

Parent company Avid Life Media commissioned their own report,
which confirmed that Ashley Madison used computer programs that
impersonated real women to strike up conversations with paying
male customers.

After the scandal broke, Avid shut down the fake profiles in the
United States, Canada and Australia in 2014, and the rest of the
world by the end of the following year.

But some US users were still exchanging messages with foreign
fembots until late in 2015, according to the report.

Another dating site paid $616,165 in redress for similar practices
in an October 2014 settlement with the FTC.
Chief Executive Rob Segal said he was not able to discuss the
fembot messages as 'that's a part of the ongoing process that
we're going through . . . it's with the FTC right now.'
An FTC spokesman declined to comment.

However, Mr. Segal did apologize for last year's hack, which
exposed the personal details of millions who signed up for the
site with the slogan "Life is short. Have an affair".

"We are profoundly sorry," he said, adding that more could perhaps
have been spent on security.

Mr. Segal and President James Millership, hired in April, said the
closely held company is spending millions to improve security and
looking at payment options that offer more privacy.

But it faces a mountain of problems, including U.S. and Canadian
class action lawsuits filed on behalf of customers whose personal
information was posted online, and the revelations that it used
fake profiles to manipulate some customers.

The scandal has cost Avid Life Media more than a quarter of its
revenue.

The website was set up in 2001 by Noel Biderman -- who stepped
down last year after the emails of its 32 million "users" were
hacked and leaked on to the internet.

The former chief executive had styled himself the "king of
infidelity" and boasted of a $1 billion valuation.

Mr. Segal acknowledged that the company is not worth that much and
said Avid still doesn't know how the attack happened or who was
responsible.

It has hired cyber security experts at Deloitte, and expects to
reach the first level of Payment Card Industry compliance, an
industry standard, by September.

"We had to basically reinvent their security posture," said Robert
Masse, who leads Deloitte's incident response team.  His team,
hired by the company in late September, found simple backdoors in
Avid Life's Linux-based servers.

Avid Life is on track to record roughly $80 million in revenue
this year, with margin on earnings before interest, taxation,
depreciation and amortization of 35 to 40 percent, said
Mr. Millership.  Its 2015 revenue was $109 million, with a 49
percent margin.

The executives said the Ashley Madison name would endure, though
they are moving some focus away from infidelity.

"We certainly feel that the Ashley Madison brand can be
repositioned," Mr. Segal said, promising "a vastly different
approach to how she is marketed."

Mr. Millership said they have roughly $50 million to spend on
acquisitions or partnerships with like-minded 'discreet dating'
sites.

But Serge Saumur, a lead plaintiff in the Canadian civil case, is
no longer interested.  Mr. Saumur, who is single, said he joined
the site in early 2015 and spent around C$100.

"Whatever they are going to do to prove to me that they are safe
or anything, I wouldn't put no more money in there," he said.

Several lawsuits were brought against Ashley Madison after users
found out they may have been paying hundreds of dollars to chat
with a computer program.

Jeremy Bullock, the chief data scientist at a UK-based technology
firm, said he was suspicious of Ashley Madison's recruitment
methods, so searched through the data released by hackers last
year.

He found that on April 10, 2012, 122,766 "men" and 11,923 "women"
signed up to the website from an IP address that traced back to
Avid Life Media -- Ashley Madison's parent company.

On February 2, 2013, a further 100,092 "women" also signed up.
Looking closely at the data, he found only six email addresses had
been used to generate a total of around 40,000 "fake" women. One
of these was host@almlabs -- another IP address owned by Avid Life
Media.

He told Daily Mail Online: "Looking at the IP addresses used by
these emails, the majority were from localhost.

"The next largest were from IP address 38.113.163.225 -- which has
a host name of tor.office.avidlifemedia.com."

Although Mr. Bullock says he found 40,000 "bots", other media
reports suggest the number could be closer to 100,000.

As a result of the supposed scheme, according to Gizmodo, around
80 per cent of new members were sent messages by "engagers" --
fake profiles -- when they signed up.

Avid and Ashley Madison initially denied the use of bots.
However, Avid's own report by Ernst & Young has since confirmed
their existence.

According to documents seen by Daily Mail Online they received
generic messages such as "are you online" to create the illusion a
woman was trying to start a conversation with them.

This means some members supposedly paid up to $290 to interact
with someone who didn't actually exist.

This has prompted two lawsuits in California and Maryland by men
who think they were deliberately deceived.  Other members who
contacted the website suggesting they had uncovered the "bots"
have asked asking for refunds.

A graph discovered in leaked emails between Avid Life Media chief
operating officer Rizwan Jiwan and the former chief executive
officer Noel Biderman shows revenues went from $60,000 per month
to $110,500 when the bots were used for the first time in 2012.
In 2012, a complaint from the California Attorney General stated
one of the users had discovered the "rip-offs" after he noticed
women who had been messaging him were online constantly over
Christmas and New Year.

After getting a number of messages, he decided to pay to read
them.  But when he opened them they all said the same thing: "Are
you online?"


AT&T MOBILITY: Roberts Seeks Review of Ruling From N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Marcus A. Roberts, Kenneth A. Chewey, Ashley M. Chewey
and James Krenn, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit
styled Marcus Roberts, et al. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, Case No. 3:15-
cv-03418-EMC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 9,
2016, the Court ordered private arbitration of the class action
claims that AT&T does not adequately disclose throttling of mobile
customers with unlimited data plans.

Lead plaintiff Marcus A. Roberts sued AT&T Mobility in 2015,
accusing it of a "deceptive and unfair trade practice of marketing
its wireless service plans as being 'unlimited,' when in fact
those plans are subject to a number of limiting conditions [in
particular, throttling] that either are not disclosed or
inadequately disclosed to consumers."

Throttling is the intentional slowing of customers' speed data
once they reach certain data use thresholds.

AT&T sought to compel arbitration, and U.S. District Judge Edward
Chen granted the motion on April 27, and stayed the case pending
arbitration proceedings.

The appellate case is captioned as Marcus Roberts, et al. v. AT&T
Mobility LLC, Case No. 16-80090, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Plaintiffs-Petitioners are represented by:

          Daniel M. Hattis, Esq.
          HATTIS LAW
          935 Cowper Street
          Palo Alto, CA 94301
          Telephone: (650) 284-8495
          E-mail: dan@hattislaw.com

               - and -

          Roger N. Heller, Esq.
          Michael Sobol, Esq.
          Nicole D. Sugnet, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
          275 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: rheller@lchb.com
                  msobol@lchb.com
                  nsugnet@lchb.com

               - and -

          Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          750 B Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          E-mail: rickert@whafh.com

               - and -

          Alexander H. Schmidt, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          E-mail: schmidt@whafh.com

               - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          201 North Franklin Street
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 275-9295
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com

Defendant-Respondent AT&T Mobility LLC is represented by:

          Donald Manwell Falk, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          3000 El Camino Real
          Two Palo Alto Square
          Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
          Telephone: (650) 331-2030
          Facsimile: (650) 331-4530
          E-mail: dfalk@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Archis Ashok Parasharami, Esq.
          Kevin Ranlett, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1999 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 263-3328
          Facsimile: (202) 263-5328
          E-mail: aparasharami@mayerbrown.com
                  kranlett@mayerbrown.com


AUSTRALIA: Alberta Child Welfare Victims Can File Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Richard Froese, writing for South Peace News, reports that local
victims learned more about a settlement of a class-action lawsuit
for children abused in care of the Alberta welfare system dating
back 50 years.

The High Prairie Native Friendship Centre provided assistance
about the Alberta Welfare Class Action Notice of Settlement of
approval during an information session June 10.

"We felt it would be beneficial to have a session to let victims
know what do to get the benefits," executive director Lyanne
Grammer says.

"Most people affected were probably aboriginal."

Victims must also file a police report with victim services and a
psychological assessment, Ms. Grammer says.

Settled last November, the lawsuit alleged that the province
failed to make compensation claims or file lawsuits for children
who were hurt by their foster parents and/or caregivers.

The settlement affects people who suffered injuries while subject
to a permanent wardship or guardianship order between July 1, 1966
and Feb. 19, 2008, or a temporary guardianship order between July
1, 1985 and Feb. 19, 2008.

Victims can apply to the Victims of Crime Compensation Fund before
Jan. 15, 2017, even if the time limit to make a claim has expired.

Most successful claimants will range from $15,000 to $30,000 in
compensation, under the terms of the lawsuit that was settled Nov.
6, states a news story in the Edmonton Journal on Nov. 13, 2015.

"This settlement is, in my view, an appropriate resolution to
litigation that at times had difficulty getting any traction,"
Court of Queen's bench Justice Denny Thomas said to conclude a
case that started about 10 years earlier.

"I am satisfied this is fair, reasonable and in the best interests
of all class members."

The Government of Alberta also supports the settlement.

"We believe this is a fair agreement that respects people who were
in provincial guardianship as children and gives them access to
legislated compensation similar to other victims of crime," Human
Services Minister Irfan Sabir said in a written statement.


BASHAM LUMBER: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid Continued to Aug. 27
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jorge L. Alonso entered an order in the class action
lawsuit styled M Milkes Insurance Agency, Inc., the Plaintiff, v.
Basham Lumber Co., Inc., et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-
06855 (M.D. Ill.), granting Plaintiff's motion to enter and
continue its motion for class certification based on the docket
entry made by the Court Clerk on July 8, 2016.

The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is entered and
continued to August 27, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.  Motion hearing date of
July 19, 2016 is stricken.  Initial status hearing is set for
August 27, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=U8Q8rjyt


BEK CATERING: To Halt Fish Processing Following FDA Complaints
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that federal court officials say an
Alabama seafood company has agreed to stop processing fish after
complaints were raised by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

U.S. District Court officials said in a statement on July 6 that
the permanent injunction is aimed at preventing distribution of
the products by BEK Catering LLC, which does business as Floppers
Foods LLC of Daphne, Alabama, and its co-owners.

A federal complaint alleges that BEK Catering, which prepared and
distributed seafood soups sold under the names Shrimp Locksley and
Mama's Gumbo, caused food to become "adulterated" and misbranded.

Federal authorities say the FDA found unsanitary conditions during
multiple inspections of the company's facilities.  They said those
conditions said could cause illness for consumers.


BETO'S MEXICAN: Balderas Seeks to Certify Cooks & Cashiers Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff seeks an order conditionally certifying the matter
styled RAMON BALDERAS, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. BETO'S MEXICAN FOOD, LLC; EL TACO GRANDE
MEXICAN FOOD, LLC; TACOS BERO MEXICAN FOOD, LLC; all doing
business as "Beto's Mexican Food," and JORGE ALEMAN, Case No.
2:16-cv-00236-PMW (D. Utah), as a collective action pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The collective should include:

     Any individual who worked as a cook and/or cashier at any
     Beto's Mexican Food restaurant at any time within the past
     three (3) years.

Alternatively, Mr. Balderas says, if the Court finds that his
evidence does not support including employees from all Beto's
Mexican Food locations in the collective, it should conditionally
certify a more narrowly-defined collective, as it deems
appropriate.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=R2CzLHmw

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas R. Conlon, Esq.
          JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
          155 2nd St., Suite 4
          Jersey City, NJ 07302
          Telephone: (877) 561-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
          E-mail: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com

               - and -

          Lauren I. Scholnick, Esq.
          Kass Harstad, Esq.
          STRINDBERG & SCHOLNICK, LLC
          Plaza 721
          675 East 2100 South, Suite 350
          Salt Lake City, UT 84106
          Telephone: (801) 359-4169
          Facsimile: (801) 359-4313
          E-mail: lauren@utahjobjustice.com
                  kass@utahjobjustice.com


BIOGEN INC: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Securities Action
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV of the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts granted Defendants' motion
to dismiss in the case captioned, IN RE: BIOGEN INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 15-13189-FDS (D. Mass.).

The putative class action involved alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.
Sections 78j(b), 78t(a), and SEC Rule 10b-5. Lead plaintiff GBR
Group, Ltd. has brought suit, on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons, against biopharmaceutical company Biogen Inc.
and three Biogen executives. Plaintiffs contend that class members
were harmed when they purchased Biogen's common stock at prices
that were artificially inflated by the company's materially
misleading statements and omissions about Tecfidera, its leading
multiple sclerosis drug.

The complaint relies heavily on statements by ten former Biogen
employees acting as confidential witnesses. It alleges that
defendants, after publicly announcing in October 2014 that a
patient being treated with Tecfidera had died, both withheld
material information about declining Tecfidera sales and made
misleading positive statements about future revenue. Plaintiffs
assert that three Biogen executives made more than twenty
materially false misrepresentations and omissions during various
earnings calls and conferences between December 2, 2014, and July
23, 2015.

Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
of 1995, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78u-4, 78u-5. Defendants contend that
the complaint should be dismissed for two principal reasons.
First, they contend that the complaint fails to set forth
plausible allegations that the individual defendants' statements
contain actionable misrepresentations or omissions. Second, they
contend that the complaint fails to allege specific facts that
give rise to a strong inference of scienter.

In his Memorandum and Order dated June 23, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/CU3N7H from Leagle.com, Judge Saylor IV held that
plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that defendants made
those statements with a "conscious intent to defraud or 'a high
degree of recklessness.'"

Nicole Tehrani is represented by David Pastor, Esq. --
david@davidbpastor.com -- PASTOR LAW OFFICE, LLP -- and Shannon L.
Hopkins, Esq. -- shopkins@zlk.com -- LEVI KORSINSKY LLP

GBR Group, LTD is represented by Francis P. McConville, Esq. --
fmcconville@labaton.com -- Guillaume Buell, Esq. --
gbuell@labaton.com -- Jonathan Gardner, Esq. --
jgardner@labaton.com -- and Michael W. Stocker, Esq. --
mstocker@labaton.com -- LABATON SUCHAROW LLP -- Garrett J.
Bradley, Esq. -- gbradley@tenlaw.com -- and Andrea Marino Landry,
Esq. -- amarino@tenlaw.com -- THORNTON LAW FIRM LLP -- Peretz
Bronstein, Esq. -- peretz@bgandg.com -- BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ &
GROSSMAN LLC

Biogen, Inc., et al. are  represented by James R. Carroll, Esq.
-- james.carroll@skadden.com -- and Michael S. Hines, Esq. --
michael.hines@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM
LLP


BROTHER INTERNATIONAL: Hobbs Wants Hearing Date Moved to Aug. 22
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Kenneth Hobbs in the class action lawsuit styled KENNETH
HOBBS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. BROTHER INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION; and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-01866-PSG-VBK (C.D.
Cal.), asks an order advancing the hearing date on Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification from September 12, 2016, to August
22, 2016.

The Defendant has stated it is not willing to meaningfully mediate
or negotiate a potential settlement of the case until both
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and Defendant's Motion
for Summary Judgment have been decided, unless Plaintiff's motion
for Class Certification is advanced, the parties will have only 15
days within which to meaningfully discuss resolution of the case1.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LQUM5Upc

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allen Felahy, Esq.
          FELAHY TRIAL LAWYERS, APC
          4000 Cover Street, Suite 120
          Long Beach, CA 90808
          Telephone: (562) 499 2121
          Facsimile: (562) 499 2124
          E-mail: afelahy@felahylaw.com

               - and -

          Yashdeep Singh, Esq.
          YASH LAW GROUP
          3 Pointe Drive, Suite 304
          Brea, California 92821
          Telephone: (714) 494 6244
          Facsimile: (714) 406 2722
          E-mail: ysingh@yashlaw.com


BUCKS COUNTY, PA: Seeks Review of E.D. Pa. Ruling in "Taha" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Bucks County Correctional Facility and County of Bucks
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Daryoush
Taha v. County of Bucks, et al., Case No. 2-12-cv-06867, in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.  The appellate case is captioned as Daryoush Taha v.
County of Bucks, et al., Case No. 16-3077, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 30,
2016, the Appellants sought review from a ruling entered by the
District Court.  That appellate case was entitled Daryoush Taha v.
County of Bucks, et al., Case No. 16-8044, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Daryoush Taha sought to be named the lead plaintiff in a class
action suit brought pursuant to the Pennsylvania Criminal History
Record Information Act (CHRIA).  Taha alleged that Bucks County
and Bucks County Correctional Facility published the arrest
records of thousands of individuals on a public electronic search
tool in violation of the anti-dissemination provisions of CHRIA.
Summary judgment has already been granted in Taha's favor as to
the county defendants' liability.  Taha moved for class
certification.

District Court Judge Wendy Beetlestone found that Taha has
satisfied the demands of Rule 23(a) in demonstrating numerosity,
commonality, typicality, and adequacy.  The judge also found that
Taha has met the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) by demonstrating
that questions common to the class predominate over those
affecting individual members and that a class action suit is
superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently
adjudicating the controversy.

Plaintiff-Appellee Daryoush Taha is represented by:

          Alan E. Denenberg, Esq.
          ABRAMSON & DENENBERG, P.C.
          1315 Walnut Street, 12th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 546-1345

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          KOHN SWIFT & GRAF
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          Facsimile: (215) 238-1968
          E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com

Defendants-Petitioners County of Bucks and Bucks County
Correctional Facility are represented by:

          Frank A. Chernak, Esq.
          Erin K. Clarke, Esq.
          Burt M. Rublin, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR LLP
          1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 864-8234
          E-mail: chernakf@ballardspahr.com
                  clarkee@ballardspahr.com
                  rublin@ballardspahr.com

Defendant-Respondent Citizen Information Associates LLC is
represented by:

          Jay B. Harris, Esq.
          FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS
          Ten Penn Center
          1801 Market Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 893-9300
          E-mail: jharris@finemanlawfirm.com


CALIFORNIA: Court Trims Legal Costs Against Adcock
--------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California granted Plaintiff's
motion and awarded costs to defendants in the case captioned,
MARTHA BERNDT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants, Civil No. 03-CV-03174-NJV (N.D.
Cal.).

The case was filed as a putative class action in 2003. Plaintiff
Shelly Adcock joined the case on July 5, 2005, with the filing of
the Fourth Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification was denied by Judge Hamilton on March 20, 2012, and
the case proceeded with the ten named Plaintiffs.

Defendants moved for a judgment on the pleadings as to three of
the Plaintiffs, Raisa Jeffries, Adcock, and Lisa Boyd, on the
ground that these Plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their
administrative remedies under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964. The court granted Defendants' motion on August 27, 2013, and
the three Plaintiffs were dismissed from the action.

The case proceeded regarding the claims of the seven remaining
named Plaintiffs. The claims of six of the seven Plaintiffs were
settled prior to trial. The settling Plaintiffs were the Estate of
Judy Longo, Marta Hastings, Sophia Curry, Karen Currie, Kimberley
Morin, and Patricia Moreira.

On March 14, 2016, judgment was entered in favor of Defendants
against Adcock. On March 28, 2016, Defendants filed a Bill of
Costs seeking costs of $7,726.32. Plaintiff Adcock objected and on
April 29, 2016, the Clerk reduced the recoverable costs to
$5,065.25.

In the motion, Plaintiff Adcock asked the court to disallow
certain costs as unrecoverable under the law. She asserts that the
purpose of the above provision was to ensure that none of the
Defendants' costs attributable to a settling party could be
charged to a non-settling party. Defendants argue that the
settlement agreements contemplate that each of the ten Plaintiffs
is responsible for 1/10 of the joint costs incurred in the case
from its inception until each Plaintiff was dismissed, settled, or
received an unfavorable jury verdict. They argue that all of the
Plaintiffs are also responsible for 100% of the costs related to
their own case.

In his Order dated June 28, 2016 available at https://is.gd/vbgFOt
from Leagle.com, Judge Vadas found that Defendants failed to live
up to their agreement to provide proof that they have excluded
costs attributable to any settling Plaintiff.  The Court assessed
costs against Plaintiff Adcock   in the amount $3,168.21, which
she concedes are attributable to her.

Martha Berndt, et al. are represented by:

      Pamela Yvette Price, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF PAMELA Y. PRICE
      7677 Oakport Avenue, Ste. 1120
      Oakland, CA 94621
      Tel: (510) 877-0024

Siddharth Jhans, Esq. -- sid@jhanslaw.com -- Lance Randall
Stewart, Esq. -- lstewart@angius-terry.com -- and Simona A.
Farrise, Esq. -- farriselaw@farriselaw.com -- FARRISE LAW FIRM --
and Sharon Joellen Arkin, Esq. -- sarkin@arkinlawfirm.com -- THE
ARKIN LAW FIRM

California Department of Corrections is represented by Lyn Harlan,
Esq. -- Lyn.Harlan@doj.ca.gov -- and Christopher Michael Young,
Esq. -- chris.young@doj.ca.gov -- OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL


CANADIAN HOCKEY: Junior Players Exempted From Labor Code Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Cousins, writing for Herald Sports, reports that changes
exempting Nova Scotia-based teams and their athletes from a host
of labor code provisions have officials at the Quebec Major Junior
Hockey League and the Canadian Hockey League Players Association
butting heads.

The amendments, announced July 4, allow teams to ignore rules on
minimum wage, vacation and holiday pay, defined hours of work and
protections around the termination of employment.

"We have never believed that (the players) were employees working
under the legislative chain," said Gilles Courteau, commissioner
of the QMJHL in a phone interview.  "They are student-athletes
playing the game they love."

"We fully support the government of Nova Scotia's decision."

The changes apply to all athletes who meet the definition of an
employee and the amendments are designed to recognize the
uniqueness of the sports world and other ways players are
compensated, including per diem, training costs and supplied
equipment.

"It's not really surprising," said Glenn Gumbley, founder of the
CHLPA.  "(The Canadian Hockey League has) been lobbying provinces
and states where teams exist for quite some time."

Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Washington State have recently
amended their labor codes in a similar fashion.

All current and many former CHL players have an outstanding class
action lawsuit against the CHL and every top-tier junior team in
the country, seeking millions in wages, overtime pay, holiday pay
and vacation pay.

According to the QMJHL administrative rulebook, 16- and 17-year-
old players receive $35 a week, 18-year-olds get $50, 19-year-olds
get $60 and overage players receive $150.

"The experience that they receive, the life memories that they
have, it's second to none," Mr. Gumbley acknowledges.  "At the
same time, we have to respect the laws in Canada and to be
exploiting young kids just because they're talented, there's no
excuse for that."

According to the Halifax Mooseheads website, the Scotiabank Centre
saw 234,358 fans visit for a game last season.  Tickets are $19
each for an adult.

Mr. Courteau said if the QMJHL were to pay their players minimum
wage, 50-60 per cent of the teams would no longer exist.

Mr. Gumbley isn't buying it, however.

"That's just a lazy way to think," he said.  "They can change
their business model. (You could try) revenue-sharing with tickets
across the league."

Mr. Courteau said players are taken care of with scholarships for
up to four years after they leave the league, provided they attend
university.

"I don't (think) there's any other organization in North America,
other than the CHL, that takes care of their players for that long
a period of time."

Athletes will continue to receive employee protection against
discrimination, equal pay for men and women, leave of absence
protections, child protections and foreign worker protections.

"We want to ensure our athletes continue to have opportunities to
develop athletically and play sports for Nova Scotia-based teams,"
said Bobby Smith, majority owner and president of the Halifax
Mooseheads, in a government news release.


CAPITAL ONE BANK: Court Dismisses "Klika" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned GEORGE P. KLIKA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL ONE BANK,
N.A., et al., Defendants, Civil Case No. C15-0107RSL (W.D. Wash.),
Judge Robert S. Lasnik granted Capital One, N.A.'s motion to
dismiss the plaintiff's class action complaint.  The judge also
granted Capital One's request for judicial notice.

A full-text copy of Judge Lasnik's June 30, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/suwXEa from Leagle.com.

Georgia P. Klika alleged that Capital One participated in a scheme
to charge him and similarly-situated mortgagors excessive
insurance premiums for unnecessary, unauthorized, or duplicative
coverage.  Klika asserted that Capital One breached the mortgage
agreement, breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act,
violated Hawaii's Deceptive Practices Act, and was unjustly
enriched.  Capital One sought dismissal of all claims asserted
against it, arguing that the allegations are insufficient to state
a claim upon which relief could be granted and that, given the
number of times plaintiff has asserted similar claims in the past,
leave to amend should be denied.

Capital One Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by A. Brooks
Gresham, II -- bgresham@mc.guirewoods.com -- MCGUIREWOODS LLP,
Blake S. Olson -- bolson@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIREWOODS LLP, pro
hac vice & Steven A. Miller -- steven.miller@millernash.com --
MILLER NASH GRAHAM & DUNN LLP.

Assurant, Inc., Voyager Indemnity Insurance Company, Defendant,
represented by Dawn B. Williams -- dwilliams@carltonfields.com --
CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, P.A., pro hac vice, W. Glenn Merten --
gmerten@carltonfields.com -- CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, P.A., pro
hac vice, Breena Michelle Roos -- broos@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS
COIE & Vernon L. Woolston, Jr. -- vwoolston@perkinscoie.com --
PERKINS COIE.


CASH STORE: Payday Loan Users Can File Settlement Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Sunny Freeman, writing for The Star.com, reports that some 100,000
payday loan users who borrowed from the now-defunct Cash Store or
Instaloans branches in Ontario can collect their share of a $10-
million class-action settlement.

Ontarians who took out payday loans, or so-called lines of credit
from either lender after Sept. 1, 2011 are being asked to file
claims to recover some of the illegal fees and interest they were
charged.

The class action alleged that Cash Store Financial Services Inc.,
which operated more than 500 outlets at its peak, broke the Payday
Loans Act by exceeding the maximum cost of borrowing allowed.  In
Ontario, payday lenders are not allowed to charge more than $21
for every $100 borrowed.

"Cash Store had a tendency to design its business model to take
advantage of ambiguity in the statute," said Jon Foreman --
jforeman@harrisonpensa.com -- partner at Harrison Pensa LLP, which
represented class-action members.

The company skirted rules surrounding maximum interest rates by
tacking on additional fees for setting up products like debit
cards or bank accounts, he said.

Borrowers with approved claims will be eligible to receive at
least $50, but some, including those who took out multiple loans,
could receive more.  The final amounts will depend on how many
claims are submitted.

The lawsuit was filed in 2012 on behalf of Timothy Yeoman.  He
borrowed $400 for nine days and was charged $68.60 in fees and
service charges as well as $78.72 in interest, bringing his total
borrowing cost to $147.32.

The Ontario government implemented an amendment to the law on
Sept. 1, 2011 that was meant to avoid any ambiguity in
interpreting the 2008 Payday Loans Act.  The change included
specifying what is included in the "cost of borrowing."

After the amendment passed, the Cash Store unveiled "lines of
credit" and stopped offering payday loans just as the province
announced it planned to revoke its payday lending license.  The
company allowed that license to expire, arguing that its new
products fell outside the legislation.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice sided with the government in
2014 -- saying the new lines of credit were payday loans in
disguise.  Without a payday loan license, the chain was no longer
allowed to make new loans, effectively putting it out of business.

The company and its directors filed for bankruptcy protection in
2014, complicating the class action.  Mr. Foreman believes
borrowers could have received much more if the company had stayed
solvent.

"When you have a company like the Cash Store that literally
declares insolvency once the litigation gets to a more mature
stage, it's a terrible situation for the case," he said.

"To scrounge $10 million out of the circumstances that we had was
a victory in itself."

Cash Store Financial blamed its insolvency on increased government
scrutiny and changing regulations, the class action lawsuits and a
dispute with lenders who infused it with the cash to lend out.
The company also faced class actions related to overcharging in
British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Quebec.

In court documents, it noted that Canada's payday lending market
is worth more than $2.5 billion and estimated about 7 to 10 per
cent of Canadians use payday loans. Its branches made 1.3 million
loans in 2013.

Harrison Pensa is trying to make it as easy as possible for people
to file a claim, Foreman said.

It has set up a website -- takebackyourcash.com -- for borrowers
to fill in a simple form.  Even those missing loan documents can
qualify because the lawsuit forced Cash Store to hand over its
lending records.

Representatives are also sending text messages, emails and calling
borrowers in the next few weeks.  The period to file ends Oct. 31.

Mr. Foreman believes there are other lenders out there who could
be violating Ontario's maximum cost of borrowing regulations.

"It's the wild west as an industry in a lot of ways," he said.

"If you think about the transaction that's happening here, it's an
area that has strong potential for abuse."


CHINA NORTH EAST: Acticon Appeals Ruling in Securities Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Acticon AG filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Rosado v. China North East Petroleum Holdings
Limited, Case No. 10-cv-4577 on Jun 11, 2010, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City).

The appellate case is captioned as Rosado v. China North East
Petroleum Holdings Limited, Case No. 16-2351, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The putative class action was brought on behalf of all persons,
who purchased China North East Petroleum Holdings, Ltd. securities
during the period from May 15, 2008, through and including May 26,
2010.  In the Consolidated Class Action Complaint dated January
15, 2011, lead plaintiff Acticon AG brings claims against the
Defendants China North, its former directors Wang Hung Jun, Guizhi
Ju, Zhang Yang, Edward M. Rule, Li Jing Fu and Yu Li Guo -- the
individual defendants -- and Robert C. Bruce and Ralph E. Davis
Associates, Inc. for alleged violations the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.

The Defendants moved in three groups to dismiss Acticon's
Complaint.  In October 2011, District Judge Miriam Goldman
Cedarbaum dismissed the case on the ground that Acticon had failed
to demonstrate loss.  The Second Circuit reversed, holding that
Acticon had satisfactorily pled loss causation, and remanded the
case for further proceedings.  Judge Cedarbaum subsequently
dismissed the claims against Davis and Bruce for failure to plead
scienter.  Judge Cedarbaum re-examines the motion by China North
and the individual defendants to dismiss for failure to state a
claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).

In an opinion dated January 15, 2015, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/3mpCiyfrom Leagle.com, Judge Cedarbaum granted
the motion because of Acticon's failure to plead scienter.  This
disposes of the case against all defendants, and the Clerk was
directed to close the case.

The consolidated case is captioned as In re China North East
Petroleum Holdings Limited Securities Litigation, Consolidated as
No. 10 CIV. 4577 (MGC) (S.D.N.Y.).

The other Plaintiffs are Ricardo Rosado, Steven Weissman, and Tony
Moore.

The Defendants-Appellees are China North East Petroleum Holdings
Limited, Wang Hong Jun and Ju Guizhi.

The other Defendants are Ralph E. Davis, Li Jing Fu, Edward M.
Rule, Zhang Yang, Yu Li Guo, Ralph E. Davis Associates, Inc., and
Robert C. Bruce.

Plaintiff-Appellant Acticon AG is represented by:

          Tamar Weinrib, Esq.
          POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
          600 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          E-mail: taweinrib@pomlaw.com


CRANE CO: Has Duty to Warn of Dangers of Asbestos-Laden Parts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Denney, writing for the New York Law Journal, reports that
manufacturers have a duty to warn of the dangers of using their
products if they contain asbestos-laden parts from a third party
that are essential for those products to function, the state Court
of Appeals ruled on June 28 in two appeals.

Both cases involved valves manufactured by the Crane Co. intended
for use in high-pressure, high-temperature environments.  They
included asbestos-laden gaskets and packing that were produced by
other companies.

The plaintiffs in both cases regularly worked around the company's
products for years and later were diagnosed with mesothelioma and
died.

From 1960 to 1977, Ronald Dummitt was a boiler technician for the
Navy and was exposed to asbestos dust by regularly changing
gaskets and packing on the valves.  He was diagnosed with
mesothelioma in 2010 and subsequently sued Crane and 67 companies
that produced asbestos-containing gaskets, packing and insulation,
alleging that Crane had failed to warn him of the hazards of
asbestos exposure for components used with its valves.

The jury in Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation (Dummitt
v. A.W. Chesterton), found Crane 99 percent at fault and awarded
Mr. Dummitt $32 million in damages, which the court reduced to $8
million.

Crane moved to set aside the verdict, arguing that it had no duty
to warn users of the perils arising from the use of its products
in conjunction with products containing asbestos that were
manufactured by a third party.

In 2014, a divided panel of the Appellate Division, First
Department, affirmed the judgment though it agreed that Crane had
a duty to warn, finding the company had influenced the Navy's
decision to use asbestos gaskets in the valves.

The plaintiff in the other case, Matter of New York City Asbestos
Litigation (Suttner v. A.W. Chesterton), Gerald Suttner, was a
pipe fitter at a General Motors plant in Tonawanda from 1960 to
1979 and maintained the plant's steam system, which included
Crane's valves.

Like Mr. Dummitt, Mr. Suttner regularly changed asbestos-laden
gaskets, insulation and lining and was diagnosed with mesothelioma
in 2010.

Mr. Suttner also sued Crane and producers of asbestos-containing
products following his diagnosis.  A jury found Crane 4 percent
liable and awarded $3 million to Suttner's estate.  The company
appealed the verdict to the Appellate Division, Fourth Department,
but the appeals court affirmed the lower court.

In both appeals, Crane relied upon the upon the Court of Appeals'
1992 ruling in Rastelli v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber, 79 NY2d 289, to
argue that it had no duty to warn users of the dangers of third-
party products.  It had no control over the production of the
asbestos-containing implements used in its products, the company
argued, and did not place the products into the "stream of
commerce."

In a ruling issued on June 28, Judge Sheila Abdus-Salaam wrote
that a duty to warn is in line with New York public policy
regarding products liability and that a major determinant in a
manufacturer's duty to warn about the use of its product in
conjunction with another product constructed by a third party is
whether or not the manufacturer of a durable product with fungible
parts is in a "superior position" to know of the hazards of
combining those products.

"Where two products are used together, the user has even less
ability to comprehend the risk without a warning from the
manufacturers because he or she rarely has access to sufficient
technical information about both products to anticipate the perils
of their joint use," Judge Abdus-Salaam said, adding in a footnote
that this logic does not hold in instances where the dangers of
the combined use of two products is obvious to the user.

Crane's executives were aware of the dangers of breathing asbestos
dust as early as the 1970s, the decision stated, and did not
provide warnings about the dangers of using its products until at
least 1980.


DAIRY FARMERS: Allen Appeals D. Vermont Ruling to 2nd Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Alice H. Allen, Laurance E. Allen, Robert Fulper,
Claudia Haar, Jonathan Haar, Reynard Hunt, Marilyn Southway and
Peter Southway filed an appeal from a District Court opinion,
dated June 14, 2016, in the lawsuit entitled Allen, et al. v.
Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., Case No. 09-cv-230, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Vermont (Rutland).

The appellate case is captioned as Allen v. Dairy Farmers of
America, Inc., Case No. 16-2396, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Chief Judge
Christina Reiss of the U.S. District of Vermont has approved a $50
million settlement in the class action -- a landmark step after
seven years of antitrust litigation that has affected nearly 9,000
farms.  Judge Reiss approved the settlement on June 7.  The
decision came three weeks after a fairness hearing May 13, where
farmers and officials across the region supported the settlement.
A full-text copy of Judge Reiss' June 7, 2016 opinion and order is
available at https://is.gd/kBnGPx from Leagle.com.

The case, filed in 2009, alleged that Dairy Farmers of America
Inc. conspired to become the sole seller of Grade A milk in the
Northeast.  The nonprofit cooperative, according to the lawsuit,
is not member-focused and forced small farmers to join in order to
avoid market pressures that would put them out of business.

The $50 million settlement works out to $16.7 million for the
farmers' lawyers.  About 9,000 farms will each get about $4,000,
and at least 7,551 have already submitted claims under the
settlement.  The money is in addition to a $30 million settlement
that Dean Foods Co. paid out in 2011 to drop its name from the
case.

The other Plaintiffs are Garret Sitts, Ralph Sitts, Vince Neville,
Donna Hall and Richard Swantak.

The Defendants are Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., Dairy Marketing
Services, LLC, Dean Foods Company and HP Hood LLC.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Alice H. Allen and Laurance E. Allen are
represented by:

          Robert G. Abrams, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 861-1500
          E-mail: rabrams@bakerlaw.com

Plaintiffs-Appellants Alice H. Allen, Laurance E. Allen, Jonathan
Haar, Claudia Haar, Peter Southway, Marilyn Southway, Reynard Hunt
and Robert Fulper are represented by:

          Kit A. Pierson, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: kpierson@cohenmilstein.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Stephen H. Taylor and Darrel J. Aubertine are
represented by:

          Richard Thomas Cassidy, Esq.
          HOFF CURTIS, P.C.
          100 Main Street
          P.O. Box 1124
          Burlington, VT 05402
          Telephone: (802) 864-6400
          Facsimile: (802) 860-1565
          E-mail: rcassidy@hoffcurtis.com


DANZE INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Duncan" Suit
------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DUNCAN PLACE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, on its own
behalf and as assignee of Association members JAMES WEST, STEPHEN
OKAWA, ELIZABETH K. SELLECK, MARIYE WICK SORENSON, CASSANDRA JUNG,
CATHY TAN, DAVID HANSON, KAI SHI HSU, COLBY WICK, JUNWON SU, LEE
WEST, STEPHANIE TRAN, MAGGIE TANG, HSIANG JUNE CHEN, XUE CHEN,
TERRY L. DAY, FUNG MING CHAN, HARRY R. CALBOM IV, JOHN SPACE, JOHN
CHANG, IMAHN MOIN, JENNIE LE, PETER J. WU, NAOMI AVERY, JERILYN
L.C. YOUNG, GWENDOLYN HERR GLASS, JOHN H. FINEFROCK, DONALD BAIN
MACKINTOSH III, JAMES R. LUBY, TSZ CHUN LO, CINDY CHAN, TAM,
MATHEW CHAM, ALI KHREIS, SHUAI WANG, DOUGLAS STUMBERGER, JIA PING
WU, ANAND PANDIT, TONEY JIANG, KRISHNAN GAWRY, JUAN-FU CHEN; and
WEI-LING CHEN; and DANIEL DONNELLY, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DANZE, INC., f/k/a GLOBE
UNION AMERICA CORPORATION, and GLOBE UNION GROUP, INC.,
Defendants, No. 15 C 01662 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Edmond E. Chang
granted in part and denied, in part, the defendants' motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint.

Duncan Place Owners Association, the 41 individual condo owners
who have assigned their claims to Duncan Place, and Daniel
Donnelly brought the class action against Danze, Inc. and Globe
Union Group, Inc., alleging that the defendants sold them faulty
faucets and engaged in fraudulent and deceptive marketing
practices.  Danze and Globe Union moved to dismiss the plaintiffs'
Second Amended Complaint.

Judge Chang denied in its entirety the defendant's Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) motion.  The judge found that Duncan
Place has standing to assert the assigning unit owners' claims;
the unit owners have alleged an injury-in-fact; and Donnelly's
claims are ripe.

With regard to the defendants Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) arguments, Judge Chang held that the claims for breach of
express warranty survive (subject to the potential filing of the
Position Statement); Donnelly's claim for breach of implied
warranty of merchantability is dismissed for lack of privity; the
negligence and strict-products liability claims are dismissed as
to all plaintiffs; the unjust enrichment claim is dismissed; and
Donnelly's ICFA claim survives as to the unfair-practice claim,
but not the deceptive-practice claim.

A full-text copy of Judge Chang's June 30, 2016 memorandum opinion
and order is available at https://is.gd/CLLB4w from Leagle.com.

Duncan Place Owners Association, Plaintiff, represented by Kyle
Alan Shamberg -- kshamberg@litedepalma.com -- Lite DePalma
Greenberg, LLC, Andrew Charles Murphy -- acm@ditommasolaw.com --
DiTommaso Lubin, P.C., Anthony L. Rafel, Rafel Law Group Pllc, pro
hac vice, Patrick Doyle Austermuehle --
paustermuehle@ditommasolaw.com -- DiTommaso Lubin, P.C., Peter
Scott Lubin -- psl@ditommasolaw.com -- DiTommaso Lubin, P.C.,
Robert R. Ahdoot -- rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot & Wolfson,
Pc, pro hac vice, Tyler B. Ellrodt, Rafel Law Group Pllc, pro hac
vice, Vincent Louis DiTommaso -- vdt@ditommasolaw.com -- DiTommaso
Lubin, P.C. & Katrina Carroll
-- kcarroll@litedepalma.com -- Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC.

Danze, Inc., Defendant, represented by Howard L. Lieber --
hlieber@ghlaw-llp.com -- Grotefeld & Hoffmann, LLP & Joshua James
Whiteside -- jwhiteside@ghlaw-llp.com -- Grotefeld Hoffmann
Schleiter Gordon & Ochoa.

Globe Union Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Howard L.
Lieber, Grotefeld & Hoffmann, LLP.


DESIGNATRONICS INC: "Ladyzhensky" Sues Over Age Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Ladyzhensky, Plaintiff, v. Designatronics, Incorporated,
Defendants., Case No. 2:16-cv-03670 (E.D. N.Y., July 1, 2016),
seeks damages for loss of past income and all employment-related
benefits, liquidated damages, damages for mental anguish and
emotional pain and suffering, punitive damages, attorney fees and
costs incurred for violation of the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the New
York State Human Rights Law and New York Executive Law.

Designatronics is a manufacturer of small mechanical components,
servicing a wide variety of aerospace, medical and commercial
industries where Plaintiff, 68 years old, has been employed for
more than 25 years.

Plaintiff was promoted to the level of Director of Engineering of
the Sterling Instrument Division, with 5 employees under his
supervision. In January 2014, Defendant hired Jacques Lemire as
Vice President of Sales & Marketing who demoted Plaintiff from
Director of Engineering to Fellow Engineer. Lemire again demoted
Plaintiff and stripped Plaintiff of more of his responsibilities
and were assigned to a 25 year-old recent graduate. On February
23, 2015, Defendant unilaterally reduced Plaintiff's work schedule
with a consequential 40% percent reduction in his compensation.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter A. Romero, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO
     503 Route 111
     Hauppauge, NY 11788
     Tel: (631) 257-5588
     Email: peteraromero@gmail.com


DND FIRE: "Carillo" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------
Hector Carrillo, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DND Fire Protection, Inc., and
Song Cha, individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-04009 (N.D.
Ill., July 5, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

DND Fire Protection is located at 4310 Regency Dr., Glenview IL
60025 where Plaintiff worked.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Raisa Alicea, Esq.
     CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
     6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
     Chicago, IL 60646
     Tel: 312-800-1017
     Email: ralicea@yourclg.com


DUPONT: Jury Awards $500,000 in Punitive Damages in C8 Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal jury says DuPont
should pay $500,000 in punitive damages to an Ohio man in a
chemical illness lawsuit.

The Columbus Dispatch reports the jury decided the amount on
July 8.

Earlier, the same jury said DuPont Co. acted with malice by
dumping chemical-tainted water from its West Virginia plant into
the Ohio River.  Jurors awarded $5.1 million in compensatory
damages to the Washington County man, who developed cancer.

A DuPont spokesman said on July 8 the verdict will be appealed,
and jurors were misled about the risk of the chemical exposure.

The man, David Freeman, says he got testicular cancer because of
C8 used to make Teflon.

There are 3,500 lawsuits alleging a link between illnesses and the
Wilmington, Delaware-based chemical company's discharging of the
chemical into the river.

                           *     *     *

Earl Rinehart, writing for The Columbus Dispatch, reported that
testimony concluded in the courtroom of U.S. District Judge Edmund
A. Sargus Jr. on June 30.   Attorneys were scheduled to make
closing arguments and the jury to begin deliberations on July 5.

If jurors find that DuPont's C8 chemical caused David Freeman's
cancer, then they must decide the damages owed him. If they
conclude that the company acted in "conscious disregard" when it
discharged 55,000 pounds of the chemical in one year into the Ohio
River that infiltrated the wells of area water companies, then
they can also award much-higher punitive damages.

DuPont lost its first C8 trial before Mr. Sargus in October when a
jury awarded $1.6 million to an Ohio woman who said C8 caused her
kidney cancer.  That jury did not award punitive damages.

The two lawsuits are test cases that set guidelines for 3,500
C8-related lawsuits in a class-action case filed in 2001 against
DuPont.

Mr. Freeman, 56, is a Marietta College professor who lives in
Washington County, Ohio, across the river from DuPont's Washington
Works plant.  The plant, outside Parkersburg, West Virginia, used
C8 to manufacture Teflon.

Mr. Freeman's attorneys argued the company cared more about
protecting C8 than notifying the surrounding water companies and
residents of the potential risk.

The 3M Co., which made C8 and sold it to DuPont, concluded in the
1980s that C8 was toxic to rats and monkeys.  DuPont said that 3M
had given massive amounts of the chemical to the animals, and that
the results were not relevant to humans.

DuPont contends that the amounts of C8, which it characterized as
a detergent-like compound, in drinking water were too small to be
harmful.

Both sides agreed that C8 is "bio-persistent," meaning that it
stays in people's blood for years, perhaps all their lives.

"Just because it's there doesn't mean it's doing anything," said
Anthony Playtis, who retired as the occupational health
coordinator at Washington Works.

Toxicologist Robert Rickard, former DuPont chief scientist at
corporate headquarters in Wilmington, Delaware, said C8 workers at
Washington Works were exposed to C8 concentrations of 2,000 parts
per billion, and non-C8 workers to 200 parts per billion. If non-
C8 workers had lower and "acceptable exposure limits," so would
the community.

"There's never been any cluster of cancer associated with people
who worked with C8," Mr. Rickard said.

Michael Papantonio argued that even if the community's exposure to
C8 was low, it was longer than that of workers who were exposed
for eight hours a day.

Mr. Playtis said the workers were exposed to a higher
concentration of C8 than residents would be over a long period.

A "C8 Responsible Care Team" was created at Washington Works in
2000 to address the public's concerns about the chemical.

"This is 50 years after C8 was being dumped into the Ohio and
spewed out of the smokestacks at Washington Works," said
Gary Douglas, another of Freeman's attorneys.

DuPont concluded in the 1980s that the safe blood level for
continued exposure to C8 was 5,000 parts per billion.  Tests of
residents in the Little Hocking Water Association, where
Mr. Freeman lived, showed a median level of 354 parts per billion.
Mr. Freeman reported that he had 254 parts per billion.

The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection announced
in 2002 that C8 was a "possible cancer risk to the public."

A scientific study that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
had DuPont fund concluded in 2012 that there were "probably links"
between C8 exposure and diseases such as kidney and testicular
cancers.

Mr. Rickard said the company had phased out the use of C8 by 2013.


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Approval of Class Settlement Sought in "Palmer"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the class action lawsuit styled RAY PALMER, JR., on
behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. DYNAMIC RECOVERY SOLUTIONS LLC, a South Carolina
limited liability company, and CASCADE CAPITAL, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, the Defendants, Case No. 6:15-cv-00059-
PGB-KRS (M.D. Fla.), ask the Court to enter an order certifying
the case to proceed as a class action for preliminary approval of
the proposed class settlement.

The Plaintiff and Defendants request that the Court certify the
class defined as:

     "(i) All persons with addresses in Florida; (ii) to whom
      Defendant Dynamic Recovery Solutions LLC sent, or caused to
      be sent, a letter in the form of Exhibit A attached to the
      Complaint on behalf of Cascade Capital LLC; (iii) in an
      attempt to collect an alleged debt originally due Bank of
      America; (iv) 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; (v) on which the last payment was made five or
      more years prior to the date of mailing of the letter in
      the form of Exhibit A; and (vi) during the year prior to
      the filing of the original complaint in this action through
      the date of certification."

Pursuant to the Agreement, the parties have agreed to the
following settlement:

     a. The Defendants shall pay a total of $24,000.00 to the
        class for statutory damages to be distributed on a pro
        rata basis to each class member who does not timely opt
        out or exclude himself or herself from the class
        settlement.

     b. The Defendants shall pay Plaintiff a total of $500.00 in
        recognition for his service as Class Representative, and
        an additional total of $500.00 to Plaintiff as his
        statutory damages (this is in addition to and will not
        reduce or otherwise affect the $24,000.00 Class
        Settlement Fund);

     c. The Plaintiff shall be deemed the prevailing and
        successful party solely for purposes of an award of costs
        and attorney fees. The Defendant shall pay Plaintiff's
        reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as determined or
        approved by the Court.

     d. The Defendant shall pay the reasonable costs of class
        notice, distribution, and administration directly to the
        class administrator in advance of the services
        necessitating any such costs (this is in addition to and
        will not reduce or otherwise affect the $24,000.00 Class
        Settlement Fund).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=bQHI3CV9

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald E. Petersen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DONALD E. PETERSEN
          Post Office Box 1948
          Orlando, FL 32802-1948
          Telephone: (407) 648 9050
          E-mail: petersen221@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Randolph Bragg, Esq.
          HORWITZ, HORWITZ & ASSOC.
          25 East Washington Street, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone (312) 372 8822
          E-mail: rand@horwitzlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ernest H. Kohlmyer, III, Esq.
          URBAN, THEIR, FEDERER & CHINNERY, P.A.
          200 South Orange Avenue; Suite 20000
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 245 8352
          Facsimile: (407) 245 8361
          E-mail: Kohlmyer@urbanthier.com

               - and -

          Brian D. Rubenstein, Esq.
          COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
          4301 West Boy Scout Boulevard, Suit 400
          Tampa, FL 33607
          Telephone: (813) 864 9319
          Facsimile: (813) 286 2900
          E-mail: Brian.Rubenstein@ckslegal.com


EAST 33RD: Restaurant Faces "Baten" Lawsuit in N.Y. Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Baten, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, v. East 33rd Street Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Caliente Cab
Co. and Anthony Brasco, Case 1:16-cv-05404 (S.D.N.Y., July 7,
2016), was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

East 33rd Street Restaurant Corp is a licensed liquor authority in
the county of New York, licensed by New York State State Liquor
Authority.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FACEBOOK INC: Illinois Face Recognition Law Spurs Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Grimoldby, writing for Forbes.com, reports that at the
opening of this millennium, the idea of computer programs using
facial recognition software to target ads to people was the stuff
of such science fiction stories as the 2002 film "Minority
Report."

By 2010, however, Facebook had reported its users had applied more
than 100 million "tags" to photos uploaded to its site,
identifying millions of people appearing in the photos, and
allowing the social media titan to launch a new tool it called
"Tag Suggestions" -- essentially allowing facial recognition
algorithms to identify in those uploaded photos the people whose
"faceprint" had been stored in Facebook's databases from previous
tagged photo uploads.

And by 2015, Facebook was served with the first in a series of
class action lawsuits under a previously little known Illinois law
over the use of facial recognition and other such biometric
identification systems.

But if those bringing such class action lawsuits have their way,
the state law, enacted in 2008 as the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act, will impact businesses of many sizes, far
beyond Silicon Valley's social media giants.

Only Texas and Illinois have such state-level laws in place to
protect biometric information.  But Illinois was ahead of its time
when it created the BIPA eight years ago, said Christopher Dore --
cdore@edelson.com -- a partner at Edelson PC in Chicago.

BIPA regulates the ways in which a person's biometric identifiers
-- described in the act as "a retina or iris scan, fingerprint,
voiceprint, or scan of hand or face geometry" -- are collected,
stored and used.

Under the act, individuals must be informed in writing ahead of
time -- and give their written permission -- before any biometric
identifiers can be obtained by a private entity.  The length of
time the identifiers will be used also must be disclosed.

But since BIPA was, and is, the only act of its kind in regard to
its strength -- and since it came into being several years before
Facebook implemented Tag Suggestions -- it mostly sat on the
shelf, going unnoticed by companies operating on a nationwide
basis, Dore said.

That is, until early last year, when Dore said Cook County
resident Carlo Licata came to Edelson with concerns about his
privacy on Facebook.

Mr. Licata and two other Illinois residents alleged Facebook
violated BIPA by not gathering proper consent before collecting
his biometric information.  Though the suit originated in
Illinois, it was transferred to a California federal court, since
Facebook is headquartered in California.  But a judge recently
determined Illinois would retain jurisdiction, and BIPA
regulations would apply.

The case still is pending, and its outcome will provide more
definitive guidance on how similar cases will be handled.

Until the courts figure out how broadly or narrowly BIPA should be
interpreted and applied, it's difficult to say whether the statute
is working the way it was intended, said A.J. Dixon, an associate
attorney who is following the Licata case and others like it at
Winston and Strawn LLP in Chicago.

"BIPA's 'legislative findings' provisions, as well as its
legislative history, suggest that it was originally meant to cover
biometric information used in financial transactions and security
screenings -- for example, the 'pay-by-touch' machines that were
being installed in a number of a Illinois grocery stores around
the time the legislation was passed," Mr. Dixon wrote in an email,
responding to questions from Legal Newsline.

"BIPA's applicability to other technologies, such as Facebook's
photo-tagging function, is far less clear."

Still, the mere existence of the Facebook case already has opened
the door for a new scope of liability for businesses relying on
biometric information.

In March, Google was hit with a class action for allegedly
collecting the face templates of millions of Illinois residents
through its Google Photos service.

In April, Shutterfly quietly settled a class action suit it had
been fighting for months in which the photo publishing website was
accused of violating BIPA.  The amount of the settlement was not
disclosed, but BIPA provides $1,000 for each negligent violation
and $5,000 for intentional or reckless violations.

Most recently, the popular mobile messaging app Snapchat was sued
in late May for collecting face templates through its Lenses
feature.

In addition to the suits brought against the social media
companies, at least two more cases have been filed under BIPA as
of late, Mr. Dore said.  National tanning salon chains LA Tan and
Palm Beach Tan have come under BIPA's glare for their systems,
which collect and store their clients' fingerprints.

Until there is judicial clarity on the reach of the BIPA,
litigation likely will continue to increase, Dixon said.

Dore believes that's a good thing.

"It's vital that this type of information is regulated in how it's
collected and sold and used," Mr. Dore said.  "You can change your
email password, even your social security number . . . but you
can't change your thumb print; you can't change your face. You're
stuck with it, for better or worse."

Other privacy advocates believe BIPA is a strong statute and could
pave the way for similar protection acts in the future.

"[It's] a good example of the kind of law that protects privacy in
a way that's effective and balances innovation desires and goals
of companies but protects privacy rights of people," said Gautam
Hans, policy counsel of the Center for Democracy and Technology-
San Francisco.

Others, such as the Illinois Policy Institute, have questioned
whether the law may again make Illinois a haven for what others
have called "enterprising litigation."  An Illinois Policy
Institute spokesperson said the Institute doesn't have an official
position on BIPA.

But an article written by an Institute staffer and posted on the
Institute's website has openly pondered whether Illinois could
"become the tech litigation capital of the nation, akin to Madison
County, Illinois' notoriety as an asbestos trial attorney's
paradise?"

"Might that have a dampening effect on technological innovation
that could ultimately benefit huge numbers of people worldwide?"
the article asked.  "And wouldn't it give tech firms -- and many
other companies -- pause before they set up shop in Illinois?"


FCA US LLC: Wins Nod to Transfer "Grimstad" Suit to S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable James V. Selna grants the Defendants' motion to
transfer the case styled LYNN GRIMSTAD, ET AL. V. FCA US LLC, ET
AL., Case No. 8:16-cv-00763-JVS-E (C.D. Cal.), to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Judge Selna, however, denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss,
without prejudice.  The Court makes these rulings in accordance
with a tentative ruling, according to a civil minutes entered in
the Case on July 8, 2016.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Xy2Sq8px


FMA ALLIANCE: Romeo & Arpino Claims Tossed, Motz Claim Survives
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Arthur D. Spatt of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York granted in part Defendant's
motion to dismiss in the case captioned, LOUIS ROMEO, CHRISTOPHER
MOTZ and DEBORAH ARPINO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FMA ALLIANCE, LTD., Defendant,
Case No. 15-cv-6524 (ADS)(ARL) (E.D.N.Y.).

On November 13, 2015, the Plaintiffs Louis Romeo (Romeo),
Christopher Motz (Motz), and Deborah Arpino (Arpino) commenced the
putative class action against the Defendant FMA Alliance, Ltd.
(FMA) alleging that certain debt collection activities by FMA
violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

The Defendant moves under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) to dismiss the
claims asserted by Romeo and Motz for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. Defendant argues that because Romeo and Motz failed
to disclose their putative FDCPA claims against FMA on their
bankruptcy petitions, those claims now belong to the respective
bankruptcy estates, which, through their trustees, are the only
parties with standing to enforce them. The Defendant also sought
to dismiss the complaint in its entirety on the alternative ground
that the equitable doctrine of judicial estoppel bars the
Plaintiffs' claims. Finally, contending that the Plaintiffs
commenced this action in bad faith for the primary purpose of
harassing FMA, the Defendant seeks an award of attorneys' fees and
costs under section 1692k of the FDCPA.

In his Memorandum of Decision and Order dated June 30, 2016
available at https://is.gd/hIMI3A from Leagle.com, Judge Spatt
granted the motion to dismiss with respect to Romeo on the ground
that he lacks standing, and thus the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over his claims and as to Arpino on the ground that
she is barred by principles of judicial estoppel from pursuing her
claims.  The Court denied with respect to Motz. The Court also
denies without prejudice the Defendant's application for an award
of attorneys' fees and costs.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the official caption
of the matter to CHRISTOPHER MOTZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FMA ALLIANCE, LTD.,
Defendant.

Christopher Motz is represented by Craig B. Sanders, Esq. --
csanders@sanderslawpllc.com -- and David M. Barshay, Esq. --
dbarshay@sanderslawpllc.com -- SANDERS LAW, PLLC

FMA Alliance, Ltd. is represented by Aaron R. Easley, Esq. --
aeasley@sessions.legal -- SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL LLC


FMA ALLIANCE: Romeo Asks 2nd Cir. to Review Ruling From E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Louis Romeo, Christopher Motz and Deborah Arpino filed
an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Romeo v. FMA
Alliance, Ltd., Case No. 15-cv-6524, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York (Central Islip).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 22,
2015, the Plaintiffs seek to stop the Defendant's alleged unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

The appellate case is captioned as Romeo v. FMA Alliance, Ltd.,
Case No. 16-2421, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          David Michael Barshay, Esq.
          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 741-4799

Defendant-Appellee FMA Alliance, Ltd., is represented by:

          Aaron R. Easley, Esq.
          SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL L.L.C.
          3 Cross Creek Drive
          Flemington, NJ 08822
          Telephone: (908) 237-1660
          E-mail: aeasley@sessions.legal


FORD MOTOR: Gov't Investigates Complaints Over Exhaust Gas Odor
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the U.S. government is
investigating complaints from Ford Explorer owners who say they
smelled exhaust gas inside the SUV.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said it
received 154 complaints involving Ford Explorers with model years
between 2011 and 2015.

One driver said the odor caused a low-speed crash. No injuries
were reported.

The NHTSA and Ford Motor Co. declined to say how many vehicles are
being investigated.  Ford sold more than 950,000 of its 2011 to
2015 Explorers, according to Autodata Corp.

Exhaust gas was smelled when the SUVs were in full throttle, like
when climbing steep roads or merging on to freeway ramps.  The
odor was also detected when the air conditioner was in
recirculation mode, the NHTSA said.

Some owners said that two recommended fixes from Ford in 2012 and
2014 failed to fix the issue.

Ford, based in Dearborn, Michigan, said on July 5 that it is
cooperating with the investigation.


FOREMOST INSURANCE: "Arnold" Sues Over Insurance Claim
------------------------------------------------------
David Arnold, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Foremost Insurance Company and Farmers Insurance, Case
No. CV16865562 (Ohio Com. Pleas, June 30, 2016), seeks
compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief and such
other relief resulting from breach of contract, promissory
estoppell, breach of good faith and fair dealing and fraudulent
misrepresentation, inducement and concealment.

Arnold owns a property located at 19406 Harvard Ave., Warrensville
Heights OH 44122 that caught fire. He filed a structural loss
claim with Foremost, under an insurance policy agreement. Foremost
failed to include subcontractor's overhead and profit in its
actual cash value evaluations of the damages.

Foremost is a Michigan company and has been insuring risks and
transacting business in the State of Ohio and other states.

Farmer's Insurance is a California Company which owns Foremost, it
jointly markets and handles claims with Foremost.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     George Sintsirmas, Esq.
     Spyridon G. Sintsirmas Esq.
     26361 Curtiss Wright Parkway
     Cleveland, OH 44143
     Tel: (216) 920-5665
     Fax: (216) 920-5085
     E-mail: gsintsirmas@traxmed.com
             Sints21aw@gmail.com


FTS USA: Thomas' Bid for Partial Summary Judgment Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned KELVIN M. THOMAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FTS
USA, LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Case No. 3:13-cv-825 (E.D.
Va.), Judge Robert E. Payne granted in part and denied, in part,
the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.

The class action complaint was filed on December 11, 2013 by
Kelvin Thomas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, alleging that the defendant FTS USA, LLC, a subsidiary
of Unitek Global Services, Inc., had violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

After the close of discovery, Thomas filed a motion for summary
judgment, in which he sought summary judgment "on al [sic]
questions other than damages."  Thomas contended that he is
entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability on all
counts and on the issue of willfulness.

Judge Payne held that the plaintiffs are entitled to summary
judgment that the Employee Release Statement violates 15 U.S.C.
section 1681b(b)(2)(A) and that the defendants violated 15 U.S.C.
section 1681(b)(3).  However, the judge also ruled that the
plaintiffs are not entitled to summary judgment on the issue of
willfulness.

A full-text copy of Judge Payne's June 30, 2016 memorandum opinion
is available at https://is.gd/clprwG from Leagle.com.

Kelvin M. Thomas, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Colt
North, Craig Carley Marchiando -- craig@clalegal.com -- Consumer
Litigation Associates, Lauren K.W. Brennan --
lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis & Mailman PC, pro hac
vice, Leonard Anthony Bennett -- leonard@clalegal.com -- Consumer
Litigation Associates, Susan Mary Rotkis -- susan@clalegal.com --
Consumer Litigation Associates & William Leonard Downing, The
Consumer and Employee Rights Law Firm PC.

FTS USA, LLC, Unitek Global Services, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Christopher Emil Polchin --
cpolchin@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild LLP, pro hac vice,
Jessica Vasconcellos Haire -- jhaire@foxrothschild.com -- Fox
Rothschild LLP & Colin David Dougherty --
cdougherty@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild LLP, pro hac vice.


FTS USA: Court Denies Defendant's Second Summary Judgment Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Robert E. Payne of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied
Defendant's second motion for summary judgment in the case
captioned, KELVIN M. THOMAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FTS USA, LLC,
et al., Defendants, Civil No. 3:13-CV-825 (E.D. Va.).

On December 11, 2013, Thomas filed a class action complaint on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, alleging that
defendant FTS USA, LLC (FTS), a subsidiary of UniTek Global
Services, Inc. (UniTek) had violated the Fair Credit Reporting
Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681 et seq. (FCRA).  Counts One and Two of
the Complaint allege violations of 15 U.S.C. Sec.
1681b(b)(2)(A)(i) and (ii), which require a disclosure and written
consent from the consumer before a person may obtain a consumer
report for employment purposes. Counts Three and Four allege
violations of 15 U.S.C. Sections 1681b(b)(3)(A)(i) and (ii),
respectively.

After the court certified the proposed classes, the parties
conducted limited post-certification discovery. The Court granted
leave for Defendants to file a second motion for summary judgment
"limited to the following two issues: a. Class Representative
Kelvin Thomas' understanding of the Employment Release Form that
he signed at the time he applied for employment with FTS USA, LLC;
and b. Plaintiffs' damages."

In the motion, Defendants contend that summary judgment is
appropriate because: (1) Defendants' disclosure forms comply with
15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681b(b)(2); (2) Plaintiffs lack standing under the
Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540
(2016); (3) summary judgment is proper as to some members of the
Adverse Action Sub-Class who received notice as required by 15
U.S.C. Sec. 1681b(b) (3); (4) summary judgment is proper as to
some members of the class who executed general releases or signed
settlement agreements such that their claims are barred by the
doctrine of accord and satisfaction; and (5) Thomas is barred from
pursuing the instant claims by judicial estoppel.

In his Memorandum Opinion dated June 30, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/RP7IFN from Leagle.com, Judge Payne found that
Defendants' motion obviously is not confined to the scope allowed
by the order authorizing a second motion for summary judgment.

Kelvin M. Thomas is represented by Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq. -
- craig@clalegal.com -- Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq. --
leonard@clalegal.com -- and Susan Mary Rotkis, Esq. --
susan@clalegal.com -- CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES -- and Lauren
K.W. Brennan, Esq. -- lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com -- FRANCIS &
MAILMAN PC

FTS USA, LLC and Unitek Global Services, Inc. are represented by
Christopher Emil Polchin, Esq. -- cpolchin@foxrothschild.com
-- Jessica Vasconcellos Haire, Esq. -- jhaire@foxrothschild.com
-- and Colin David Dougherty, Esq .-- cdougherty@foxrothschild.com
-- FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP


FUJITSU GROUP: 401(k) Plan Participants File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that participants in a 401(k) plan have filed a class-action suit
over the plan's operation.

Jerry Johnson, Jesse Perry, Yolanda Weir, Karen White,
Todd Salisbury, Peter Hitt, Patricia Collier and Verlin Laine
filed a complaint on behalf of Fujitsu Group Defined Contribution
and 401(k) plan on June 30 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against Fujitsu Technology and
Business of America Inc. et al., alleging breach of fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

According to the complaint the plaintiffs allege that the
defendants operate one of the most expensive 401(k) plans in the
country.  The plaintiffs holds Fujitsu Technology and Business of
America Inc. et al., responsible because the defendants allegedly
failed to properly manage the plan in a cost-effective manner for
all the participants of the plan.

The plaintiffs seek order enjoining the defendants, declare that
the defendants breached their fiduciary duties, equitable relief,
interest, all legal fees and any other relief as the court deems
just.  They are represented by Matthew C. Helland, Rebekah L.
Bailey, Kai H. Richter, Carl F. Engstrom and Jacob T. Schutz of
Nichols Kaster LLP in San Francisco.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case
number 5:16-cv-03698-NC


GENERAL CHEMICAL: Creston Water Sues Over Overpriced Alum
----------------------------------------------------------
City of Creston Water Works Department, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. General Chemical
Corporation, General Chemical Performance Products, LLC, Gentek,
Inc., Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund, Chemtrade Logistics Inc.,
Chemtrade Chemicals Corporation, Chemtrade Chemicals US, LLC, Geo
Specialty Chemicals, Inc., C&S Chemicals, Inc., USALCO, LLC,
Kemira Chemicals, Inc., Frank A. Reichl, Brian C. Steppig, Vincent
J. Opalewski and John Does 1-50, Defendants, asserts that
Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to artificially fix, raise,
maintain, and/or stabilize the prices of aluminum sulfate in the
United States.

Plaintiff purchased liquid aluminum sulfate directly from the
defendants at allegedly excessive prices.

City of Creston Water Works indirectly purchased liquid alum for
its water treatment.

Reichl was the General Manager of Water Chemicals for General
Chemical Group, Inc., a corporation existing under the laws of
Delaware, with principal place of business at 90 East Halsey Road,
Parsippany, New Jersey.

General Chemical Corporation was a corporation existing under the
laws of Delaware with principal place of business at Suite 300,
155 Gordon Baker Road, Toronto, Ontario.

General Chemical Performance Products LLC was a limited liability
company organized under the laws of Delaware with principal place
of business at 90 East Halsey Road, Parsippany, New Jersey.

GenTek Inc. was a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Parsippany, New Jersey. GenTek manufactured and
supplied water treatment chemicals throughout the United States.
It owned and controlled Defendants General Chemical Performance
Products LLC and General Chemical Corporation.

Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund is a limited purpose trust under
the laws of the Province of Ontario and is headquartered in
Toronto, Canada. It manufactures and markets industrial chemicals
and other coagulants used in water treatment in Canada, the United
States and Europe.

Chemtrade Logistics Inc. is a subsidiary of Chemtrade
Logistics Income Fund incorporated under the laws of the Province
of Ontario.

GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. is a privately held Ohio corporation
with its principal place of business at 340 Mathers Road, Ambler,
Pennsylvania. GEO Specialty manufactures, markets, and supplies
specialty chemicals, including water treatment chemicals.

Chemtrade Chemicals Corporation is a Delaware corporation and is a
subsidiary of Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund.

Chemtrade Chemicals US, LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company and is a subsidiary of Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund.

C&S Chemicals, Inc. is a privately held Pennsylvania corporation
with its principal place of business at 4180 Providence Road,
Marietta, Georgia. C&S Chemicals specializes in the production of
Liquid Aluminum Sulfate and Sodium Aluminate and currently
operates six manufacturing facilities located in Florida, Georgia,
South Carolina, Illinois, and Minnesota.

USALCO, LLC is a privately held Maryland corporation with its
principal place of business at 2601 Cannery Avenue, Baltimore,
Maryland. USALCO manufactures and distributes aluminum-based
chemical commodities to the industrial and municipal markets in
the North America.

Kemira Chemicals, Inc. is a publicly held Georgia corporation with
its principal place of business at 1000 Parkwood Circle, Suite
500, Atlanta, Georgia. It manufactures, formulates and supplies
specialty and process chemicals for paper, water treatment,
mineral slurries and industrial chemical industries in North
America and internationally.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Benjamin David Elga, Esq.
     CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
     16 Court Street, Suite 1012
     Brooklyn, NY 11241
     Tel: 202-789-3960
     Fax: 202-789-1813
     E-mail: belga@cuneolaw.com

             - and -

     Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
     Joel Davidow, Esq.
     Blaine Finley, Esq.
     CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
     507 C Street, N.E.
     Washington, DC 20002
     Tel: 202-789-3960
     Fax: 202-789-1813
     Email: jonc@cuneolaw.com
            joel@cuneolaw.com
            bfinley@cuneolaw.com

            - and -

     J. Barton Gopelrud, Esq.
     HUDSON, MALLANEY, SHINDLER & ANDERSON, P.C.
     5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
     West Des Moines, IA 50265
     Tel: 515-223-4567
     Fax: 515-223-8887
     Email: jbgoplerud@hudsonlaw.netd


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Counts" Suit Over High Emission Vehicles
---------------------------------------------------------------
JASON COUNTS, DONALD KLEIN, OSCAR ZAMORA, BRANDON J. STONE, JASON
SILVEUS, JOHN MISKELLY, THOMAS HAYDUK, JOSHUA HURST, and JOSHUA
RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, 2:16-cv-12541-LVP-DRG
(E.D. Mich., July 7, 2016), seek damages and equitable relief for
GM's alleged misconduct related to the design, manufacture,
marketing, sale, and lease of Cruze vehicles with unlawfully high
emissions.

General Motors, through its various entities including Chevrolet,
designs, manufactures, markets, distributes and sell GM
automobiles in multiple other locations in the United States and
worldwide.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
     Lance C. Young, Esq.
     SOMMERS SCHWARTZ
     One Towne Square, Suite 1700
     Southfield, MI 48076
     Phone: (248) 355-0300
     E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
             lyoung@sommerspc.com

        - and -

     Steve W. Berman, Esq.
     Jessica Thompson, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Phone: (206) 623-7292
     Fax: (206) 623-0594
     E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

        - and -

     Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
     SEEGER WEISS LLP
     77 Water Street, New York,
     New York, NY 10005
     Phone: (212) 584-0700
     Fax: (212) 584-0799
     E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com

        - and -

     Robert C. Hilliard, Esq.
     HILLIARD MUNOZ GONZALES LLP
     719 S Shoreline Blvd., # 500
     Corpus Christi, TX 78401
     Phone: (361) 882-1612
     E-mail: bobh@hmglawfirm.com

        - and -

     James E. Cecchi, Esq.
     CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
     5 Becker Farm Road
     Roseland, NJ 07068
     Phone: (973) 994-1700
     Fax: (973) 994-1744
     E-mail: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com


GEORGE MASON MORTGAGE: Alcorn Granted Leave to File Amended Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard D. Bennett of the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland granted Plaintiffs' Motion for
Leave to File an Amended Complaint and denied Defendant's Motion
for Leave to File Sur-Reply in the case captioned, KRIS ALCORN, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. GEORGE MASON MORTGAGE, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. RDB-15-2727 (D. Md.).

Plaintiffs Kris Alcorn (Alcorn) and Christian Cartwright
(Cartwright) bring the putative class action against Defendant
George Mason Mortgage, LLC (George Mason), alleging violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201, et seq. (FLSA).
Specifically, Alcorn and Cartwright claim that George Mason failed
to pay them and their similarly situated co-workers any overtime
wages in violation of federal law.

Alcorn and Cartwright worked as Mortgage Loan Officers (MLOs) at
George Mason in Frederick, Maryland from about April 2012 to March
2013 and March 2012 to August 2013, respectively. On September 15,
2015, over two years after each plaintiff ceased employment at
George Mason, Plaintiffs filed the present action against George
Mason, alleging a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. Sec. 201, et seq. (FLSA).

Plaintiffs seek leave to file an amended complaint in order to
correct the alleged pleading deficiencies identified by Defendant
in its Motion to Dismiss. Defendant contends that Plaintiff's
proposed Amended Complaint is futile because it would be subject
to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). In requesting leave to file a
sur-reply, George Mason presents the same arguments, as well as
many of the same cases, offered in its earlier briefs.

In his Memorandum Opinion dated June 23, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/OioY3D from Leagle.com, Judge Bennett held that the
present Amended Complaint, in contrast to these cases, provides
numerous factual allegations sufficient to support a plausible
claim of willfulness. As to the Motion for Leave to File Sur-
Reply, George Mason has failed to demonstrate a need for a sur-
reply because the parties have exhaustively briefed the issue,
thereby providing George Mason with a fair opportunity to contest
Plaintiffs' claims.

Kris Alcorn, et al. are represented by Camar R. Jones, Esq. --
cjones@shavitzlaw.com -- and Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. --
gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com -- SHAVITZ LAW GROUP PA

Alcorn et al. are also represented by:

      Gregg Cohen Greenberg, Esq.
      ZIPIN, AMSTER AND GREENBERG, LLC
      8757 Georgia Ave #400
      Silver Spring, MD 20910
      Tel: (301)587-9373

George Mason Mortgage, LLC is represented by Elena D. Marcuss,
Esq. -- emarcuss@mcguirewoods.com -- and John E. Thomas, Jr., Esq.
-- jethomas@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIREWOODS LLP


GLOBAL TEL LINK: "Reese" Sues Over Excessive Phone Charges
----------------------------------------------------------
Earl Reese, Walter Chruby, Stephen Orosz, Jr., Michael Veon, Larry
Bageant, Luann Bouvier, Wesley Harper, Robert Holmes, Stephen and
Emily Orosz, Carl Peterkin, Stephanie Veon, Lewis Brooks,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, Defendants, Case No.
5:16-cv-05165 (E.D. Pa., July 1, 2016), seeks damages resulting
from unjust enrichment, costs and disbursements of this action,
restitution and/or disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, pre- and
post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and such other
and further relief under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices
and Consumer Protection Law.

Plaintiffs are inmates at SCI Laurel Highlands Correctional
Facilities. They claim to have been charged excessive interstate
telephone fees when calling their family.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter A. Muhic, Esq.
     Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
     Donna Siegel Moffa, Esq.
     Amanda R. Trask, Esq.
     Monique Myatt Galloway, Esq.
     KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, P.C.
     280 King of Prussia Road
     Radnor, PA 19087, Esq.
     Telephone: (610) 667-7706
     Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
     Email: pmuhic@ktmc.com
            eciolko@ktmc.com
            dmoffa@ktmc.com
            atrask@ktmc.com
            mgalloway@ktmc.com

            - and -

     Susan L. Burke, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF SUSAN L. BURKE
     1611 Park Avenue
     Baltimore, MD 21217
     Telephone: (410) 733-5444
     Facsimile: (410) 733-5444
     Email: sburke@burkepllc.com

            - and -

     Peter R. Kahana, Esq.
     Daniel Berger, Esq.
     Peter R. Kahana, Esq.
     Michael Y. Twersky, Esq.
     BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
     1622 Locust Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Telephone: (215) 875-3000
     Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
     Email: danberger@bm.net
            pkahana@bm.net
            mitwersky@bm.net

            - and -

     Patrick Howard, Esq.
     Simon B. Paris, Esq.
     SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C.
     1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Telephone: (215) 496-8282
     Facsimile: (215) 496-0999
     Email: sparis@smbb.com
            phoward@smbb.com


GLOBAL TEL LINK: Martin Seeks Certification of Class
----------------------------------------------------
Mr. David Martin in the class action lawsuit styled ALICE LEE, et
al., the Plaintiffs, v. GLOBAL TEL LINK CORPORATION, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-02495-ODW-PLA (C.D. Cal.), moves the
Court for an order to certify this class of individuals similarly
situated to the Plaintiff:

     "(1) All persons residing in the United States (2) who was
      either the subscriber or primary user of a cellular
      telephone number (3) to which Global Tel Link Corporation
      (GTL) placed the following prerecorded telephone call (4)
      between July 1, 2012 and December 25, 2014:"

          "This is an important message from GTL about calls from
           an offender at a correctional facility. Para escuchar
           este mensaje en espanol, oprima el numero uno. Your
           telephone service provider is unable to bill you for
           these calls. If you wish to receive these calls, you
           must contact us at 1-877-650-4249 to arrange for
           billing. To hear these instructions again, press 1. To
           end this call, please hang up."

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patric A. Lester, Esq.
          LESTER & ASSOCIATES
          5694 Mission Center Road, #385
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 665 3888
          Facsimile: (314) 241 5777
          E-mail: pl@lesterlaw.com

               - and -

          Timothy J. Sostrin, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD
          55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          E-mail: TSostrin@KeoghLaw.com


GODADDY.COM LLC: Must Defend Against Ventures Edge Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge G. Murray Snow of the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona denied Defendant's motion to dismiss
in the case captioned, Ventures Edge Legal PLLC, Plaintiff, v.
GoDaddy.com LLC, Defendant, Civil No. CV-15-02291-PHX-GMS (D.
Ariz.).

GoDaddy is an internet-domain name registrar. With the permission
of Microsoft, GoDaddy began selling Office 365 through its website
in early 2014 through subscription services.

On November 13, 2014, Venture Edge viewed and purchased, through
GoDaddy's website, the Office 365 Business Premium plan for $89.88
for a one-year term with an automatic annual renewal rate of
$179.88 per year. Plaintiff alleges GoDaddy failed to disclose
that its version of the Office 365 Business plan does not offer
the same services and features as the Office 365 Business Premium
plan sold by Microsoft.

On November 12, 2015, Plaintiff filed a putative class action suit
for an omissions-based violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act
(ACFA). Plaintiff's allegations detail the services provided by
Microsoft's plan that are not provided by GoDaddy's version.
Plaintiff also alleges that this failure to disclose took place on
Defendant's website, prior to when Plaintiff purchased GoDaddy's
version of the Office 365 Business Premium plan.

In the motion, Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint for
failure to state a claim.

In his Order dated June 30, 2016 available at https://is.gd/iJNTqA
from Leagle.com, Judge Snow declined to rule in the context of
deciding the motion to dismiss that the Complaint was time-barred.
Judge Snow said GoDaddy's Universal Terms of Service Agreement
("UTOS") and Microsoft Office Terms of Use Agreement ("MOTU") are
not a sufficient basis on which this Court could conclude that
Plaintiff has failed to make a claim.

Ventures Edge Legal PLLC is represented by Andrew S. Friedman,
Esq. -- afriedman@bffb.com -- and William G. Fairbourn, Esq. --
gfairbourn@bffb.com -- BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT PC -
David A. Rothstein, Esq. -- grothstein@weintraub.com DIMOND KAPLAN
& ROTHSTEIN PA

GoDaddy.com LLC is represented by Aaron M. McKown, Esq. --
amckown@cozen.com -- and Paula L. Zecchini, Esq. --
pzecchini@cozen.com -- COZEN O'CONNOR PC


GOODFELLOWS OF PASCO: "Rivero" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay, Tips
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judith Rivero, on her own behalf and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Goodfellows of Pasco County, Inc. and Richard Hill,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-01928 (M.D. Fla., July
1, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, minimum wage and
other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate an adult entertainment club, Brass Flamingo
where Plaintiff worked as entertainer and/or dancer. She claims to
be denied overtime pay and alleges that her tips were withheld by
the Defendant.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      201 N. Franklin St., Suite 700
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 223-5505
      Facsimile: (813) 257-0572
      Email: medelman@forthepeople.com


GRAYCO MANAGEMENT: "Peer" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Cory Peer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Grayco Management, LLC, d/b/a Mcdonald's
and Phil Gray, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01578 (M.D. Tenn.,
July 1, 2016), seeks compensatory, punitive and liquidated damages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, injunctive or equitable relief, costs and disbursements
of the action including reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses.

Grayco Management, LLC is a Florida business doing business in
Davidson County, Tennessee, including the McDonald's restaurant
located at 152 McGavock Pike, Nashville, Tennessee 37214. Grayco
operates multiple restaurants within the Middle District of
Tennessee. Plaintiff was employed by Grayco as shift manager and
claims to be denied overtime pay.

Ankcorn is represented by:

      Randall W. Burton, Esq.
      Morgan E. Smith, #26601
      144 Second Avenue, North, Suite 212
      Nashville, TN 37201
      Tel: (615) 620-5838


HAIR CLUB: Final Approval Hearing in "Clemens" Set for Sept. 22
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Alsup of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California granted plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary approval of a class settlement agreement in the
case captioned, TERESA CLEMENS, JORDAN SIMENSEN, and ADRIA
DESPRES, individuals, for themselves and all members of the
putative class and on behalf of aggrieved employees pursuant to
the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), Plaintiffs, v. HAIR CLUB
FOR MEN, LLC, a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. C 15-01431 WHA (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Teresa Clemens, Jordan Simensen, and Adria Despres,
brought claims against their former employer, Hair Club for Men,
LLC, alleging various claims arising out of Hair Club's meal-
period and rest-break practices and for penalties for alleged
inaccuracies on wage statements under Section 226 of the
California Labor Code. An order certified a class only as to
plaintiffs' wage-statement claims and appointed Clemens and
Simensen (but not Despres) as lead plaintiffs. The class includes
197 employees and former employees of Hair Club.

The parties engaged in extensive classwide discovery, including
thousands of pages of written discovery, significant research,
interviews of class members, and thirty-eight depositions.
Following class certification, the parties attended a four-and-
one-half-hour settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Joseph
C. Spero at which they negotiated the instant classwide settlement
agreement. Under the proposed settlement, Hair Club would pay a
total of $500,000 to settle claims in the action including
attorney's fees not to exceed $175,000 and $80,000 in costs.

In the motion, Plaintiffs move for preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement.

In his Order dated June 23, 2016 available at https://is.gd/htLMqW
from Leagle.com, Judge Alsup held that the proposed scope of the
release for the absent class members is appropriately limited to
the claims held appropriate for class treatment, with the addition
of related claims for penalties under PAGA.

The Court appointed Simpluris, Inc. as Class Administrator as
settlement administrator and directed the administrator to
disseminate the class notice by July 11, 2016. The final approval
hearing is set for September 22, 2016.

Teresa Clemens, et al. are represented by:

        John Michael Bickford, Esq.
        Naomi C. Pontious, R. Esq.
        Alexander Russell Wheeler, Esq.
        Eric Nathan Wilson, Esq.
        Kitty Kit Yee Szeto, Esq.
        R. Rex Parris, Esq.
        R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM
        43364 10th St W
        Lancaster, CA 93534
        Tel: (661) 949-2595

Hair Club for Men, LLC is represented by Andrew More McNaught,
Esq. -- amcnaught@seyfarth.com -- and Justin Taylor Curley, Esq.
-- jcurley@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH SHAW LLP


HCP: Sued for Allegedly Misrepresenting ManorCare's Performance
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Mongan, writing for McKnights.com, reports that HCP ignored
fraud and misled investors about the performance of ManorCare, its
skilled nursing portfolio, according to a class action filed in
May.

The suit alleges that HCP told investors that ManorCare's
financial performance was "secure" and the company was compliant
with regulations, despite being aware of the more than $6 billion
in false claims billed by the provider at the time it made those
statements.

ManorCare declined to comment on the suit.  The plaintiffs seek a
jury trial and compensatory damages.


HEIGHTS TOWER: Court Certifies IMWL Class in "Pietrzycki" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert granted the Plaintiff's
amended motion for class certification in the lawsuit titled JASON
PIETRZYCKI, on behalf of himself and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated v. HEIGHTS TOWER SERVICE, INC., and MARK
MOTTER, Case No. 1:14-cv-O6546 (N.D. Ill.)  Judge Gilbert denied
the Defendants' motion for FLSA Decertification.

The Court certifies a class of Illinois workers under the IMWL
that is comprised of "all current and former HTS Tower Technicians
and Foremen who received compensation for Drive Time as reflected
in HTS's payroll records and who worked in Illinois since August
25, 2011."

Jason Pietrzycki has sued the Defendants alleging violations of
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Early last year, the Court, at the joint request of the parties,
conditionally certified a Fair Labor Standards Act collective
action.  The Plaintiff has moved to certify a class of Illinois
workers for the IMWL claim pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.  The Defendants oppose certification of
a Rule 23 class and move to decertify the FLSA collective action.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
no charge at:

     http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qd4WGptq


HOME DEPOT: Bell Seeks 9th Cir. Review of E.D. California Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Sandy Bell and Martin Gama filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Sandy Bell, et al. v. Home Depot
U.S.A., Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-02499-JAM-CKD, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento.

The Plaintiffs seek relief on their own behalf and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated and as
aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys
General Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Sandy Bell, et al. v. Home
Depot U.S.A., Inc., et al., Case No. 16-16206, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Arnab Banerjee, Esq.
          Glenn A. Danas, Esq.
          Melissa Grant, Esq.
          Raul Perez, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1840 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: Arnab.Banerjee@capstonelawyers.com
                  glenn.danas@capstonelawyers.com
                  Melissa.Grant@CapstoneLawyers.com
                  Raul.Perez@CapstoneLawyers.com

Defendants-Appellees Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and John Brooks are
represented by:

          Liz Bertko, Esq.
          Donna Marie Mezias, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          580 California Street, Suite 1500
          San Francisco, CA 94104-1036
          Telephone: (415) 765-9500
          Facsimile: (415) 765-9501
          E-mail: lbertko@akingump.com
                  dmezias@akingump.com


HONEYWELL INTL: Kelly Seeks Certification of Retirees Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff retirees in the class action lawsuit styled DAVID KELLY,
RICHARD NORKO, ANNETTE DOBBS and PETER DELLOLIO, for themselves
and others similarly-situated, the Plaintiffs, v. HONEYWELL
INTERNATIONAL INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00543-VLB (D.
Conn.), move the Court for class certification.

The motion is based on a supporting memorandum of law and the
declarations of counsel and of David Kelly.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=hKvEPCT7

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William A. Wertheimer, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM WERTHEIMER
          30515 Timberbrook Lane
          Bingham Farms, MI 48025
          Telephone: 248-644-9200
          E-mail: billwertheimer@gmail.com

               - and -

          Thomas Meiklejohn, Esq.
          LIVINGSTON, ADLER, PULDA,
          MEIKLEJOHN & KELLY, PC
          557 Prospect Avenue
          Hartford, CT 06105
          Telephone: 860-570 4628
          E-mail: twmeiklejohn@lapm.org


INFINITY INSURANCE: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in "Copelan" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs James B. Copelan and Brian M. Lowenthal filed an appeal
from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled James Copelan, et al.
v. Infinity Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-01355-R-
JPR, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Los Angeles.

The appellate case is captioned as James Copelan, et al. v.
Infinity Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 16-55980, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In a June 14, 2016 Order, Judge Manuel L. Real granted:

     -- Defendant Infinity Insurance Company's Motion to Dismiss
        the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Causes of
        Action in the First Amended Complaint, and

     -- Defendant Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company's Motion
        to Dismiss the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Causes of
        Action in the FAC.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs asked the
Court to certify the action as a class action on behalf of the
Plaintiffs and all other persons similarly situated, namely:

     * Any current or former resident of the State of California
       who, within the last four years, sustained diminished
       value losses to a vehicle insured by Liberty Mutual
       Insurance Company (Liberty) as a result of an automobile
       accident involving an automobile and/or driver insured
       under an Infinity Insurance Company (Infinity) automobile
       liability policy and who was not paid for diminished value
       damages and on whose behalf Liberty failed to pursue
       diminished value damages prior to seeking subrogation from
       Infinity (Copelan Class); and

     * Any current or former resident of the State of California
       who caused damages to a third-party's automobile as a
       result of an automobile accident or collision while
       insured under an automobile liability insurance policy
       issued by Infinity who, within the last four years, was
       sued by, or otherwise subjected to a claim, legal
       proceedings, or administrative proceedings instituted by,
       the third-party (or, its agents and/or representatives)
       for diminished value damages resulting from the accident
       after Infinity declined and/or failed to pay the third-
       party's diminished value claim (Class Period) and who
       Infinity declined and/or failed to defend in such
       proceedings (Lowenthal Class).

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Mark Sparks, Esq.
          MOSTYN LAW FIRM
          6280 Delaware Street
          Beaumont, TX 77706
          Telephone: (409) 832 2777
          Facsimile: (409) 832 2703
          E-mail: mark@mostynlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee Infinity Insurance Company is represented by:

          Charles Andrew Danaher, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          501 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101-3598
          Telephone: (619) 633-6548
          E-mail: cdanaher@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Theona Zhordania-Taat, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          333 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448
          Telephone: (213) 620-1780
          E-mail: tzhordania@sheppardmullin.com

Defendant-Appellee Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company is
represented by:

          Frank Falzetta, Esq.
          Jennifer Marie Hoffman, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          333 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448
          Telephone: (213) 617-4194
          E-mail: ffalzetta@sheppardmullin.com
                  jhoffman@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Crowe, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          650 Town Center Drive, 4th Floor
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 513-5100
          E-mail: jcrowe@sheppardmullin.com


J. CREW GROUP: National Suit Moved from S.D.N.Y. to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
National Federation of the Blind, on behalf of itself and its
members; Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, on behalf of itself
and its members; and Dishon Spears, Richard King, Stacy Cervenka,
Jeanine Lineback, and Arthur Jacobs, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. J. Crew Group,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-06337, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Western Division - Los Angeles). The Central District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-04928-RGK-JEM to the proceeding. The
assigned Judge is Hon R. Gary Klausner.

J. Crew is an American multi-brand, multi-channel, specialty
retailer. The company offers an assortment of women's, men's and
children's apparel and accessories, including swimwear and
outerwear.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Raizman, Esq.
          Aaron Warshaw, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS,
          NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C
          400 South Hope St., Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 438 1285
          Facsimile: (213) 239 9045
          E-mail: david.raizman@ogletreedeakins.com
                  aaron.warshaw@ogletreedeakins.com

               - and -

          Kevin Williams, Esq.
          COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY
          COALITION LEGAL PROGRAM
          655 Broadway, Suite 775
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (720) 336 3584
          E-mail: kwilliams@ccdconline.org

               - and -

          Jana Eisinger, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JANA EISINGER PLLC
          19 West Prospect Avenue
          Mount Vernon, NY 10550
          Telephone: (914) 418 4111
          Fax: (914) 455-0213
          E-mail: jana.eisinger@gmail.com


JAIME F. CASTILLO: Court Limits Witnesses in G&G Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Except as to 10 witnesses that the plaintiff, G&G Closed Circuit
Events, LLC was given extra time to depose, Judge Jeffrey Cole
granted G&G's motion to exclude well over 60 witnesses first
revealed by the defendants, Jaime and Maria Castillo, on February
8, 2016, just three weeks before the close of discovery in the
case captioned G & G CLOSED CIRCUIT EVENTS, LLC, Plaintiff, v.
JAMES F. CASTILLO, et al., Defendants, No. 14 C 2073 (N.D. Ill.).

Judge Cole held that although this supplementation of the
Castillos' initial disclosures was made before the discovery
deadline, given its massive scope, it was clearly late and
prejudicial for the most part.

A full-text copy of Judge Cole's June 30, 2016 memorandum order is
available at https://is.gd/7A5xjK from Leagle.com.

G&G brought suit against the defendants under the Communications
Act and the Cable & Television Consumer Protection Act on March
25, 2014, asking for statutory damages in the neighborhood of
$300,000.  G&G, a commercial distributor of sporting events that
had purchased the exclusive nationwide television distribution
rights to the April 20, 2013 bout between Austin Trout and Saul
"Canelo" Alvarez, claimed that the defendants, Jaime and Maria
Castillo, showed the telecast of the fight to their patrons at
their restaurant on the northwest side of Chicago without
authorization.

G&G Closed-Circuit Events, LLC., Plaintiff, represented by Andre
Ordeanu, Zane D. Smith & Associates, Ltd. & Zane D. Smith, Zane D.
Smith & Associates, Ltd..

Jaime F. Castillo, Maria A. Castillo, El Bajio Enterprises, Inc.,
represented by Lisa L Clay & Patrick W. Walsh, Patrick W. Walsh,
P.C..

DirecTV International, Inc, DIRECTV, LLC, The Directv Group, Inc.,
Third Party Defendants, represented by Archis A. Parasharami --
aparasharami@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP & Matthew David
Provance -- mprovance@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP.

Thomas P Riley, Jackie Cortez, deponents, represented by Daniel D
Rubinstein -- drubinstein@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP &
William Charles O'Neil -- woneil@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn
LLP.

Signal Auditing, Inc., Movant, represented by Sheldon S. Gomberg,
Law Office of Arthur S. Gomberg.

El Bajio Enterprises, Inc., Maria A. Castillo, Jaime F. Castillo,
Counter Claimants, represented by Lisa L Clay --
lisa@legalyoga.com.

G&G Closed-Circuit Events, LLC., Counter Defendant, represented by
Andre Ordeanu, Zane D. Smith & Associates, Ltd. & Zane D. Smith,
Zane D. Smith & Associates, Ltd..

Law Offices of Thomas P. Riley, Third Party Defendant, represented
by William Yu -- william.yu@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith.


JAIME F. CASTILLO: Must Reply to Dismissal Bid by Aug. 5
--------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk on July 6, 2016, made a docket entry in the class action
lawsuit styled GG Closed-Circuit Events, LLC, the Plaintiff, v.
Jaime F. Castillo, et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:14-cv-02073
(N.D. Ill.), regarding Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration
which is denied as moot.

The counter-plaintiff's motion to certify a class is denied
without prejudice, with the understanding that the counter-
plaintiff's request for class certification remains pending as a
placeholder and no rights are waived. The Defendants/Counter-
Plaintiffs shall file a consolidated response to all motions to
dismiss the Third Amended Class Action Counterclaim by August 5,
2016.

The reply briefs are to be filed on August 22, 2016. The motion
and status hearing are held before the Hon. Joan B. Gottschall.
The motion hearing date of July 8, 2016 is stricken. The court
will set further dates when it rules on the motions.

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


JANSSEN PHARMA: Jury Issues $70MM Verdict in Risperdal Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that a
Philadelphia jury hit Janssen Pharmaceuticals with a $70 million
verdict in a case over the antipsychotic drug Risperdal.  The
case, which was the fifth to go to trial from Philadelphia's
Risperdal-related mass tort program, resulted in the largest award
out of that program by a factor of nearly 30.

The unanimous verdict in A.Y. v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals came down
July 1 after two weeks of trial before Philadelphia Court of
Common Pleas Judge Paula Patrick.  The largest Risperdal-related
award to come down in Philadelphia had previously been a $2.5
million award that a jury handed up in February 2015.

Along with awarding $70 million, the jury also found that Janssen
"intentionally falsified, destroyed or concealed records."  That
finding is required for plaintiffs to be able to recover more than
the $750,000 damages cap that Tennessee law imposes on noneconomic
damages.

Attorney Jason Itkin from the Houston-based firm Arnold & Itkin
tried the case for the plaintiffs, and Drinker Biddle & Reath
attorney David Abernethy tried the case for Janssen.

Immediately following the verdict, Mr. Itkin said he felt the jury
was swayed by Janssen's own experts.

"Their own witnesses lied on the stand, and the jury sent a
message that they weren't going to accept it," Mr. Itkin said.

When asked about the size of the verdict, Mr. Itkin noted the work
done on the four previous Risperdal trials, all of which focus on
claims that the drug causes excessive breast growth in young boys.
The plaintiffs, he said, are now more familiar with Janssen's
defense arguments.

"We now know their playbook," Mr. Itkin said.  "We think it will
be a trend."

A spokeswoman for Janssen, however, said the verdict went against
the evidence, and the company will seek an appeal.

"We believe this verdict is not justified by the evidence, and
that the award is clearly excessive and far out of line with any
factual assessment of actual damages," Kristina Chang said in an
emailed statement.  "We know that dealing with disorders of the
brain is very difficult, and we sympathize with the plaintiff in
this case and his family."

The first Risperdal-related trial in California is scheduled to go
to trial July 18 in Los Angeles Superior Court, an attorney
knowledgable with the litigation said.

The plaintiff in A.Y., Andrew Yount, was born in 1998 and began
taking Risperdal in 2003 to treat a severe psychiatric problem
that attorneys described in their opening statements as including
violent oppositional behavior.  Mr. Itkin told the jury during the
opening statements that Mr. Yount, a Tennessee native, began
experiencing excessive breast growth by 2004.

Mr. Itkin's opening focused on arguments that Janssen withheld
information showing a significant link between the drug and the
breast growth.  Mr. Itkin relied on the drug's label and internal
documents from Janssen that he contended proved the company took
steps to limit the medical community's understanding of the risks.

Mr. Abernethy countered during the opening statements that
Mr. Yount's treating physicians knew the risks of the
antipsychotic medication, but kept him on the drug because it was
"the only thing that ever worked for him."


JJ 27: "Blandon" Claims Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
FERMIN BENAVIDES BLANDON and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(b), v. JJ 27 AVENUE STATION INC. d/b/a U GAS, and
DAYANA MEDINA, Case 1:16-cv-22944-DPG (S.D. Fla., July 7, 2016),
was filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

U-Gas offers the best convenience store experience with fresh food
from GiGi's Cafe Express and the cleanest stores and pumps in the
area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J.H. Zidell, Esq.
     J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
     300 71st Street, Suite 605
     Miami Beach, FL 33141
     Phone: (305) 865-6766
     Fax: (305) 865-7167
     E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


KATHERINE G. COLLIER: Faces "Hyde" Suit Under FLSA, Md. Wage Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID D. HYDE, DDS 204 Hillsboro Drive Silver Spring, MD 20902 v.
Katherine G. Collier, DDS 1000 East Eager Street Baltimore, MD
21202, Quest Dental, 1000 East Eager Street, Baltimore, MD 21202
Spectrum Dental Services, PA, 200 East 33rd Street, Baltimore, MD
21202, Defendants, Case 8:16-cv-02513-PWG (D. Md., July 7, 2016),
seeks damages pursuant to Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment and
Collection Law.

Defendant Katherine Collier is an adult female living in Baltimore
County Maryland and operates a business enterprise under Quest
Dental and Spectrum Dental where Plaintiff was hired and employed.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Athan T. Tsimpedes, Esq.
     TSIMPEDES LAW FIRM
     1920 N Street, N.W. Suite 300
     Washington, D.C. 20036
     Phone: (202) 464-9910
     E-mail: athan@tsimpedeslaw.com


LASALLE BANK: Dismissal of "Gee" Amended Complaint Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Presiding Judge Kathleen E. O'Leary of the California Court of
Appeals affirmed the district court's demurrer to the Second
Amended Complaint (SAC) in the case captioned, ALICE GEE et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. LASALLE BANK, N.A. et al.,
Defendants and Respondents, Case No. G050844 (7th Cir.).

The case concerns Plaintiffs' failed multi-million dollar
investment in commercial real estate. In 2005, Plaintiffs invested
in two office buildings located in the Dallas, Fort Worth, Texas
freeway corridor. In 2012, Plaintiffs (in a class action
complaint) sued 21 defendants, but only four, on the periphery of
the transaction, are involved in this appeal after the court
sustained their demurrers and entered judgments of dismissal. The
four defendants are real estate broker CBRE, Inc., securities
broker and dealer, Burch & Company (Burch), LaSalle Bank, N.A.
(LaSalle), and the law firm Hirschler Fleischer (Hirschler).

Plaintiffs amended their complaint several times in response to
motion practice by the Defendants. The operative SAC alleges 13
causes of action and groups the Defendants into three categories.
First, there are seven groups titled "Class Defendants" because
they are named by the "Class Plaintiffs." Second, there are "Non-
Class Defendants" subject to individual claims. Third, there are
"Doe Defendants."

The trial court sustained Defendants' demurrers to the SAC,
without leave to amend, in part, on the basis that all causes of
action were barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

On appeal, Plaintiffs maintaining they timely filed their
complaint and adequately complied with the delayed discovery rule.

In his Opinion and Order dated June 23, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/MuKZfL from Leagle.com, Judge O'Leary held that the
trial court correctly sustained the demurrer because Plaintiffs
failed to meet their burden of alleging the necessary facts for
the delayed discovery rule to apply and we see no way for
Plaintiffs to adequately amend their complaint to plead the
discovery rule.

Alice Gee, et al. are represented by Kenneth J. Catanzarite, Esq.
-- kcatanzarite@catanzarite.com -- Nicole M. Catanzarite-Woodward,
Esq. -- ncatanzarite@catanzarite.com -- and Eric V. Anderton, Esq.
-- eanderton@catanzarite.com -- CATANZARITE LAW CORPORATION

CBRE, Inc. is represented by  Maribeth Annaguey, Esq. --
mannaguey@linerlaw.com -- and Kathryn L. McCann, Esq. --
kmccann@linerlaw.com -- LINER

LaSalle Bank, N.A. is represented by Peter B. Morrison, Esq. --
pmorriso@skadden.com -- and Kevin J. Minnick, Esq. --
kevin.minnick@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM

Hirschler Fleischer, APC is represented by Mark S. Lester, Esq.
-- mlester@lc-law-llp.com -- David Cantrell, Esq. -- dcantrell@lc-
law-llp.com -- and Colin A. Northcutt, Esq. -- cnorthcutt@lc-law-
llp.com -- LESTER & CANTRELL


LAZA IRON: "Cabrera" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------
Miguel Abrego Cabrera, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Laza Iron Works, Inc. and Israel
Laza, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-CV-22888 (S.D. Fla.,
July 5, 2016), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants are into metal and steel fabrication where Plaintiff
worked as a general laborer. He claims to be denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan S. Minick, Esq.
     JONATHAN S. MINICK, P.A.
     1850 SW 8th Street, Suite 307
     Miami, FL 33135
     Phone: (786) 441-8909
     Facsimile: (786) 523-0610
     E-mail: jminick@jsmlawpa.com


LIPOCINE INC: "Burleson" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
GREY BURLESON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, V. LIPOCINE INC., MAHESH V. PATEL, and MORGAN R.
BROWN,Case 3:16-cv-04129-PGS-LHG (D.N.J., July 7, 2016), was filed
on behalf of purchasers of Lipocine securities between February
27, 2015 and June 28, 2016, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act in relation to the Company's
disclosures of information about its allegedly proprietary drug
delivery system to treat testosterone related conditions, such as
hypogonadism in men.

Lipocine Inc. develops pharmaceutical products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James E. Cecchi, Esq.
     Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
     CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
     5 Becker Farm Road
     Roseland, NJ 07068
     Phone: (973) 994-1700

        - and -

     Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
     Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
     Casey E. Sadler, Esq.
     Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
     Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 201-9150


LIPOCINE INC: "Lewis" Sues Over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------
David Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, plaintiff, v. Lipocine Inc., Mahesh V. Patel and Morgan
R. Brown, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-04009 (D.N.J., July 1,
2016), seeks to recover compensable damages under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Defendant Lipocine is a specialty pharmaceutical company, which
develops pharmaceutical products using its oral drug delivery
technology in the areas of men's and women's health. The Company
is a Delaware corporation with offices in Lawrenceville, New
Jersey.

Defendant allegedly failed to disclose that its new drug
application for LPCN 1021, an oral testosterone replacement
therapy, was disapproved by the United States Food and Drug
Administration.

Shares of Lipocine fell $3.17 per share or over 50% to close at
$3.10 per share on June 29, 2016. Plaintiff owns shares of
Lipocine and lost substantially.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Laurence Rosen, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P
     South Orange, NJ 07079
     Tel: (973) 3131887
     Fax: (973) 8330399
     Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Bid to Certify Class in "Hamann" Suit Stricken
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on July 11, 2016, in the case
entitled Peter Hamann v. Loandepot.com, LLC, et al., Case No.
1:16-cv-07007 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable John Z. Lee.

The minute entry states that the Plaintiff's motion to certify
class and motion to enter and continue that motion are stricken
without prejudice in light of Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796
F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015), which overruled Damasco v.
Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), as well as
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 670 (2016) (holding
that a lapsed offer of judgment has no effect on the
justiciability of a case or a live controversy between the
litigating parties).

As such, according to the docket entry, there is no longer binding
authority that requires a class certification motion to be filed
prematurely.  No appearance on the Motion is necessary.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zfzjTY5Z


LOUISIANA: Sued for Depriving Convicted Felons' Voting Rights
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tanasia Kenney, writing for Atlanta Black Star, reports that
nearly 700,000 people in the state of Louisiana have been stripped
of their voting rights due to the fact they're a convicted felon
or out on parole.  Those same people are now suing the state with
hopes of having their voting rights restored.

The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit on July 1, asserting that they had
been ""wrongfully excluded from registering to vote and voting"
based on a 1974 law that disallowed the voting rights of
imprisoned felons, according to a copy of the complaint obtained
by Buzzfeed.

Louisiana's voter disenfranchisement law was originally written
into the state's constitution in 1974, permitting any citizen over
the age of 18 to register and vote --  "except that this right may
be suspended while a person . . . is under an order of
imprisonment for conviction of a felony."  Two years later, the
state added a law that barred those out on parole or probation
from voting as well.

Ex-offenders argue that the 1967 addition of individuals on parole
and probation severely "overhauled" voter disenfranchisement in
the state, Buzzfeed reports.

The class action suit comes on the heels of the Louisiana state
legislature's failure to pass House Bill 958.  According to the
news site, the legislation would have limited the stoppage of
person's voting rights to equal the amount of time they spent
incarcerated.  Though the bill's failure was a disappointment,
legislator's did approve a "Ban the Box" bill earlier this year,
making it illegal to ask someone to disclose their criminal
history on a state job application.

The state of Kentucky suffered a similar blow when republican Gov.
Matt Bevin prevented the restoration of voting rights for
convicted felons.  According to Atlanta Black Star, Bevin used his
executive power to overturn the promise of his democratic
predecessor Steve Beshear.

"While I have been a vocal supporter of the restoration of rights,
it is an issue that must be addressed through the legislature and
by the will of the people," Mr. Bevin said concerning the order.

Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe took a different route by
allowing over 200,000 ex-offenders in his state to register to
vote in the upcoming presidential election.  The change applied to
all non-violent felons who completed their sentences and were
released from supervised probation or parole, the Washington Post
reports.

"Once you have served your time and you've finished up your
supervised parole . . . I want you back as a full citizen of the
commonwealth," McAuliffe said.  "I want you to have a job. I want
you paying taxes, and you can't be a second-class citizen."

The governor's restoration efforts were soon countered by a
lawsuit from the GOP.  According to the Washington Post,
republican state legislators filed a complaint with the Supreme
Court of Virginia, arguing that McAuliffe, a Democrat, exceeded
his authority in April when he "restored voting rights to felons
en masse instead of individually."

"Governor McAuliffe has falsely suggested that Virginia's felon
disenfranchisement provision was first introduced into the
Constitution after the Civil War for the purpose of
disenfranchising African-Americans," the lawsuit read.  "But
Virginia has prohibited felons from voting since at least 1830 --
decades before African-Americans could vote."

Things in Louisiana haven't gotten this ugly . . . yet.

The July 1 lawsuit was filed by Louisiana-based organization Voice
of the Ex-Offender (VOTE) and named several convicted felons who
shared stories of how voter disenfranchisement affected them,
Buzzfeed reports.

One of the named plaintiffs is 67-year-old Kenneth Johnson, an
African-American man living in New Orleans.  Mr. Johnson served 22
years in jail after returning from Vietnam with post-traumatic
stress disorder.  The war veteran was convicted of felony murder
in the robbery and fatal shooting of another Vietnam veteran in
1972, according to the news site.

Mr. Johnson founded the Veterans Incarcerated program during his
time behind bars.  Upon his release in 1993, he also established a
successful paralegal business working alongside lawyers in New
Orleans.

Unfortunately, because his conviction carries a lifetime parole
sentence, Mr. Johnson will never be able to vote under Louisiana's
current law, Buzzfeed reports.

"Despite his service to his country, his successful transition
back to the community, his contribution to the federal and state
governments by paying his taxes, he will never have the
opportunity to vote and participate in the democratic process
before he dies," the lawsuit states.

In addition to the state's tough voter disenfranchisement laws,
Louisiana is also home to the arrest capital of the United States.
According to Fusion, police in the city of Gretna, Louisiana made
a total of 6,566 adult arrests in 2013, 14 times the rate of
arrests in an average American town.

Two-thirds of those arrested were African-American, most of the
time for drug-related offenses.


LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Hamann Seeks Certification of Class
------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Peter Hamann in the class action lawsuit styled PETER HAMANN,
on behalf of plaintiff and class, the Plaintiff, v. LOANDEPOT.COM,
LLC, and DOE 1, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-07007 (N.D. Ill.),
asks the Court to enter an order determining that the action may
proceed as a class action against defendant Loandepot.com, LLC.
The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA).

The Plaintiff brings the TCPA claim on behalf of a class,
consisting of:

     "(a) all persons (b) who, on or after a date four years
      Prior to the filing of this action, and on or before a date
      20 days following the filing of this action, (c) received
      calls from defendant on their cell phones, (d) placed using
      an automated dialer or a prerecorded or artificial voice
      (e) as to whom defendant cannot show consent."

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=t8MA7EeB

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman
          Cathleen M. Combs
          James O. Latturner
          Emiliya Gumin Farbstein
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 S. Clark Street, Siote 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379


LVNV FUNDING: Judge Tosses Debt Collection Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Dena Aubin, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge in
Chicago has thrown a proposed consumer class action against LVNV
Funding over improper debt collections into arbitration.

In a decision on July 5, U.S. District Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan
said LVNV acquired the right to force consumers into arbitration
when it bought their credit card debt from Credit One Bank, whose
cardholder agreements included an arbitration clause.

No breach of fiduciary duty here.  The trial court dismissed his
case.


M-QUBE INC: Geier Appeals W.D. Washington Ruling to 9th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Richard A. Geier, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly Situated, filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Richard Geier v. M-Qube Inc., et al., Case No.
2:13-cv-00354-TSZ, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle.

The appellate case is captioned as Richard Geier v. M-Qube Inc.,
et al., Case No. 16-80091, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 4, 2016, Judge
Thomas S. Zilly denied with prejudice the Plaintiff's renewed
motion for class certification.

Mobile Messenger served as a billing aggregator that linked
"content providers," which interacted directly with cell phone
subscribers, and cell carriers such as AT&T and Verizon.  Content
providers would advertise products such as a reverse auction game
to cell phone subscribers who would enroll via a "double opt-in
process."  Richard Geier contended that the system was rife with
fraud and led to the unknown billing of many cell subscribers.
Even though some thousands of Washington residents subscribed to
and were billed for these programs, only a small portion of those
individuals ever took advantage of them.  Thus, Mr. Geier argued
that the overwhelming majority of subscribers were likely billed
through fraudulent means.

Mr. Geier previously brought a motion to certify class that
focused on the deception prong of the Washington Consumer
Protection Act (CPA).  The Court denied that motion without
prejudice, resulting in a renewed motion which focuses on the
unfair practices prong of the CPA.

Judge Zilly, however, found that the class is not ascertainable,
individual issues predominate over common ones, and that a class
action is not the superior method of resolution.  The judge also
concluded that any future motion would be futile, and, thus, Mr.
Geier's motion was denied with prejudice.

A full-text copy of Judge Zilly's June 24, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/RzLR7T from Leagle.com.

Plaintiff-Petitioner Richard A. Geier is represented by:

          Toby J. Marshall, Esq.
          Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
          Erika L. Nusser, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC
          936 North 34th Street
          Seattle, WA 98103-8869
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          E-mail: tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com
                  jmurray@terrellmarshall.com
                  enusser@terrellmarshall.com

               - and -

          Matthew John Zuchetto, Esq.
          THE SCOTT LAW GROUP, P.S.
          926 W. Sprague Avenue, Suite 680
          Spokane, WA 99201
          Telephone: (509) 455-3966
          E-mail: zuchetto@washingtonclassaction.com

Defendants-Respondents M-Qube Inc. and Mobile Messenger Americas
Inc. are represented by:

          Stephen M. Rummage, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          1201 Third Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98101-3045
          Telephone: (206) 757-8136
          Facsimile: (206) 757-7136
          E-mail: steverummage@dwt.com

Defendants-Respondents Darcy Wedd and Fraser Thompson are
represented by:

          Angelo J. Calfo, Esq.
          Shane P. Cramer, Esq.
          CALFO HARRIGAN LEYH & EAKES LLP
          999 Third Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 623-1700
          E-mail: angeloc@calfoharrigan.com
                  shanec@calfoharrigan.com

Defendant-Respondent Michael Pajaczkowski is represented by:

          Shaina Rhodes Johnson, Esq.
          James Donald Nelson, Esq.
          BETTS, PATTERSON & MINES, P.S.
          701 Pike Street
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 268-8623
          E-mail: sjohnson@bpmlaw.com
                  jnelson@bpmlaw.com


MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Thomas Seeks Certification of Class
------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Keith Thomas and Mr. Herb Smith in the class action lawsuit
styled KEITH THOMAS, RICHARD HAYES, HERB SMITH, and OKLAHOMA
POLICE PENSION & RETIREMENT SYSTEM, the Plaintiffs, v. MAGNACHIP
SEMICONDUCTOR CORP. SANG PARK, TAE YOUNG HWANG, MARGARET SAKAI, R.
DOUGLAS NORBY, ILBOK LEE, NADER TAVAKOLI, RANDAL KLEIN, MICHAEL
ELKINS, AVENUE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT II, L.P., BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC.,
DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., UBS
SECURITIES LLC and NEEDHAM & COMPANY, LLC, the Defendants, Case
No. 3:14-cv-01160-JST (N.D. Cal.), ask the Court to certify the
following class:

     "All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired MagnaChip
      Semiconductor Corporation common stock between February 1,
      2012 and February 12, 2015, inclusive. Excluded from the
      Class are any parties who are or have been Defendants in
      this litigation, the present and former officers and
      directors of MagnaChip and any subsidiary, members of their
      immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs,
      successors or assigns and any entity in which any current
      or former Defendant has or had a controlling interest."

The Plaintiffs further seek an order:

     1. appointing Keith Thomas and Herb Smith as class
        representatives;

     2. appointing Pomerantz LLP and the Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as
        Class Counsel; and

     3. granting other and further relief the Court may deem
        just and proper.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=y5pfkvvz

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          Joshua B. Silverman, Esq.
          Louis C. Ludwig, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 South LaSalle, Ste. 3505
          Chicago, Illinois 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377 1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377 1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
                  jbsilverman@pomlaw.com
                  lcludwig@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201 9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201 9160
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
                  lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  prongay@glancylaw.com


MAJOR LEAGUE SOCCER: Faces Class Action Over Player Transfer Fee
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to Adnan Ilyas, writing for SBNation, Vice Sports said
July 1 that a class-action lawsuit had been filed on the behalf of
American youth soccer teams looking to receive a percentage of the
transfers of players they had developed.  The clubs that developed
DeAndre Yedlin; Clint Dempsey; and Michael Bradley, Crossfire
Premiere of Redmond (WA); Dallas Texans (TX); and Sockers FC (IL)
respectively, are suing MLS.  They argue that MLS needs to follow
a FIFA rule that stipulates that developmental clubs receive a
portion of the transfer fee if a player they developed is sold
during their first contract.  As a process of the lawsuit, the
clubs have also named Yedlin, Dempsey, and Bradley to the suit.

A class-action lawsuit is where a group of people sue on behalf of
a certain "class" of people that has some how been hurt.  In this
case, the youth clubs are suing with the claim that they represent
the youth clubs who have produced players who go on to play in MLS
and then are sold for a transfer fee.  Under Article 21, Section
VII of FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players,
developmental clubs are entitled to a certain amount of
compensation.

If a player is transferred before the expiry of his contract, any
club that has contributed to his education and training shall
receive a proportion of the compensation paid to his former club.

In most places around the world, developmental clubs get a cut out
of the transfer fees for players that they produced.  That is not
the case in the United States.  When players are drafted (Dempsey
and Bradley or signed to a Home Grown Player contract (Yedlin),
they sign with the league, not the individual club. The United
States Soccer Federation has rules that block MLS from paying
these dues.  USSF has long refused to pay the clubs those players
grew up and learned the game with.  This lawsuit looks to change
that.  If it is successful, it would mean that youth institutions
in the United States would have a potential alternative source of
income, hopefully weakening the pay-to-play system.

There isn't an obvious result for this case.  In addition to MLS,
USSF, and the individual clubs fighting about the transfer money,
the player union, MLSPU is threatening a counter-suit, further
complicating the issue.


MDL 1720: Class Certification, Settlement Approval Vacated
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated
the district court's certification of the class action and
reversed the approval of the settlement in the case captioned IN
RE PAYMENT CARD INTERCHANGE FEE AND MERCHANT DISCOUNT ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, Docket Nos. 12-4671-cv(L), 12-4708(CON), 12-4765(CON),
13-4719(CON), 13-4750(CON), 13-4751(CON), 13-4752(CON), 14-
32(CON), 14-117(CON), 14-119(CON), 14-133(CON), 14-157(CON), 14-
159(CON), 14-192(CON), 14-197(CON), 14-219(CON), 14-241(CON), 14-
250(CON), 14-266(CON), 14-303(CON), 14-331(CON), 14-349(CON), 14-
404(CON), 14-422(CON), 14-443(CON), 14-480(CON), 14-497(CON), 14-
530(CON), 14-567(CON), 14-584(CON), 14-606(CON), 14-663(CON), 14-
837(CON) (2nd Cir.).

The antitrust class action was brought on behalf of approximately
12 million merchants against Visa U.S.A. Inc. and MasterCard
International Incorporated, which are the two largest credit card
issuing networks in the United States, as well as against various
issuing and acquiring banks, alleging a conspiracy in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  After nearly 10 years of
litigation, the parties agreed to a settlement that released all
claims in exchange for disparate relief for each of two classes:
up to $7.25 billion would go to an opt-out class, and a non-opt-
out class would get injunctive relief.  The district court
certified these two settlement-only classes, and approved the
settlement as fair and reasonable.  On appeal, numerous objectors
and opt-out plaintiffs argued that the class action was improperly
certified and that the settlement was unreasonable and inadequate.

The Second Circuit concluded that the class plaintiffs were
inadequately represented in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule
23(a)(4) and the Due Process Clause.

A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's June 30, 2016 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/CTGmJM from Leagle.com.

THOMAS C. GOLDSTEIN -- tgoldstein@goldsteinrussell.com -- (Eric F.
Citron -- ecitron@goldsteinrussell.com -- on the brief), Goldstein
& Russell P.C., Washington, DC; Stephen R. Neuwirth --
stephenneuwirth@quinnemanuel.com -- Sanford I. Weisburst --
sandyweisburst@quinnemanuel.com -- Steig D. Olson --
steigolson@quinnemanuel.com -- and Cleland B. Welton II --
clelandwelton@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY; Jeffrey I. Shinder --
jshinder@constantinecannon.com -- Gary J. Malone --
gmalone@constantinecannon.com -- and A. Owen Glist --
oglist@constantinecannon.com -- Constantine Cannon LLP, New York,
NY; Michael J. Canter -- mjcanter@vorys.com -- Robert N. Webner
-- rnwebner@vorys.com -- and Kenneth J. Rubin -- kjrubin@vorys.com
-- Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP, Columbus OH; Gregory A.
Clarick -- gclarick@cgr-law.com -- Clarick Gueron Reisbaum LLP,
New York, NY, for Objectors-Appellants and Plaintiffs-Appellants
(Merchant Appellants).

PHILIP C. KOROLOGOS -- pkorologos@bsfllp.com -- Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP, New York, NY, for Objectors-Appellants American
Express Company, et al.

JENNIFER M. SELENDY, (William H. Pratt --
william.pratt@kirkland.com -- on the brief), Kirkland & Ellis LLP,
New York, NY, for Objectors-Appellants Discover Bank, et al.

JASON A. YURASEK, (Anahit Samarjian, on the brief), Perkins Coie
LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Objectors-Appellants First Data
Corporation, et al.

Andrew G. Celli, Jr., and Debra L. Greenberger, Emery Celli
Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP, New York, NY, for Objectors-Appellants
(Merchant Trade Groups).

Jerrold S. Parker, and Jay L.T. Breakstone, Parker Waichman, LLP,
Port Washington, NY; Thomas P. Thrash, and Marcus N. Bozeman,
Thrash Law Firm, P.A., Little Rock, AR; Phillip Duncan, and
Richard Quintus, Duncan Firm, P.A., Little Rock, AR, for Appellant
Retailers and Merchants Objectors.

Elizabeth Wolstein, Schlam Stone & Dolan LLP, New York, NY, for
Objectors-Appellants U.S. PIRG and Consumer Reports.

Anthony F. Shelley, Adam P. Feinberg, Laura G. Ferguson, Michael
N. Khalil, and Katherine E. Pappas, Miller & Chevalier Chartered,
Washington, DC, for Appellants Blue Cross and Blue Shield Entities
and Wellpoint Entities.

Steve A. Miller, Denver, CO, for Appellant The Iron Barley
Restaurant LLC.

John J. Pentz, Sudbury, MA, for Appellants Unlimited Vacations and
Cruises, Inc., et al.

N. Albert Bacharach, Jr., Gainesville, FL, for Appellant Optical
Etc. LLC.

Christopher A. Bandas, Corpus Christi, TX, for Objectors-
Appellants 1001 Property Solutions, LLC, et al.

PAUL D. CLEMENT, (Jeffrey M. Harris, and Candice C. Wong, on the
brief), Bancroft PLLC, Washington, DC; K. Craig Wildfang, Thomas
J. Undlin, Ryan W. Marth, and Bernard Persky, Robins Kaplan,
Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN; H. Laddie Montague,
Merrill G. Davidoff, and Michael J. Kane, Berger & Montague, P.C.,
Philadelphia, PA; Bonny E. Sweeney, Joseph D. Daley, and Alexandra
S. Bernay, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, CA; Joseph
Goldberg, Freedman Boyd Goldberg Urias & Ward, P.A., Albuquerque,
MN, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

CARTER G. PHILIPS, (David F. Graham, Robert N. Hochman, Benjamin
R. Nagin, Eamon P. Joyce, and Mark D. Taticchi, on the brief),
Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, DC; Robert C. Mason, Arnold &
Porter LLP, New York, NY;Robert J. Vizas, Arnold & Porter LLP, San
Francisco, CA; Mark R. Merley, andMatthew A. Eisenstein, Arnold &
Porter LLP, Washington, DC; Richard J. Holwell, Michael S.
Shuster, and Demian Ordway, Holwell Shuster & Goldberg LLP, New
York, NY; Matthew Freimuth, and Wesley R. Powell, Willkie Farr &
Gallagher LLP, New York, NY; Kenneth A. Gallo, Paul, Weiss,
Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Washington, DC; Mark P. Ladner,
andMichael B. Miller, Morrison & Foerster LLP, New York, NY;
Andrew J. Frackman, and Abby F. Rudzin, O'Melveny & Myers LLP;
James P. Tallon, Shearman & Sterling LLP, New York, NY; Richard L.
Creighton, and Drew M. Hicks, Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL,
Cincinnati, OH; John P. Passarelli, and James M. Sulentic, Kutak
Rock LLP, Omaha, NE; Peter E. Greene, Boris Bershteyn, and Peter
S. Julian, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, New York, NY;
Jonathan S. Massey, and Leonard A. Gail, Massey & Gail,
Washington, DC; Ali M. Stoeppelweth, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale,
and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC; John M. Majoras, and Joseph W.
Clark, Jones Day, Washington, DC; Teresa T. Bonder, Valarie C.
Williams, and Kara F. Kennedy, Alston & Bird LLP, Atlanta, GA;
Jonathan B. Orleans, and Adam S. Mocciolo, Pullman & Comley, LLC,
Bridgeport, CT; Robert P. LoBue, andWilliam F. Cavanaugh,
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants-
Appellees.


MERIDIAN SENIOR: Faces "Jones" Suit in E.D. Virg.
-------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Meridian Senior Living, LLC. The
case is captioned Timothy Jones and Shemika Brown, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Meridian Senior Living, LLC; Grove AL, LLC, doing business as
Windsor Senior Living; and Virginia Retirement Services of
Chesterfield, LLC, doing business as: Magnolias of Chesterfield;
and Patrick Hines, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00569-HEH
(E.D. Virg., July 6, 2016). The assigned District Judge is Hon.
Henry E. Hudson.

Meridian Senior operates assisted living facilities for age
qualified residents throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip Justus Dean, Esq.
          Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
          CURWOOD LAW FIRM PLC
          530 East Main Street, Suite 710
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 788 0808
          Facsimile: (804) 767 6777
          E-mail: pdean@curwoodlaw.com
                  ccurwood@curwoodlaw.com


MODOC COUNTY, CA: "Winkle" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Julie Winkle, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. County of Modoc, Defendant, Case No.
2:16-cv-01486 (E.D. Cal., June 30, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime and other compensation, interest thereon, liquidated
damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is a political subdivision of the State of California
who employed the Plaintiffs. Winkle claims to be denied overtime
pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     David E. Mastagni, Esq.
     Isaac S. Stevens, Esq.
     Ace T. Tate, Esq.
     MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
     1912 "I" Street
     Sacramento, CA 95811
     Telephone: (916) 446-4692
     Facsimile: (916) 447-4614


NATIONAL GRID: Judge Bans Utility Shut Offs for Vulnerable People
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle R. Smith, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
a Providence Superior Court judge has ordered the state Division
of Public Utilities not to allow National Grid to shut off utility
service until autumn to people who are handicapped or seriously
ill.

It follows a consent order in which National Grid, the state's
primary electric and gas utility, agreed to do more to ensure it
is not shutting off utilities to medically vulnerable people.
The moves affect thousands of people and come in response to a
class-action lawsuit filed last year by the nonprofit groups the
Rhode Island Center for Justice and the George Wiley Center.
The lawsuit said that the utility was violating Rhode Island law
that protects people who have serious illnesses or disabilities
from having their utilities shut off.  It also said that the
Division of Public Utilities was not enforcing the laws.
A spokesman for National Grid said the company will comply with
the terms of the consent decree, but did not comment further.  A
spokesman for the Division of Public Utilities also did not
comment in detail.

Robert McCreanor, executive director of the Rhode Island Center
for Justice, said the consent order entered into this spring
represents a substantial overhaul of National Grid's customer
service, debt collection and shutoff practices. Under the order,
the utility has to notify households that they may seek protection
from shutoffs.

Mr. McCreanor said it affects more than 4,000 households that
include one or more medically vulnerable people.

"The most vulnerable are those that are dependent on life-
sustaining equipment, oxygen, feeding tubes, folks who need to
refrigerate their medicine," he said.  "There are many households
in that group for whom electric and gas service is also critical
to maintaining sanitation, households for whom loss of a utility
services poses a significant hardship because they're physically
disabled."

Those households will be able to get a note from a doctor to
confirm that they are vulnerable.  While that process is going on,
none of these affected households can be shut off, even if they
are behind in their bills.

While National Grid is bound by the consent order, the lawsuit
against the Division of Public Utilities continues. Superior Court
Judge Netti Vogel ordered a hearing in that lawsuit on Sept. 26.

Mr. McCreanor said at the conclusion of the hearing, she is
expected to decide when and under what circumstances the shutoff
review process can resume.


OAKHURST DAIRY: Appeal Filed From Ruling in "O'Connor" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Kevin O'Connor, Christopher O'Connor, James Adam Cox,
Michael Fraser and Robert McNally filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit styled O'Connor, et al. v. Oakhurst Dairy,
et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00192-NT, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maine, Portland.

The Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Minimum Wage and Overtime Law to recover
alleged unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation.

Oakhurst Dairy is located in Portland, Maine and is wholly-owned
subsidiary of Dairy Farmers of America, Inc.

The appellate case is captioned as O'Connor, et al. v. Oakhurst
Dairy, et al., Case No. 16-1901, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          David G. Webbert, Esq.
          Carol J. Garvan, Esq.
          Jeffrey Neil Young, Esq.
          Roberta L. de Araujo, Esq.
          JOHNSON WEBBERT & YOUNG LLP
          160 Capitol St., Suite 3
          PO Box 79
          Augusta, ME 04332-0079
          Telephone: (207) 623-5110
          Facsimile: (207) 622-4160
          E-mail: dwebbert@johnsonwebbert.com
                  cgarvan@johnsonwebbert.com
                  jyoung@johnsonwebbert.com
                  rdearaujo@johnsonwebbert.com

Defendants-Appellees Oakhurst Dairy and Dairy Farmers of America,
Inc., are represented by:

          Patrick F. Hulla, Esq.
          Jennifer K. Oldvader, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWARD, PC
          4520 Main Street, Suite 400
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 471-1301
          E-mail: patrick.hulla@ogletreedeakins.com
                  jennifer.oldvader@ogletreedeakins.com

               - and -

          David L. Schenberg, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC
          7700 Bonhomme Ave., Suite 650
          St Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 802-3969
          E-mail: david.schenberg@ogletreedeakins.com

               - and -

          Danielle Yvonne Vanderzanden, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART PC
          1 Boston Pl, Suite 3220
          Boston, MA 02108-4403
          Telephone: (617) 994-5700
          E-mail: dani.vanderzanden@ogletreedeakins.com


OBESITY RESEARCH: Cal. App. Reverses Attorney Fees Award
--------------------------------------------------------
Associate Justice Gilbert Nares of the California Court of Appeals
reversed judgment awarding attorney's fees and an incentive
payment to Fred Duran, and denied a request for judicial notice in
the case captioned, FRED DURAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.
OBESITY RESEARCH INSTITUTE, LLC et al., Defendants and
Respondents; DEMARIE FERNANDEZ et al., Objectors and Appellants,
Civil No. 15-6942 (RBK/AMD) (D.N.J.).

Fred Duran filed a putative class action complaint against Obesity
Research Institute, LLC (ORI) and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.  Duran
alleges defendants falsely claimed that ORI's products, Lipozene
and MetaboUp, have weight loss benefits.

The court approved a claims-made settlement providing that class
members submitting a claim without proof of purchase would receive
$15 and those submitting receipt would receive one refund of
double the unit price paid. The settlement also provided that ORI
would cease making certain assertions in product advertising.
Defendants also agreed to not oppose a motion seeking $100,000 in
attorney fees to class counsel.

In a class estimated to consist of between 400,000 and 600,000
consumers, 895 claims were submitted, in the total amount of
$31,800. Assuming there were 500,000 class members, less than two-
tenths of 1 percent (0.179 percent) submitted claims. Thus, the
proposed settlement buys a nationwide release for the price of
about six cents ($0.064) per class member. And for achieving this
result, class counsel receive $100,000 in attorney fees -- about
75 percent of the total amount paid.

On March 24, 2015, the trial court entered a final approval order
stating, "This Court hereby approves the Settlement set forth in
this Judgment." On April 10, 2015, the court entered a separate
order awarding class counsel $100,000 in attorney fees and
awarding Duran, as class representative, $2,500 as an incentive
fee.

Objectors, class members DeMarie Fernandez, Alfonso Mendoza, and
Brian Horowitz appeal, contending the settlement is the product of
collusion.  Objectors assert the class did not receive sufficient
notice of settlement, and the settlement is unreasonable and
inadequate. They also contend the attorney fee award is excessive.

In his Order dated June 23, 2016 available at https://is.gd/HC2eck
from Leagle.com, Judge Nares reversed the judgment because the
class notice failed in its fundamental purpose -- to apprise class
members of the terms of the proposed settlement. The erroneous
notice injected a fatal flaw into the entire settlement process
and undermines the court's analysis of the settlement's fairness.

Objectors DeMarie Fernandez, Alfonso Mendoza, and Brian Horowitz
recover costs on appeal.

Demarie Fernandez, et al. are represented by Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
-- scott@bursor.com -- L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. --
ltfisher@bursor.com -- Annick M. Persinger, Esq. --
apersinger@bursor.com -- and Neal J. Deckant, Esq. --
ndeckant@bursor.com -- BURSOR & FISHER

Fred Duran is represented by Alex Tomasevic, Esq. --
atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org -- and Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. --
cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org -- NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC

Obesity Research Institute, LLC is represented by Scott J.
Ferrell, Esq. -- sferrell@trialnewport.com -- and David W. Reid,
Esq. -- dreid@trialnewport.com -- NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP -- and
Richard P. Sybert, Esq. -- rsybert@gordonrees.com -- GORDON & REES

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is represented by Frank C. Rothrock, Esq.
-- arothrock@shb.com -- D. Susan Wiens, Esq. -- dwiens@shb.com --
and Paul B. La Scala, Esq. -- plascala@shb.com -- SHOOK, HARDY &
BACON


ORLANDO HEALTH: Obtains Favorable Ruling in FICA Refund Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Business Management Daily reports that you don't breach any
fiduciary duty to employees if you don't seek a FICA refund on
their behalf, and you also don't tell them to apply to the IRS for
their own FICA refund, a federal trial court has ruled. (Reuss v.
Orlando Health, Inc., No. 6:15-cv-00805, D.C. M.D. Fla., 2015)

Medical residents and FICA taxes. In 2004, the IRS issued
regulations that required medical residents to be treated as FICA-
taxable employees.  Nevertheless, in 2010, it honored FICA refund
claims filed by hospitals before April 1, 2005.

This employee's class action lawsuit stemmed from those events.
His employer, a hospital, filed FICA refund claims on its behalf
and for its employee-residents in 2004, for FICA taxes paid it in
2000.  The hospital didn't file any claims for the years 2001-
2005.  Employees received their 2004 refunds in 2012, which was
when the employee claimed he learned that the hospital passed up
refunds for 2001-2005.  He couldn't pursue a FICA refund claim on
his own because the statute of limitations had run, so he sued his
employer, alleging that its failure to disclose or otherwise apply
for FICA refunds on employees' behalf was a breach of fiduciary
duty.

No breach of fiduciary duty here.  The trial court dismissed his
case.

Court: Under state law, fiduciary duties may be express or
implied.  Since there was no express fiduciary duty in this case,
an implied fiduciary duty exists when there is a degree of
dependency on one side and an undertaking on the other side to
protect and/or benefit the dependent party.  The court found that
the employer's failure to apply for a FICA refund wasn't a breach
of an implied fiduciary duty because it wasn't required to notify
employees of refund opportunities or to file on their behalf for
years when it chose to not seek a refund.

THE TAKEAWAY: We don't know why the hospital left tax refund money
on the table.  Perhaps it fell into the IRS' offset program.

What is it: Any tax refund you're owed can be used to offset
another tax debt, even tax debts of a different nature -- employer
FICA refunds can be used to offset corporate underpayments, for
example.  However, if FICA taxes are overpaid, you can avoid ill
will by letting employees know that they can seek their own
refunds.


PACCAR INC: Court Narrows Claims in BK Trucking Co. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jerome B. Simandle granted, in part, and denied, in part,
the defendants' motion to dismiss the case captioned BK TRUCKING
CO., SANTELLI TRUCKIN, INC., HEAVY WEIGHT ENTERSPRISES, INC., and
RUSTY DANIEL TRUCKING, INC., Plaintiffs, v. PACCAR, INC., PACCAR
ENGINE CO., KENWORTH TRUCK CO., and PETERBILT MOTORS CO.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-2282 (JBS/AMD) (D.N.J.).

A full-text copy of Judge Simandle's June 30, 2016 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/iUQKNN from Leagle.com.

Judge Simandle denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' breach of warranty and negligent design claims.

The judge, however, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' consumer fraud claims to the extent such claims under
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the Texas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act are based on affirmative representations.  The judge
also dismissed the plaintiffs' claim for breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

In the putative class action, the plaintiffs, current and former
owners of Peterbilt or Kenworth trucks equipped with PACCAR MX-13
diesel engines, filed a seven-count Consolidated Class Action
Complaint bringing claims under New Jersey, Texas, and Ohio law
for breach of express warranty, consumer fraud, negligent design,
and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The plaintiffs alleged that the engines, equipped with an After-
Treatment System specifically designed to comply with the
Environmental Protection Agency's 2010 Heavy Duty On Highway
Emissions Standard, are defective and render the plaintiffs'
vehicles inoperable on account of the engines' constant failure
despite repeated warranty repairs.  The plaintiffs contended that
the defendants, PACCAR, Inc., PACCAR Engine Company, Kenworth
Truck Company, and Peterbilt Motors Company, developed, designed,
manufactured, marketed, assembled, warranted, and sold vehicles
with the engine despite longstanding knowledge that the engine was
defective.  The plaintiffs contended that the defect is
irreparable and renders vehicles with the engine unreliable for
transportation and unsuitable for ordinary commercial use.

BK TRUCKING CO., SANTELLI TRUCKING, INC., Plaintiffs, represented
by JAMES C. SHAH, SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP &
LINDSEY H. TAYLOR, CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY &
AGNELLO.

HEAVY WEIGHT ENTERPRISES, INC., RUSTY DANIEL TRUCKING, INC,
Plaintiff Consolidated, represented by JAMES E. CECCHI, CARELLA
BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C., LINDSEY H. TAYLOR,
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO & JAMES C. SHAH,
SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP.

PACCAR ENGINE COMPANY, KENWORTH TRUCK COMPANY, PETERBUILT MOTORS
COMPANY, PACCAR, INC., Defendants, represented by ANTHONY M.
PISCIOTTI -- apisciotti@pmlegalfirm.com --  PISCIOTTI MALSCH &
DANNY CHARLES LALLIS -- dlallis@pmlegalfirm.com -- PISCOTI MALSCH
& BUCKLEY PC.


PACIFIC MANAGEMENT: "Floyd" Sues Over Security Deposit
-----------------------------------------------------1-
Theodore Floyd, Bonnie Taylor and Mary Cummins, Individually and
on behalf all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Pacific
Management, Inc., Montclare Senior Residences of Avalon, Park
Phase I, LLC; MR Properties, LLC and UCA II LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 2016CH08744 (Ill. Cir., June 30, 2016), seeks to terminate
rental agreements.  The suit further seeks attorney's fees,
litigation expenses and costs, and such other relief including
prejudgment interest for violation of Residential Landlord and
Tenant Ordinance.

The complaint says Defendants failed to disclose where the
Plaintiff's security deposit was deposited as required by the
Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance.

Pacific Management is an Illinois company servicing residential
and commercial properties throughout Illinois and Iowa with five
large residential properties located in Chicago, Illinois,
including the properties where Plaintiffs were tenants.

MR is an Illinois company that owns the residential apartment
property commonly known as Montclare Senior Residences.

Montclare is an Illinois company that owns residential apartment
property commonly known as Montclare Senior Residences.

UCA is an owner of the residential apartment property commonly
known as Circle Park Apartments where Cummins was a tenant.

Defendants are all an owner, agent, lessor or sublessor, or the
successor in interest of any of them, of the dwelling units of
Plaintiffs.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     JS LAW
     29 E. Madison Street, Suite 1000
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Telephone (312) 756-1330
     jeffs@jsslawoffices.com


PERFUMANIA HOLDINGS: Court Denied Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William H. Steele entered an order in the class action
lawsuit captioned FAMILY MEDICINE PHARMACY, LLC, the Plaintiff, v.
PERFUMANIA HOLDINGS, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-
00563-WS-C (S.D. Ala.), denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's
preliminary motion for class certification and motion to consider
Class certification upon completion of reasonable discovery.

The amended complaint alleges that Perfumania has transmitted
"thousands of unsolicited facsimiles throughout the country," and
seeks certification of a class consisting of all persons and
entities "who, from 2011 to the present, received one or more
unsolicited advertisements via facsimile from Defendants."

Family Medicine is authorized to renew its Motion at an
appropriate time upon an appropriate factual and legal showing.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=86vNAIEI


POMONA UNIFIED: JV and BK Seek Certification of ADA Class
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs J.V. and B.K. ask the Court to certify their claims as
a class action in the lawsuit styled J.V. through his guardian ad
litem, ANABEL FRANCO; B.K. through his guardian ad litem, CYNTHIA
BROWN; and all other students similarly situated v. POMONA UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT; POMONA SPECIAL EDUCATION LOCAL PLANNING AREA; ANA
PETRO, CHRISTINE GOENS, KAMERON SHIELDS, BEATRIZ KRIVAN, JENNIFER
YALES, SELENE AMANCIO, BRIAN EL MAHMOUD, DANIELLA SOTO, MARY
GARCIA, CINDY GREEN, ELAINE MARKOFSKI, SUPERINTENDENT RICHARD
MARTINEZ in his Official Capacity only, DOLORES MURILLO, and DOES
1-10, Case No. 2:15-cv-07895-JAK-MRW (C.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs propose a Rule 23(b)(2) Class defined under the
Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as:

     All students with developmental disabilities, as defined in
     California Welfare & Institutions Code section 4512,
     attending school in Pomona Unified School District since
     August 2013, who are currently being or who have been denied
     their right to full and equal access to, and use and
     enjoyment of, the facilities, programs, services, and
     activities of the Pomona Unified School District.

The "Class Period" for the Class is August 1, 2013, to the
present, or alternatively, commencing at the beginning of the
longest applicable statute of limitations or any date at which the
statute of limitations is tolled for any claim asserted on behalf
of the Class, from the date the action commenced (Oct. 7, 2015)
and continues through the present and the date of judgment.

J.V. and B.K. also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives to appoint Disability Rights Legal Center and
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP as class counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on August 29, 2016, at 8:30
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=FW6c5jl0

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christine A. Scheuneman, Esq.
          Elaine Y. Lee, Esq.
          Benjamin E. Strauss, Esq.
          PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
          725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5406
          Telephone: (213) 488-7100
          Facsimile: (213) 629-1033
          E-mail: christine.scheuneman@pillsburylaw.com
                  elaine.lee@pillsurylaw.com
                  benjamin.strauss@pillsburylaw.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth Eubanks, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER
          320 East D. Street
          Ontario, CA 91764
          Telephone: (909) 460-2034
          Facsimile: (909) 460-2094
          E-mail: elizabeth.eubanks@drlcenter.org


PRIDE FINANCIAL: Court Permits Amendment of "Zavian" Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned KAREN L. ZAVIAN, Plaintiff, v. PRIDE
FINANCIAL, LLC AND FEIN, SUCK, KAHN & SHEPARD, P.C., Defendants,
Civil Action No. 15-1920 (ES) (MAH) (D.N.J.), Judge Michael A.
Hammer granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended
complaint, with the modification that the proposed amendments
shall not relate back to the date of the filing of the original
complaint but shall apply as of the date the defendants received
notice of the proposed amended complaint.

Karen L. Zavian sought to amend the complaint for the purpose of
modifying the scope of the class definition based upon the
defendants' same collection letter already attached to, and
serving as the basis of, the plaintiff's initial complaint.

A full-text copy of Judge Hammer's June 30, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/K8rbbp from Leagle.com.

KAREN L. ZAVIAN, Plaintiff, represented by ANDREW T. THOMASSON,
Stern Thomasson LLP & PHILIP D. STERN, STERN THOMASSON LLP.

PRIDE FINANCIAL, LLC, FEIN, SUCH, KAHN, SHEPARD, P.C., Defendants,
represented by GREGG PHILIP TABAKIN -- gtabakin@feinsuch.com --
FEIN, SUCH, KAHN & SHEPARD, PC.


QUICKEN LOANS: Newhart Seeks Certification of Class
---------------------------------------------------
Mr. Darren Newhart in the class action lawsuit styled DARREN
NEWHART, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. QUICKEN LOANS, INC., and SETERUS, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 9:15-cv-81250-RLR (S.D. Fla.), on July 9,
2016, asked the Court certify the following class of similarly
situated persons:

     "All persons in the United States to whom: (1) Quicken Loans
      made a call, (2) to a telephone number assigned to a
      cellular telephone service, and (3) were identified by
      Quicken Loans as a Fannie Mae Seterus HARP Qualified Lead
      from July 1, 2015 through the date of class certification."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PP7mCZU5

On July 7, Mr. Newhart moved to enlarge the time for filing
motions for class certification until and including August 15,
2016.  Plaintiff said he was prepared to file his motion on or
before the current deadline -- July 8, 2016. However, a brief
extension, he explained, will allow the parties to better identify
the central areas of dispute on class certification and given them
the opportunity to conduct discovery of the evidence that each
party contends support their respective positions on class
certification. In turn, this will allow the Court a full record to
consider when determining whether class certification is
appropriate.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XF3ZRYCc

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. Kauffman, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
          1054 31st Street, Suite 230
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 463 2101
          Facsimile: (202) 342 2103
          E-mail: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com


RECKITT BENCKISER: Executives Face Public's Ire Over Oxy Deaths
---------------------------------------------------------------
Choe Sang-Hun, writing for The New York Times, reports that
looking for answers after the deaths of scores of children and
pregnant women from a mysterious lung ailment, a group of families
in South Korea began to focus on a potential cause: a cleaner
called Oxy.

In 2011, South Korean officials suggested that toxic chemicals in
Oxy -- used to sanitize humidifiers and sold by the British
consumer goods maker Reckitt Benckiser -- and similar products
were responsible for the deaths.  Ninety-five have been confirmed
by the government, which is also reviewing hundreds of additional
cases reported by families, who claim more than 460 fatalities.
The government's punishment for Reckitt Benckiser: a $45,000 fine
for falsely advertising Oxy as safe for humans.

Five years later, simmering anger over the deaths has hit Reckitt
Benckiser -- and prompted widening hostility to white-collar crime
that is directed at foreign and local companies alike.

South Korean prosecutors in May arrested three local Reckitt
Benckiser employees and charged them with professional negligence
resulting in deaths.  When a Reckitt Benckiser executive publicly
apologized, a relative of a victim jumped onstage and slapped him
in the back of the neck.

South Korean prosecutors are also considering bringing criminal
charges against local Volkswagen executives stemming from
investigations into the automaker's cheating in emissions tests,
while lawmakers have significantly raised fines for violating
emissions rules.  Officials raided the homes and offices of top
executives of Lotte, a major South Korean conglomerate, to collect
evidence of alleged embezzlement.  Lotte has said it is
cooperating.

To outsiders, South Korea's rash of criminal investigations and
prosecutions against corporate officials make it look unusually
aggressive in pursuing white-collar crime.  But South Korean
analysts and critics say the tough actions show the opposite:
Government officials have little power to brandish big fines or
other civil penalties, as their counterparts in the United States
and Europe do.

"When people are outraged, the government has few things to show
to them except asking prosecutors to get involved," said
Kim Pil-soo, a professor of automotive engineering at Daelim
University College, who has followed the Volkswagen scandal.

For corporate scofflaws, South Korea can be a surprisingly
forgiving environment.  Fines are modest. Until recently, courts
routinely suspended the sentences of tycoons convicted of bribery,
embezzlement or tax evasion, citing the potential impact on their
corporate empires -- and, by extension, the country's economy.
Class-action lawsuits and court awards are limited.

The soft treatment is a legacy of South Korea's hard-charging
economic past.  In the decades after the end of the Korean War in
1953, military dictators in South Korea favored businesses --
especially a handful of corporate families known as chaebol --
with tax benefits, cheap electricity and bank loans and brutal
crackdowns on labor activists.

But there are signs that South Koreans' patience is running thin.
In a study a year ago commissioned by the government's Korea
Legislation Research Institute, over half of about 3,000 people
queried said they did not believe South Korean businesses abided
by the laws, while more than two-thirds said business regulations
against pollution should be strengthened.

In the newly elected National Assembly, where President Park Geun-
hye's pro-business governing party no longer holds a majority,
lawmakers are pushing to allow plaintiffs to ask for punitive
damages -- large financial penalties used in the United States and
elsewhere to punish white-collar crimes -- in more types of cases.

One South Korean group that monitors businesses, the People's
Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, called the introduction of
punitive damages one of South Korea's most urgently needed
reforms.

"As a result of our decades-long national strategy focusing on
economic development, our legal system is too much geared toward
protecting industries," said Kim Hyun, a former president of the
Seoul Bar Association, who recently collected signatures from a
thousand lawyers supporting punitive damages.

Business groups say that punitive damages could victimize
businesses.

"As in the United States, we would see lawyers encouraging
lawsuits against companies, costing them time and money in
fighting these questionable lawsuits," said Lee Cheol-haeng, the
chief of business policy studies at the Federation of Korean
Industries, which represents big businesses in South Korea.

Until recently, the cost of violating South Korean law could be
modest, as the Volkswagen case shows.

While the Ministry of Environment ordered Volkswagen Korea to
recall 125,000 cars sold in the country, it could fine the company
only $12.3 million.  Under a law devised to protect local
carmakers, the government can impose fines up to 1 billion South
Korean won, or $867,000, per model that violates its clean-air
law, no matter how many individual cars have been sold.  The new
law, enacted at the end of last year, allows up to 10 times that
amount, or about $8.7 million.

By contrast, the United States can impose civil penalties of up to
$37,500 per noncompliant vehicle or engine under the Clean Air
Act.  Volkswagen has agreed to pay $14.7 billion in fines in the
United States.

When the Ministry of Environment asked prosecutors to seek
criminal charges against Volkswagen Korea executives earlier this
year, Hong Dong-gon, a ministry official, said they were meant
partly as "a tool of pressure" to wrest a more satisfactory recall
and compensation package from Volkswagen.

The biggest example of resistance to white-collar crime has become
Reckitt Benckiser's local subsidiary.  In addition to arrests
there, some workers at local companies that made or sold rival
products have been arrested on similar charges.  Two university
professors have also been arrested on charges of manipulating data
on Oxy's toxicity in return for bribes from Reckitt Benckiser
Korea.

The families fighting Oxy did not gain national attention until
this year.  As the scandal threatened to become a major political
burden for her government, which championed pro-business
deregulation, Ms. Park called for a thorough investigation, and
prosecutors began summoning company officials.

In May, Reckitt Benckiser Korea apologized and acknowledged
responsibility.  It also promised to double a humanitarian fund it
had founded for victims to $8.7 million, following a common
practice among South Korean businesses in legal trouble to make
large charitable donations while seeking lenience in court.

"Although we understand nothing can completely ease the pain of
those affected, we are working to make amends as best we can,"
Reckitt Benckiser Korea said in a statement.

Some of the families say that is not enough.

"It has been as if there were only victims but no perpetrators,"
said Kang Chan-ho, whose daughter struggles with lung damage after
his family used one of the toxic disinfectants.  "We have been
ignored both by the government and by the businesses."


RICE ENERGY: "Robinson" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Dyson Robinson, individually and of behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Rice Energy, Inc. Defendant, Case No. 1:16-
cv-22790 (S.D. Fla., June 28, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act and the Ohio Wage Act.

Rice Energy is an oil and natural gas company operating primarily
in Pennsylvania and Ohio in the Marcellus, Utica, and Upper
Devonian Shales where Robinson has worked exclusively for Rice
Energy as an oilfield contractor and/or flowback operator.
Throughout his employment with Rice Energy, he was paid a day-rate
with no overtime compensation and was classified as an independent
contractor.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
     GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
     3634 California Ave.
     Pittsburgh, PA 15212
     Tel: (412) 766-1455
     Fax: (412)766-0300
     Email: josh@goodrichandgeist.com

            - and -

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

            - and -

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


RUBY TUESDAY: "Sagastume" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit styled OSCAR SAGASTUME
and KEVIN GIBSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. RUBY TUESDAY, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00776-VLB (D. Conn.), ask the Court to
enter an order:

     (1) conditionally certifying a collective action under the
         Fair Labor Standards Act;

     (2) directing Defendant to produce a computer-readable data
         file within 10 days of the Court's decision, containing,
         for each collective member: (a) name; (b) last known
         mailing address(es); (c) last known telephone number(s);
         (d) last known email address(es); (e) dates of work and
         work locations; and (f) Social Security number;

     (3) authorizing Plaintiffs to mail and email the proposed
         Notice and Consent to Join form and a reminder notice to
         the Collective; and

     (4) authorizing the creation of an interactive standalone
         website through which the Collective can submit Consent
         to Join forms.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin M. Swartz
          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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ELMER
          ROBERT KEACH III, P.C.
          One Pine West Plaza, Suite 109
          Albany, NY 12208
          Telephone: (518) 434 1718


RUSHMORE LOAN: Sellers Seeks Certification of Consumer Class
------------------------------------------------------------
Randolph and Tabatha Sellers in the class action lawsuit styled
RANDOLPH AND TABETHA SELLERS, individually and on behalf of a
class of persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. RUSHMORE
LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-
01106-TJC-PDB (M.D. Fla.) on July 9, 2016, asked the Court to
certify the following Class:

     "All Florida consumers who: (a) had or have a residential
      mortgage loan that was acquired by RUSHMORE and/or
      transferred to RUSHMORE for servicing when in default; (b)
      received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge of their mortgage
      debt; and (c) were sent an "Account Statement", to the
      Complaint, from RUSHMORE during the respective applicable
      statute of limitations."

Rushmore Loan is a multi-faceted financial services company
located in Irvine, California.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=66qp0SYD

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
          Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
          Steven T. Simmons, Jr., Esq.
          VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
          P.O. Box 1870
          Lady Lake, FL 32158
          Telephone: (352) 753 8600
          Facsimile: (352) 504 3301
          E-mail: jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com
                  bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com
                  ssimmons@varnellandwarwick.com
                  kstroly@varnellandwarwick.com

               - and -

          Max Story, Esq.
          MAX STORY, P.A.
          328 2nd Avenue North, Suite 100
          Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250
          Telephone: (904) 372 4109
          Facsimile: (904) 758 5333
          E-mail: max@maxstorylaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Justin Wong, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP
          600 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 5200
          Atlanta, GA 30308
          Telephone: (404) 885 3974
          Facsimile: (404) 885 3900
          E-mail: justin.wong@troutmansanders.com


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Wagner" Sues Over Defective Washing Machines
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Wagner, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 2:16-cv-03623 (E.D. Penn., June 30, 2016), seeks injunctive
relief by requiring Samsung to issue corrective actions including
notification, recall, service bulletins and fully-covered
replacement parts and labor or replacement, damages associated
with the replacement of the defective products and parts,
attorneys' fees and costs resulting from breach of implied and
express warranty, negligence, and violation of Pennsylvania Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

Defendants' WA400 and WASOO-series washing machines experience
vibrations, breaking springs and explosions related to its spin
cycles, resulting in fracturing and separation of the drain pump
assembly and its motor housing from its mounting base.

Samsung is a major designer, manufacturer, marketer, and seller of
consumer appliances, including washing machines, which it
distributes throughout the United States.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael T. Fantini, Esq.
     Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
     BERGER AND MONTAGUE, P.C.
     1622 Locust St.
     Philadelphia, Pa 19103
     Tel: (215) 875-3000
     Fax: (215) 875-5804
     Email: soarsonQbmhet

            - and -

     Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
     Lisa A. White
     GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
     800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
     Knoxville, TN 37929
     Telephone: 865-247-0080
     Pacsimile: 865-522-0049
     Email: lisanregcolemanlaweom
            gregQgregcolemanlaw.com

            - and -

     Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
     Amy E. Keller, Esq.
     Tyler J. Story, Esq.
     WEXLER WALLACE LLP
     55 West Monroe St., Suite 3300
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Telephone: 312-346-2222
     Faosirnile: 312-346-0022
     Email: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
            aek@wexlerwallace.com
            tjs@wexlerwallace.com

            - and -

     Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
     CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
     8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810
     Bethesda, MD 20814
     Telephone: 202-789-3960
     Email: Charles@cuneolaw.com

            - and -

     Clayton D. Halunen, Esq.
     Melissa Wolchansky, Esq.
     Amy E. Boyle, Esq.
     HALUNEN LAW
     1650 IDS Center
     80 South Eighth Street
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Telephone: 612-605-4098
     Facsimile: 612-605-4099
     Email: halunen@halunenlaw.com
            boyle@halunenlaw.com
            wolchansky@halunenlaw.com

            - and -

     Taylor Asen, Esq.
     Ben Elga, Esq.
     CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
     16 Court Street, Suite 1012
     Brooklyn, NY 1 1241
     Telephone: 202-789-3960
     Facsimile: 202-789-1 813
     Email: tasen@cuneolaw.com
            belga@cuneolaw.com


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Helwani Files Appeal in DRAM Antitrust MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Gayle Helwani and Michael Solomon filed an appeal from
a court ruling in the lawsuit titled The Indirect Purchaser
Settlement Class, et al. v. Samsung Electronics Company Ltd., et
al.

The case is part of the multidistrict litigation captioned In re
Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No.
4:02-md-01486-PJH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Oakland.

The class actions in the litigation allege violations of the
antitrust laws in connection with the sale of DRAM -- defined to
mean dynamic random access memory components, including
synchronous dynamic random access memory, Rambus dynamic random
access memory and asynchronous dynamic random access memory.  The
Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants engaged in an unlawful
conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the prices of DRAM
in the United States and to allocate among themselves, major
customers and accounts in violation of the Sherman Act.

The appellate case is captioned as The Indirect Purchaser
Settlement Class, et al. v. Samsung Electronics Company Ltd., et
al., Case No. 16-16205, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Michael Solomon and Gayle Helwani,
Objectors; individually and on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated and the public; plaintiffs in Case No. 4:05-cv-
03982-PJH, are represented by:

          Lingel Hart Winters, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LINGEL H. WINTERS
          388 Market St.
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 398-2941
          E-mail: sawmill2@aol.com

Plaintiff-Appellee The Indirect Purchaser Settlement Class is
represented by:

          Timothy Battin, Esq.
          STRAUS & BOIES, LLP
          4041 University Drive
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 764-8700
          E-mail: tbattin@straus-boies.com

               - and -

          Josef Cooper, Esq.
          Tracy Rena Kirkham, Esq.
          COOPER & KIRKHAM, P.C.
          357 Tehama Street
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Telephone: (415) 788-3030
          Facsimile: (415) 882-7040
          E-mail: jdc@coopkirk.com
                  trk@coopkirk.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Personal: 612-333-8844
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Daniel Mogin, Esq.
          MOGIN LAW FIRM PC
          110 Juniper St.
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 687-6611
          Facsimile: (619) 687-6610
          E-mail: dmogin@moginlaw.com

               - and -

          Francis O. Scarpulla, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF FRANCIS O. SCARPULLA
          456 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 788-7210
          Facsimile: (415) 788-0707
          E-mail: fos@scarpullalaw.com

Plaintiff-Appellee The Government Purchaser Plaintiff Classes is
represented by:

          Emilio E. Varanini, Esq.
          DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
          AGCA - OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL
          455 Golden Gate Avenue
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 703-5908
          E-mail: Emilio.Varanini@doj.ca.gov

Defendant-Appellee Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. is represented
by:

          Gary Halling, Esq.
          James McGinnis, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          4 Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4106
          Telephone: (415) 434-9100
          E-mail: ghalling@sheppardmullin.com
                  jmcginnis@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Jonathan M. Jacobson, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
          1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 999-5800
          E-mail: jjacobson@wsgr.com

               - and -

          Stephen A. Mansfield, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          580 California Street, Suite 1500
          San Francisco, CA 94104-1036
          Telephone: (415) 765-9500
          E-mail: smansfield@akingump.com

Defendant-Appellee Winbond Electronics Corporation is represented
by:

          William Farmer, Esq.
          FARMER BROWNSTEIN JAEGER LLP
          235 Pine Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 962-2877
          Facsimile: (415) 520-5678
          E-mail: wfarmer@fbj-law.com

Defendant-Appellee Infineon Technologies AG is represented by:

          Aton Arbisser, Esq.
          Julian Brew, Esq.
          Joshua S. Stambaugh, Esq.
          KAYE SCHOLER, LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6048
          Telephone: (310) 788-1000
          E-mail: aton@kayescholer.com
                  jbrew@kayescholer.com
                  jstambaugh@kayescholer.com

               - and -

          Catherine Y. Lui, Esq.
          ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          405 Howard Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 773-5801
          Facsimile: (415) 774-5759
          E-mail: clui@orrick.com

Defendant-Appellee Elpida Memory USA Inc. is represented by:

          Kevin Arquit, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017-3954
          Telephone: (212) 455-7680
          Facsimile: (212) 455-2502
          E-mail: karquit@stblaw.com

               - and -

          Harrison Frahn, Esq.
          James G. Kreissman, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          2475 Hanover Street
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 251-5065
          Facsimile: (650) 251-5002
          E-mail: hfrahn@stblaw.com
                  jkreissman@stblaw.com

               - and -

          Robert B. Pringle, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          101 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 591-1420
          Facsimile: (415) 591-1400
          E-mail: rpringle@winston.com

Defendant-Appellee NEC Electronics America, Inc., is represented
by:

          Paul R. Griffin, Esq.
          Robert B. Pringle, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          101 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 591-1420
          Facsimile: (415) 591-1400
          E-mail: pgriffin@winston.com
                  rpringle@winston.com

Defendant-Appellee Micron Technology, Inc., is represented by:

          Rachel Susan Brass, Esq.
          George Charles Nierlich, III, Esq.
          Joel Steven Sanders, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          555 Mission Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2933
          Telephone: (415) 393-8293
          Facsimile: (415) 393-8306
          E-mail: rbrass@gibsondunn.com
                  cnierlich@gibsondunn.com
                  jsanders@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Ronald C. Redcay, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
          777 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844
          Telephone: (213) 243-4000
          Facsimile: (213) 243-4199
          E-mail: ronald_redcay@aporter.com

Defendant-Appellee Mosel Vitelic Corporation USA is represented
by:

          David Charles Brownstein, Esq.
          FARMER BROWNSTEIN JAEGER LLP
          235 Pine Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 962-2873
          Facsimile: (415) 962-2873
          E-mail: dbrownstein@fbj-law.com

Defendant-Appellee Hynix Semi, Inc., is represented by:

          Christina Joanne Brown, Esq.
          Michael Frederick Tubach, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          Two Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 984-8979
          E-mail: cjbrown@omm.com
                  mtubach@omm.com

               - and -

          Kenneth Ryan O'Rourke, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          400 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-6000
          E-mail: korourke@omm.com

               - and -

          Ian Simmons, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          1625 Eye Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 383-5300
          Facsimile: (202) 383-5414
          E-mail: isimmons@omm.com

Defendant-Appellee Nanya Technology Corporation USA is represented
by:

          Catherine Y. Lui, Esq.
          Howard M. Ullman, Esq.
          ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          405 Howard Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 773-5801
          Facsimile: (415) 774-5759
          E-mail: clui@orrick.com
                  hullman@orrick.com

Defendant-Appellee Toshiba Corporation is represented by:

          Belinda S. Lee, Esq.
          Brendan A. McShane, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          505 Montgomery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
          Telephone: (415) 391-0600
          Facsimile: (415) 395-8095
          E-mail: belinda.lee@lw.com
                  brendan.mcshane@lw.com

Defendant-Appellee Hitachi Ltd. is represented by:

          Matthew J. Jacobs, Esq.
          VINSON & ELKINS LLP
          555 Mission Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 979-6990
          Facsimile: (415) 651-8786
          E-mail: mjacobs@velaw.com

               - and -

          Craig Philip Seebald, Esq.
          VINSON & ELKINS LLP
          2200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 500 West
          Washington, DC 20037-1701
          Telephone: (202) 639-6585
          Facsimile: (202) 879-8995
          E-mail: cseebald@velaw.com

Defendant-Appellee Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc., is
represented by:

          Michael Timothy Brody, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          353 N. Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 923-2711
          E-mail: mbrody@jenner.com


SHARINN & LIPSHIE: Class Certification Sought in "Considine" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned CHRISTINE CONSIDINE, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. SHARINN &
LIPSHIE, P.C., Case No. 2:15-cv-04816-GRB (E.D.N.Y.), moves the
Court for an order appointing her as class representative, and
appointing her counsel as class counsel, for this proposed class
asserting claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act:

     All persons with a New York address to whom Sharinn &
     Lipshie, P.C. mailed an initial debt collection
     communication that stated: "If you notify this firm within
     thirty (30) days after your receipt of this letter, that the
     debt or any portion thereof, is disputed, we will obtain
     verification of the debt or a copy of the judgment, if any,
     and mail a copy of such verification or judgment to you,"
     between August 17, 2014 and August 17, 2015, in connection
     with the collection of a consumer debt on behalf of Bank of
     America, N.A.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LfNDS98X

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Brittany Weiner, Esq.
          IMBESI LAW P.C.
          450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: (646) 380-9555
          Facsimile: (212) 658-9177
          E-mail: brittany@lawicm.com


SNAPCHAT INC: "Doe" Suit Claims Communications Decency Act Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE, a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem Lynette
Young, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v.
SNAPCHAT, INC., A Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1-20 Case 2:16-
cv-04955 (C.D. Cal.,, July 7, 2016), accuses Defendant of wilful
and intentional violations of the Communications Decency Act by
intentionally exposing minors to harmful, offensive, prurient, and
sexually offensive content.

Snapchat, Inc. is the developer of the internet computer service
and application Snapchat, which is is an interactive computer
service that provides a mobile application allowing consumers to
send and receive photo and video messages known as "snaps."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark J. Geragos, Esq.
     Ben Meiselas, Esq.
     GERAGOS & GERAGOS
     644 South Figueroa Street
     Los Angeles, CA 90017-3411
     Phone: (213) 625-3900
     Fax: (213) 232-3255
     E-mail: Geragos@Geragos.com


SOURCE 1: "Castro" Suit Alleges FLSA, Ill. Wage Law Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Castro, individually and all other similarly situated
persons, known and unknown, Plaintiff v. Source 1 Building
Maintenance Services, Inc. and Timothy Berger, Individually,
Defendants, Case: 1:16-cv-07046 (N.D. Ill., July 7, 2016), was
filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law.

Source 1 Building Maintenance Services, Inc.'s line of business
includes building cleaning and maintenance services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Susan J. Best, Esq.
     CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
     6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
     Chicago, IL 60646
     Phone: 312-878-1263
     E-mail: sbest@yourclg.com


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Dismissal of Shareholder Class Action Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roxana Hegeman, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
shareholders failed to show that Spirit AeroSystems and four of
its executives lied about three manufacturing contracts that
resulted in $434.6 million in losses, a federal appeals court
panel ruled on July 5.

Upholding a lower court decision, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled on July 5 that the investors behind a class-action
lawsuit failed to show the aircraft parts maker or its executives
made any material misrepresentations or omissions.

The lawsuit followed an October 2012 announcement that the
Wichita-based company recorded $434.6 million forward losses on
the three contracts at issue in the appeal.  U.S. District Judge
Eric Melgren threw out the lawsuit last year before it got to
trial.

In addition to the Spirit, the executives named as defendants in
the lawsuit are Jeffrey Turner, Spirit's former chief executive
officer; Philip Anderson, the company's chief financial officer;
Alexander Kummant, senior vice president of Oklahoma operations;
and Terry George, vice president overseeing the Boeing 787
project.

The class-action lawsuit was brought by stockholder Wayne Anderson
as the lead plaintiff, along with the International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, among others.

Spirit AeroSystems agreed to supply parts for three types of
aircraft manufactured by Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. and The Boeing
Co., specifically the Gulfstream G280 and G60, and the Boeing 787.
Each project had production delays and cost overruns, which Spirit
periodically publicly reported. Spirit acknowledged the risks in
these reports, but expressed confidence in its ability to meet
production deadlines and ultimately break even on the projects.

But on Oct. 25, 2012, Spirit announced it expected to lose
hundreds of millions of dollars, and its stock price dropped 30
percent.

"The size of the loss does not suggest that the four executives
knew or recklessly disregarded the risks that Spirit was
eventually going to lose money on the three projects," the appeals
court panel concluded.

Justice Carlos Lucero partly dissented with majority opinion when
it came to statements pertaining to the 787 program.  He concluded
that two executives likely had actual knowledge of the cost
overruns and had "intentionally lied to investors about the status
of the 787 project," saying that part of the case should have been
allowed to go to trial.


ST JUDE MEDICAL: "Rosenfeld" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------------
Chaim Rosenfeld, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., John W. Brown,
Richard R. Devenuti, David C. Dvorak, Stuart M. Essig, Barbara B.
Hill, Michael A. Rocca, Michael T. Rousseau, Daniel J. Starks,
Stefan K. Widensohler and Wendy L. Yarno, Defendants, Case No.
0:16-cv-02275 (D. Minn., June 28, 2016), seeks relief for breaches
of state disclosure law arising out of the Board's agreement to
sell the Company to Abbott Laboratories.

St. Jude and Abbott is to be sold to Abbott, whereby St. Jude
shareholders will receive $46.75 in cash and 0.8708 shares of
Abbott common stock for each share of St. Jude common stock they
own. This deal is purportedly valued at $85.00 per share, based on
Abbott's 5-day volume weighted average share price of $43.93 as of
April 26, 2016.

Plaintiff alleges that this single deal did not undergo a bidding
process and eliminated any other chances of better offers. The
Registration Statement also failed to disclose the process by
which the Board entered into the deal as well as key data and
inputs to prove its fairness.

John W. Brown, Richard R. Devenuti, David C. Dvorak, Stuart M.
Essig, Barbara B. Hill, Michael A. Rocca, Michael T. Rousseau,
Daniel J. Starks, Stefan K. Widensohler and Wendy L. Yarno are
members of the St. Jude board of directors.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq.
     Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
     100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
     Minneapolis, MN 55401
     Tel: (612) 339-6900
     Fax: (612) 339-0981
     Email: gmfishbein@locklaw.com
            kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com

            - and -

     Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
     Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
     Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
     WEISSLAW LLP
     1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
     New York, NY 10036
     Tel.: (212) 682-3025
     Fax: (212) 682-3010


STERN & STERN: Faces "Divella" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Stern & Stern, P.C. The case is
captioned John Divella, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Stern & Stern, P.C., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-03740 (E.D.N.Y., July 6, 2016).

Stern & Stern is a debt collection law firm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


THERANOS INC: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Blood Test Kit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that a Maricopa County, Arizona woman has filed a class-action
suit against a Palo Alto-based company and a pharmacy chain
alleging it sold blood tests that were not 100 percent accurate as
advertised.

Plaintiff L.M. filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on June 24 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division against Theranos Inc.,
and Walgreens Boot Alliance Inc. alleging negligent
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and other counts.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that in Oct. 5,
2015, she was misled into buying a Theranos blood test kit at
Walgreens believing it to be 100 percent accurate but found out
that results were incorrect, which resulted in her having
treatment she didn't need.  The plaintiff holds Theranos Inc. and
Walgreens Boot Alliance Inc. responsible because the defendants
allegedly misrepresented the product.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks enjoin the
defendant from continuing the allegedly unlawful practice,
restitution, damages, punitive damages, disgorgement, interest,
all legal fees and any other relief the court deems just.  She is
represented by Jeff Lewis -- jlewis@kellerrohrback.com -- and
Jacob Richards of Keller Rohback LLP in Oakland; T. David Copley -
- dcopley@kellerrohrback.com -- of Keller Rohback, LLP in Seattle,
Washington; and Mark D. Samson and Christopher Graver --
cgraver@kellerrohrback.com -- of Keller Rohback LLP in Phoenix.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Jose Division Case number 5:16-cv-03571


TOKYO ELECTRIC: Two Former PMs Set Up Support Fund for US Sailors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Mealey, writing for ABC News, reports that two former
Japanese prime ministers have thrown their support behind a group
of former US sailors who claim they're suffering health problems
because of exposure to radiation after the Fukushima meltdowns.

Junichiro Koizumi was prime minister of Japan from 2001 to 2006.

He's been joined in his campaign by Morihiro Hosokawa who was
prime minister for eight months in the 1990s.

They both led the Liberal Democratic Party, the party of the
current Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe.

When they were in charge, they were both advocates of the
country's nuclear energy policy, but they've changed their tune
since.

On July 5, Mr. Koizumi called a press conference about an issue
that's close to his heart.

"American sailors who worked in Operation Tomodachi are suffering
from illness and I want to support them as much as possible.  I've
decided to set up a victims support fund and would like people to
be interested in it," Mr. Koizumi said.

Tomodachi is the Japanese word for friend.  More than 400 US Navy
sailors who were part of the humanitarian relief effort, Operation
Tomodachi, after the earthquake and tsunami in 2011, now claim
they suffer health problems as a result of exposure to radiation
from the Fukushima meltdowns.

They've joined a class action against Tokyo Electric Power
Company, or TEPCO, the operator of the nuclear power plants, which
will be fought out in the US courts.

Most of the sailors who are part of the class action were onboard
the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan which was at sea off the
coast of Fukushima.  They carried out rescue and relief operations
for about a month after the tsunami struck the coast. Mr. Koizumi
says they've suffered a range of illnesses and the cases can't be
ignored.

Mr. Koizumi said "A year or two after Fukushima they started to
have nosebleeds and pains in parts of their bodies, and tumors
emerged.  When they couldn't work as sailors anymore, they had to
leave the Navy."

The plaintiffs in the court case claim that seven of the sailors
have died as a result of their exposure.  William Zeller is one of
the sailors. He spoke in San Diego in May.  His doctors didn't
believe his constant health problems were a result of radiation
exposure.

Mr. Zeller said "You have to experience the doctors telling you to
your face.  You have to experience the years of pain when everyone
tells you 'no' you're fine."

On July 5, Jonichiro Koizumi said the trust fund he's set up will
pay for the healthcare costs of the US sailors.

Mr. Koizumi said "In America, they don't have health insurance
like Japan, so the medical cost of their illnesses is very high."

Beside Mr. Koizumi at the July 5 press conference was a quietly
spoken older man.  Morihiro Hosokawa was less well known as prime
minister, he served for only eight months in 1993 and, unlike
Mr. Koizumi, he doesn't have any distinctive features.

It's a powerful moment for Japan, when two former leaders on the
same side of politics as the current Prime Minister take such a
public stance.  While both men were quick to point out they've
retired from politics and are acting as individuals, they still
know how to deliver a political blow.

Mr. Koizumi said "Regardless if you're pro-nuclear or anti-
nuclear, I'd like people to know there are people suffering from
illness and it's increasing.  Regardless of the ruling of the
court, we should support them."

Proving that the health problems of the sailors are as a direct
result of exposure to radiation will be at the heart of the court
case.

The US Navy conducted a study in 2014 and determined the sailors'
exposure to radiation was too low to have any ongoing health
effects.

But Mr. Koizumi says it can't be ignored that the men, aged in
their 20s and 30s, were in robust health when their boat sailed to
the aid of Japan in a time of need.


U.S. CABLE: Faces "Carswell" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES CARSWELL, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, v. U.S. CABLE CORPORATION, Case: 1:16-cv-
01735-CAB (N.D. Ohio, July 7, 2016), was filed under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant provides installation and technical support services
for Time Warner Cable.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
     Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
     NILGES DRAHER LLC
     4580 Stephen Circle, N.W.
     Suite 201
     Canton, OH 44718
     Phone: (330) 470-4429
     Fax: (330) 754-1430
     E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
             sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Supplemental Brief in "O'Connor" Due Today
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DOUGLAS O'CONNOR, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants. HAKAN YUCESOY, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants,
Case Nos. 13-cv-03826-EMC, 15-cv-00262-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Edward M. Chen ordered the parties to file a supplemental brief by
July 15 on the plaintiffs' motions for preliminary approval on
their settlement.

The plaintiffs brought the instant class action and putative class
action against Uber Technologies, Inc., alleging that Uber
misclassifies drivers as independent contractors rather than
employees.  After nearly three years of hard-fought litigation,
the parties reached a settlement.

Judge Chen found that the parties have failed to provide
sufficient information, preventing the court from performing the
full assessment of the settlement as required by the Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(e) and Ninth Circuit precedent.

A full-text copy of Judge Chen's June 30, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/SMSJ4Y from Leagle.com.

Douglas O'Connor, Plaintiff, represented by Adelaide Pagano --
apagano@llrlaw.com -- Lichten and Liss-Riordan, P.C., pro hac
vice, Andrew A. August -- aaugust@bgrfirm.com -- Browne George
Ross LLP, Ben Weber -- bweber@llrlaw.com -- Lichten and Liss-
Riordan, P.C., Benjamin J. Meiselas -- meiselas@geragos.com --
Geragos and Geragos, APC, Brian Stephen Kabateck --
bsk@kbklawyers.com -- Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP, Brian C.
Tackenberg -- btackenberg@crabtreelaw.com -- pro hac vice, Charles
Morris Auslander, Crabtree and Auslander, pro hac vice, George R.
Baise, Jr. -- gbaise@crabtreelaw.com -- pro hac vice, Jennifer R.
Liakos, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, John Granville Crabtree --
jcrabtree@crabtreelaw.com -- pro hac vice, Mark J. Geragos,
Geragos & Geragos, APC, Matthew David Carlson --
mcarlson@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., Sara Smolik,
Lichten and Liss-Riordan, P.C., Shannon Liss-Riordan --
sliss@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. & Shant Arthur
Karnikian -- sk@kbklawyers.com -- Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP.

Thomas Colopy, Plaintiff, represented by Adelaide Pagano, Lichten
and Liss-Riordan, P.C., pro hac vice, Andrew A. August, Browne
George Ross LLP,Brian C. Tackenberg, pro hac vice, Charles Morris
Auslander, Crabtree and Auslander, pro hac vice, George R. Baise,
Jr., pro hac vice, John Granville Crabtree, pro hac vice, Matthew
David Carlson, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.,Sara Smolik, Lichten
and Liss-Riordan, P.C. & Shannon Liss-Riordan, Lichten & Liss-
Riordan, P.C..

Matthew Manahan, Plaintiff, represented by Adelaide Pagano,
Lichten and Liss-Riordan, P.C., pro hac vice, Andrew A. August,
Browne George Ross LLP, Brian C. Tackenberg, pro hac vice, Charles
Morris Auslander, Crabtree and Auslander, pro hac vice, George R.
Baise, Jr., pro hac vice, John Granville Crabtree, pro hac vice,
Matthew David Carlson, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. & Shannon
Liss-Riordan, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C..

Elie Gurfinkel, Plaintiff, represented by Adelaide Pagano, Lichten
and Liss-Riordan, P.C., pro hac vice, Andrew A. August, Browne
George Ross LLP, Ben Weber, Lichten and Liss-Riordan, P.C., Brian
C. Tackenberg, pro hac vice,Charles Morris Auslander, Crabtree and
Auslander, pro hac vice, George R. Baise, Jr., pro hac vice, John
Granville Crabtree, pro hac vice, Matthew David Carlson, Lichten &
Liss-Riordan, P.C. & Shannon Liss-Riordan, Lichten & Liss-Riordan,
P.C..

Ronald Gillette, Plaintiff, represented by Shannon Liss-Riordan,
Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., Adelaide Pagano, Lichten and Liss-
Riordan, P.C., pro hac vice, Andrew A. August, Browne George Ross
LLP, Andrew Paul Lee, Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, Brian C.
Tackenberg, pro hac vice,Charles Morris Auslander, Crabtree and
Auslander, pro hac vice, George R. Baise, Jr., pro hac vice, John
Granville Crabtree, pro hac vice, Theodore Walter Maya, Ahdoot &
Wolfson, P.C. & William Copley Jhaveri-Weeks, Goldstein, Borgen,
Dardarian & Ho.

Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew Michael
Spurchise, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Marcellus Antonio McRae,
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Theane D. Evangelis, Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher LLP,Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Attorney at Law, Brandon
J. Stoker, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Debra Wong Yang, Gibson,
Dunn Crutcher LLP,Dhananjay Saikrishna Manthripragada, Gibson Dunn
and Crutcher, John C. Fish, Jr., Littler Mendelson, PC, Joshua
Seth Lipshutz, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Kevin Joseph Ring-
Dowell, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP,Stephen A. Swedlow, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice & Stephen Luther
Taeusch, Valdez Law Group LLP.

7x7 Executive Transportation LLC, Defendant, represented by James
Parton, III, Parton & Sell PC.

Rasier-CA, LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew Michael
Spurchise, Littler Mendelson, P.C..

Caren Ehret, Movant, represented by Myron Milton Cherry, Myron M.
Cherry & Associates LLC.

Ricardo Del Rio, Movant, represented by Christopher James Hamner,
Hamner Law Offices, APC, Amy Tai Wootton, Hamner Law Offices,
APC,Benjamin J. Meiselas, Geragos and Geragos, APC, Brian Stephen
Kabateck, Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP, Joshua H. Haffner, Kabateck
Kellner LLP, Mark J. Geragos, Geragos & Geragos, APC & Shant
Arthur Karnikian, Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP.

Greg Fisher, Movant, represented by Christopher James Hamner,
Hamner Law Offices, APC.

Todd Johnston, Movant, represented by Brian J. Malloy, The Brandi
Law Firm.

Steven Price, Interested Party, represented by Christopher John
Morosoff, Law Office of Christopher J. Morosoff & Douglas Caiafa,
Attorney at Law.

City of Cleveland, Ohio, Interested Party, represented by Carl E.
Meyer, City of Cleveland.

Rosario Richardson, Interested Party, represented by Carey A.
James, Aiman-Smith and Marcy & Shant Arthur Karnikian, Kabateck
Brown Kellner LLP.

Leticia Alcala, Objector, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, pro hac vice, Paul Napoli, Napoli Shkolnik
PLLC, pro hac vice, Jennifer R. Liakos, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC &
Shant Arthur Karnikian, Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP.

Marc Borgen, Objector, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik, Napoli
Shkolnik PLLC, Paul Napoli, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, Jennifer R.
Liakos, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC & Shant Arthur Karnikian, Kabateck
Brown Kellner LLP.

Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, Objector, represented by Andre Emilio
Jardini, Knapp Petersen & Clarke.

Uladzimir Tabola, Objector, represented by Alexei Kuchinsky, Klein
Law Group & Shant Arthur Karnikian, Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP.

Alexander Kazakov, Objector, represented by Alexei Kuchinsky,
Klein Law Group & Shant Arthur Karnikian, Kabateck Brown Kellner
LLP.

Yahor Zgurski, Objector, represented by Alexei Kuchinsky, Klein
Law Group & Shant Arthur Karnikian, Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP.

Maksim Hancharuk, Objector, represented by Alexei Kuchinsky, Klein
Law Group.

Omar Zine, Objector, represented by Christopher John Gansen,
Gansen Law Group & Shant Arthur Karnikian, Kabateck Brown Kellner
LLP.

Nahabet Narsis, Objector, represented by Kevin Todd Barnes, Law
Offices of Kevin T. Barnes.

Jorge Zunigas, Jason Rosenberg, Anthony Martinez, Ryan Cowden,
Objectors, represented by Mark Alan Morrison, Morrison and
Associates.

Chuck Congdon, Objector, represented by John Granville Crabtree &
Mark Alan Morrison, Morrison and Associates.

Adham Shaheen, Gladys Quinones, Mahmood Noori, Edward Escobar,
Mohammad Zadran, Objector, represented by Veena Bharat Dubal,
University of California, Hastings College of the Law.

Abdo Ghazi, Intervenor, represented by Alec Llewellyn Segarich,
Lohr Ripamonti & Segarich LLP, Conor Daniel Granahan, Law Offices
of Conor Granahan, Jason Shelton Lohr, Lohr Ripamonti & Segarich
LLP & Shant Arthur Karnikian, Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP.

                           *     *     *

Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal
judge has postponed a decision on whether to approve an $84
million class action settlement with Uber Technologies Inc. and
demanded that attorneys provide more information about the deal by
the middle of this month.

In a 16-page order issued June 30, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen
of the Northern District of California said he still has
"insufficient information" to determine whether the settlement is
a good deal for drivers in California and Massachusetts.

He was particularly vexed by a lack of explanation by class
counsel Shannon Liss-Riordan and Uber's attorneys at Gibson, Dunn
& Crutcher about the value of all of the legal claims that would
be released by the settlement.  This issue was discussed at length
during a four-hour June 2 hearing before Chen, but the judge
clearly didn't feel satisfied with the answers he received.

Ms. Liss-Riordan's California and Massachussetts class actions --
which affect roughly 350,000 Uber drivers in those states --
focused on expense reimbursement and unpaid-tips claims.  But her
settlement with Uber would also release claims against Uber
relating to rest breaks, minimum wage and workers compensation,
all of which were raised by other attorneys in different suits.

"While it is not necessarily unusual or improper for a class
action settlement agreement to release claims not originally
brought by the plaintiff, the court must consider the strength and
value of those claims in deciding whether to approve the
settlement," Judge Chen wrote.

In his order, Judge Chen relied in part on the underlying
reasoning from a decision in another gig-economy class action
earlier last month by District Judge Vincent Chhabria, who sits in
the courtroom next to Judge Chen's in San Francisco.

Judge Chhabria granted preliminary approval to a $27 million
settlement between drivers and Lyft Inc., Uber's ride-hail rival,
in a similar suit brought by Liss-Riordan.  In doing so, he ruled
the settlement was fair even though it released claims previously
not pursued by Ms. Liss-Riordan because the claims appeared to be
weak and not very valuable.

But Judge Chen said he didn't have enough information to make that
call.  He also said he was not clear why Ms. Liss-Riordan has
discounted her labor claims under California's Private Attorney
General Act, or PAGA, by "99.9 percent."  The settlement allocates
$1 million to PAGA claims, but Ms. Liss-Riordan estimated that the
penalties exceeded $1 billion.

Furthermore, Judge Chen said he wanted a more definitive answer on
how long the nonmonetary provisions of the Uber settlement would
stay in place.  Those provisions sunset after two years under the
deal, but because of a six-month implementation period, Judge Chen
said it looked like they might remain for only a year and a half.
These provisions provide Uber drivers with a way to challenge
decisions to "deactivate" them, among other things.
Despite his heavy scrutiny, the judge held open that he still may
green light the deal--or some version of it.  "The court does not
foreclose the possibility that the proposed settlement as
clarified or modified may prove sufficiently fair and adequate to
warrant preliminary approval.  At this juncture, however, the
court needs additional information to complete its analysis and
assessment," he wrote.  He set a deadline of July 15 for parties
to respond.


ULLIANCE INC: Lucas Seeks Certification of Class and Subclass
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit styled Carol Lucas,
R.N., et al, the Plaintiffs, v. Ulliance, Inc., et al, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-10337-AJT-RSW (E.D. Mich.), ask the
court to grant class certification to a class and sub-class of
licensed health professionals who were harmed by Ulliance, Inc.
and the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs' policies.

The Class, a large group of Michigan health professionals, were
injured by LARA and the Health Professionals Recovery Program
(HPRP)'s application of a number of policies related to the
administration of the HPRP. The proposed class consists of all
persons who are, or were participants in the HPRP during the
period from January 1, 2011 to the present.

The sub-class of health care professionals are, or were,
participants in HPRP through either intake or monitoring, and
received summary suspension of their license between January 1,
2011, and the present as a result of LARA's policy that all health
professionals who do not comply with HPRP monitoring shall be
suspended. LARA's figures indicate that this class includes 292
licensees.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6UBV841r

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald W. Chapman, Esq.
          Ronald W. Chapman, II, Esq.
          Aaron J. Kemp, Esq.
          CHAPMAN LAW GROUP
          1441 West Long Lake Road, Ste. 310
          Troy, MI 48098
          Telephone: (248) 644 6326
          E-mail: RChapman@ChapmanLawGroup.com
                  RWChapman@ChapmanLawGroup.com
                  AKemp@ChapmanLawGroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robert M. Jackson, Esq.
          Eric J. Eggan, Esq.
          Mitra Jafary-Hariri, Esq.
          HONIGMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ & COHN LLP
          2290 First National Building
          660 Woodward Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 465 7430
          E-mail: RJackson@Honigman.com
                  EEggan@Honigman.com
                  MJafary-Hariri@Honigman.com

               - and -

          John G. Fedynsky, Esq.
          Thomas P. Clement, Esq.
          Erik A. Grill, Esq.
          Andrew J. Hudson, Esq.
          MI DEPT. OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
          PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, ELECTIONS & TORT DIVISION
          525 W. Ottawa Street
          P.O. Box 30736
          Lansing, MI 48909
          Telephone: (517) 373 6434
          E-mail: FedynskyJ@Michigan.gov
                  ClementT@Michigan.gov
                  GrillE@Michigan.gov
                  udsonA3@Michigan.gov


UNITED REFINING: Court Rules on Pending Motions in "Cottillion"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JOHN COTTILLION, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
UNITED REFINING COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.
09-140 Erie (W.D. Pa.), Judge Cathy Bissoon issued a memorandum
and order on various motions filed by the plaintiff that were
pending before the court.  The judge ordered as follows:

          -- The motion for attorneys' fees and costs was granted
             in part and denied in part;

          -- The motion to strike confidential mediation
             communications was denied as moot;

          -- The motion to file a third supplemental declaration
             was granted; and

          -- The motion for an accounting was denied.

A full-text copy of Judge Bissoon's June 30, 2016 memorandum and
order is available at https://is.gd/djTR1w from Leagle.com.

John Cottillion and Beverly Eldridge initiated the action on June
12, 2009, alleging, inter alia, that the defendants had violated
ERISA's anti-cutback provision, section 204(g), 29 U.S.C. section
1054(g)(2).  On April 8, 2013, Judge Sean J. McLaughlin issued a
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting summary judgment in favor of
the plaintiffs on their anti-cutback claim.  On November 5, 2013,
the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification;
enjoined the defendants from actuarially reducing the plaintiffs'
benefits; awarded damages to those who had been receiving too
little; and dismissed as duplicative the remaining counts of the
complaint.  Each of these rulings was affirmed on appeal.

JOHN COTTILLION, BEVERLY ELDRIDGE, Plaintiffs, represented by Tybe
A. Brett -- tbrett@fdpklaw.com -- Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec,
LLC, Ellen M. Doyle -- edoyle@fdpklaw.com -- Feinstein Doyle Payne
& Kravec, LLC & Joel R. Hurt -- jhurt@fdpklaw.com -- Feinstein
Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC.

UNITED REFINING COMPANY, UNITED REFINING COMPANY PENSION PLAN FOR
SALARIED EMPLOYEES, UNITED REFINING COMPANY RETIREMENT COMMITTEE,
Defendants, represented by Christopher J. Rillo --
crillo@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard Cooper & Gale LLP, Suzanne M.
Arpin, Schiff Hardin LLP, pro hac vice & Eugene D. Fowler, Maynard
Cooper & Gale LLP.


UNITED STATES: Urrutia & Brito Seek for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Urrutia and Romulo de Paz Brito in the class action lawsuit
styled JUAN URRUTIA Y URRUTIA, and ROMULO DE PAZ BRITO, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
v. THOMAS E. PEREZ in his official capacity as United States
Secretary of Labor, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, PORTIA WU
in her official capacity as Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Employment and Training, the Government Defendants, Case No. 2:16-
cv-01351-LDD (E.D. Pa.), on July 9, 2016, asked the court for
Class Certification of Claims under the second cause of action
against Government Defendants.

The Plaintiffs' claim in the second cause of action under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) against Government Defendants
are brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of similarly situated persons
for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief.  This cause of
action is brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated persons employed by Three Seasons Landscape
Contracting Services, Inc. pursuant to H-2B labor certifications
approved by Defendant Department of Labor in 2013 including both
H-2B workers and U.S. workers in corresponding employment.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=d5MCSB2l

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arthur Read, Esq.
          Stephanie Dorenbosch, Esq.
          FRIENDS OF FARMWORKERS
          699 Ranstead Street, 4th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 733-0878
          E-mail: aread@friendsfw.org
                  sdorenbosch@friendsfw.org

               - and -

          Edward Tuddenham, Esq.
          228 W. 137th St.
          New York, NY 10030
          Telephone: (212) 234 5953
          Facsimile: (512) 532 7780
          E-mail: etudden@prismnet.com


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Medical Society Sues Over Denied Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Medical Society of the State of New York, on behalf of its
members and their patients, Society of New York Office Based
Surgery Facilities, on behalf of its members and their patients,
and Podiatric of Midtown Manhattan, P.C., on its own behalf, on
behalf of its patients, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Unitedhealth Group Inc., United
Healthcare Services, Inc., United Healthcare Insurance Company,
United Healthcare Service LLC, Optum Group, LLC and Optum, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05265 (S.D.N.Y., July 1, 2016), seeks
to terminate their rental agreements.  The suit further seeks
attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs and such other
further relief including prejudgment interest for violation of the
Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance.

United Healthcare and its group of subsidiary and affiliated
companies are in the business of insuring and administering health
insurance plans.

United has routinely refused to pay office-based-surgery facility
fees, despite the fact that the terms of most United Plans have
not changed with respect to the coverage provided for out-of-
network outpatient surgeries.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     D. Brian Hufford, Esq.
     Jason S. Cowart, Esq.
     ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
     399 Park Avenue, 14th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Tel: 212.704.9600
     Fax: 212.704.4256
     Email: dbhufford@zuckerman.com
            jcowart@zuckerman.com

            - and -

     Cyril V. Smith, Esq.
     ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
     100 East Pratt Street, Suite 2440
     Baltimore, MD 21202
     Tel: 410.332.0444
     Fax: 410.659.0436
     Email: csmith@zuckerman.com

            - and -

     John W. Leardi, Esq.
     BUTTACI & LEARDI, LLC
     103 Carnegie Center, Suite 323
     Princeton, NJ 08540
     Tel: 609.799.5150
     Fax: 609.799.5180
     Email: jwleardi@buttacilaw.com


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Class Cert. Bid Taken Under Submission
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing was held regarding Mr. Andrew Lopez's Motion for Class
Certification in the class action lawsuit styled Federated
University Police Officers Association, et al., the Plaintiff, v.
The Regents of the University of California, et al., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-00477-JWD-RLB (C.D. Cal.).

The Hon. Josephine L. Staton took the matter under submission. The
oral arguments were heard.

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

Federated University Police Officers' Association, Petitioner,
represented by Kevin Anthony Flautt -- kflautt@mastagni.com --
Mastagni Holstedt APLC, and Ian Barclay Sangster --
isangster@mastagni.com -- Mastagni Holsteadt APC.

The Regents of the University of California is represented by
Daphne M Anneet -- danneet@bwslaw.com -- Burke Williams and
Sorensen LLP.


UNLIMITED LANDSCAPING: "Montells" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Montells, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated who consent to their inclusion in a collective
action, Plaintiff, v. Unlimited Landscaping & Turf Management,
Inc. and Kevin Scott Whitehead, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02416
(N.D. Ga., July 1, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages and costs of litigation under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Defendants is a jointly operated landscaping company whose
principal place of business is located at 5209 Palmero Court,
Buford, Gwinnett County, Georgia 30518, where Montells worked as a
laborer. He claims to be denied overtime pay.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Charles R. Bridgers, Esq.
     Kevin D. Fitzpatrick, Jr.
     Matthew W. Herrington, Esq.
     DELONG CALDWELL BRIDGERS FITZPATRICK & BENJAMIN, LLC
     3100 Centennial Tower
     101 Marietta Street
     Atlanta, GA 30303
     Tel: (404) 979-3171
     Fax: (404) 979-3170
     Email: charlesbridgers@dcbflegal.com
            kevin.fitzpatrick@dcbflegal.com
            matthew.herrington@dcbflegal.com


UTGR INC: "Munsif" Suit Asserts FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------
Taner Munsif and Elizabeth M. Ryan, individually and on behalf of
other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. UTGR, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00387 (D.R.I., July 5, 2016), seeks
compensatory, liquidated and punitive damages, counsel fees, costs
and other equitable relief arising from violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Rhode Island Payment of Wages Act.

UTGR operates a casino where Plaintiffs were employed as Floor
Supervisors by the Defendant.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Richard A. Sinapi, Esq.
     SINAPI LAW ASSOCIATES, LTD.
     2374 Post Road Suite 201
     Warwick, RI 02886
     Phone: (401) 739-9690
     Fax: (401) 739-9490
     Email: ras@sinapilaw.com


VALLEJO, CA: Faces Class Action Over Employees' Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that two city of Vallejo employees allege they were underpaid for
overtime work and have filed a class-action lawsuit.

Mat Mustard and Benjamin Hill filed a complaint on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals on June 30 in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California against the city of
Vallejo alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that they worked
for more than 40 hours but were not paid any overtime wages by the
defendant.  The plaintiffs hold the city of Vallejo responsible
because the defendant allegedly failed to pay overtime
compensation at a rate of time-and-one-half to the plaintiffs for
all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.

The plaintiffs seek unpaid overtime wages plus interest,
liquidated damages, all legal fees and any other relief as the
court deems just.  They are represented by David E. Mastagni,
Isaac S. Stevens and Ace T. Tate of Mastagni Holstedt APC in
Sacramento.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California Case
number 2:16-cv-01485-KJM-CKD


VILLA SERENA: "Marquez" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Jose Antonio Martinez Marquez, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Villa Serena II Inc. and Roxana Solano, Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-22852 (S.D. Fla., July 1, 2016), seeks double
damages and reasonable attorney fees for all overtime wages still
owing pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant operates an assisted living facility and hospital
primarily engaged in the care of the sick, the aged, or the
mentally ill where Marquez worked. He claims to be denied overtime
pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     J.H. Zidell, Esq.
     J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
     300 71st Street, Suite 605
     Miami Beach, FL 33141
     Tel: (305) 865-6766
     Fax: (305) 865-7167
     Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


VIRGIN AMERICA: Smith Seeks Certification of Class & Subclasses
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit captioned JUILIA
BERNSTEIN, LISA MARIE SMITH, and ESTHER GARCIA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
VIRGIN AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. 3:15-cv-02277-JST (N.D. Cal.), move the Court for
certification of a Class and Subclasses:

Class:

     "All individuals who have worked as California-based flight
      attendants of Virgin America, Inc. at any time during the
      period from March 18, 2011 (four years from the filing of
      the original Complaint) through the date established by the
      Court for notice of certification of the Class."

California Resident Subclass:

     "All individuals who have worked as California-based flight
      attendants of Virgin America, Inc. while residing in
      California at any time during the Class Period. "

Waiting Time Penalties Subclass:

     "All individuals who have worked as California-based flight
      attendants of Virgin America, Inc. and have separated from
      their employment at any time since March 18, 2012."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=V3spx0kF

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Monique Olivier, Esq.
          DUCKWORTH PETERS LEBOWITZ OLIVIER LLP
          100 Bush Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433 0333
          Facsimile: (415) 449 6556
          E-mail: monique@dplolaw.com

               - and -

          Alison Kosinski, Esq.
          Emily Thiagaraj, Esq.
          KOSINSKI + THIAGARAJ, LLP
          351 California Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 230 2860
          Facsimile: (415) 723 7099
          E-mail: alison@ktlawsf.com
                  emily@ktlawsf.com


VISTA CLINICAL: "Gear" Suit Has Conditional Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Carlos E. Mendoza in the class action lawsuit styled
JENNI M. GEAR, CANDESE A. HAWKINS and SHAMIKA L. POLLARD, the
Plaintiffs, v. VISTA CLINICAL DIAGNOSTIC, LLC., the Defendant,
Case No. cv-00495-CEM-PRL (M.D. Fla.), granting Plaintiffs' motion
for conditional Certification.

The following class is conditionally certified:

     "All Billing Representatives who are or were employed by
      Vista Clinical Diagnostic, LLC at its Clermont, Florida
      location during the three years preceding this Order
      conditionally certifying this case as a collective action,
      and who did not receive pay for all overtime hours worked
      in excess of forty hours within a workweek."

On July 15, 2016, the parties shall submit a revised proposed
notice and consent-to-join form for the Court's approval. On or
before July 22, 2016, Defendant shall provide to Plaintiffs'
counsel the full name, dates of employment, last known address,
and telephone number for each member of the putative class in an
electronic format. Within 14 days of any order approving a notice
and consent-to-join form, Plaintiffs' counsel shall distribute the
approved notice and consent-to-join forms, via first class mail,
to all putative class members. Plaintiffs shall also notify the
Court of the date that the notices are mailed.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8Jk937oc


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Heads Back to Court Over Emissions-Rigging Scandal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Charlwood, writing for Drive, reports that Volkswagen was set
to return to the Federal Court of Australia over a class action
lawsuit triggered by the global emissions-rigging scandal.

Sydney-based firm Bannister Law filed proceedings in October last
year on behalf of customers who bought some 91,000 Volkswagen,
Audi and Skoda vehicles fitted with computer devices designed to
cheat pollution tests.  The claim is being brought against the
Australian subsidiaries of Volkswagen and Audi.

The matter was set to appear in Federal Court from July 7, a
spokesman for Bannister Law confirmed.  The appearance follows a
court order issued in June for Volkswagen Australia to fly experts
from the US and Europe to meet with stakeholders in Sydney.

A separate class action was filed by heavyweight Maurice Blackburn
Lawyers in November.

While Volkswagen Australia has not volunteered to compensate
customers thus far, the class action lawsuits could force the
brand to pay up, or prompt it to reach an out-of-court settlement
with lawyers representing disgruntled owners.

"There is no compensation for European customers," VW Australia
managing director Michael Bartsch said in a statement.

"The relevant facts and complex legal issues that have played a
role in coming to these agreements in the United States are
materially different from those in Europe and Australia.

"Volkswagen is committed to resolving the diesel matter for all
affected customers around the world quickly and efficiently.  We
recognize the need to regain their trust and we are doing
everything possible to achieve this."

VW performed well in Australia, selling 5913 new cars, utes and
vans. Bartsch says the number shows that customers have kept faith
in the brand, and that "Volkswagen buyers are not being swayed by
sensationalism".

The Australian competition watchdog has also forewarned of further
proceedings against Volkswagen Australia.  Australian Competition
and Consumer Commission chairman Rod Sims told Drive that
investigations were underway into the emissions saga along with
Volkswagen Australia's handling of the scandal.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Set to Begin Fee Negotiations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that plaintiffs
lawyers have repeatedly made reference to the arduous negotiations
that led to a $14.7 billion settlement agreement with Volkswagen
A.G. over the automaker's emissions scandal, but a more difficult
road could be ahead over their fees.

In settlement papers filed with the court June 28, lawyers on the
plaintiffs steering committee didn't ask for fees as part of the
deal.  But according to the settlement agreement, which
compensates owners and lessees of 475,000 Volkswagen and Audi two-
liter diesel vehicles, they plan to begin fee negotiations with
Volkswagen by Aug. 12 if they haven't yet reached a subsequent
deal over 85,000 additional three-liter vehicles.

And that's when the rubber could meet the road.

"They have a lot of money they negotiated, but also a defendant
that came out of the box admitting liability," said
Elizabeth Burch, a professor at the University of Georgia School
of Law.  "You don't have the same sort of protracted litigation,
so it's going to be hard for them to justify a 30 percent or 20
percent fee."

Lead counsel Elizabeth Cabraser, a partner at Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, declined to comment about fees.  A Volkswagen
spokeswoman also declined to comment on that issue.

Many of the attorneys on the plaintiffs steering committee served
in lead roles in the $1.6 billion class action settlement with
Toyota Motor Corp. to resolve consumer lawsuits filed over sudden-
acceleration defects.  In that 2013 deal, the 31 firms on the
steering committee got $200 million in fees -- about 12.3 percent
of the total settlement.

The judge in that case found that the fee request was within the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's benchmark of 25
percent.

Under that benchmark, the lawyers in Volkswagen would get nearly
$3.7 billion.  Using the same 12.3 percent assessed in Toyota,
they could get $1.8 billion in fees.

But there are significant differences between the two cases.

The Toyota deal took more than three years to litigate.  That
included $100 million in costs and billable hours and settlement
talks that lasted more than a year, according to court records.

Volkswagen, by contrast, settled within a matter of months. The
litigation began less than a year ago, after the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency found that Volkswagen's vehicles
emitted as much as 40 times the standard for nitrogen oxides.

And unlike Toyota, which never admitted that an electronic defect
was to blame for suddenly accelerating vehicles, Volkswagen
confessed that it installed a "defeat device" in its clean diesel
vehicles to evade emissions tests.

"It was a slam-dunk guarantee settlement," said class action
critic Ted Frank of the Volkswagen deal. Frank, of the Competitive
Enterprise Institute's Center for Class Action Fairness, had
unsuccessfully argued for a competitive bidding process in the
selection of lead counsel to avoid "windfall fees" in the
Volkswagen case.

Some plaintiffs lawyers have acknowledged the distinction. In
applying to be on the steering committee, member Steve Berman,
managing partner of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, who also served
as co-lead counsel in the Toyota case, admitted that the Ninth
Circuit's 25 percent benchmark was "excessive" given the reduced
risk in Volkswagen.

But they also emphasized that the case wasn't easy.  "Indeed, for
the past few months, weekends and weekdays were synonymous and
holidays did not exist" and "intensive settlement efforts went on
around the clock," they wrote in their motion to approve the
settlement.

But they had help.  In the Volkswagen case, the EPA, the U.S.
Federal Trade Commission and California regulators were involved
in negotiating the settlement, which includes $4.7 billion in
environmental mediation programs.  By contrast, no government
agency played a role in the Toyota litigation.

Volkswagen also could put up more of a fee fight than Toyota did.

"Volkswagen has a track record of fighting fee requests that are
unreasonable," Mr. Frank said.

In fact, the June 28 settlement agreement included the provision:
"Volkswagen reserves all rights to object to an award of
attorney's fees and/or costs beyond what it believes to be
reasonable."


VOLKSWAGEN AG: In Negotiations to Resolve 3.0-Liter Diesel Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for Law.com, reports that Volkswagen AG, which
earlier agreed to pay up to $14.7 billion to resolve private and
regulatory claims related to 475,000 Volkswagen and Audi 2.0-liter
diesel vehicles, is working to resolve claims related to 85,000
3.0-liter diesel vehicles.

Joshua Van Eaton, a lawyer with the U.S.  Department of Justice,
told a federal judge in San Francisco of the ongoing negotiations
to resolve claims related to the 3.0-liter vehicles at a hearing
on June 30.  Van Eaton said that it will take time for regulators
to make sure that VW has developed "a technically sound solution"
for the larger diesel engines.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, who is overseeing
multidistrict litigation targeting the company, said at the
hearing that he wants to hear from the parties again on Aug. 25 on
the status of the 3.0-liter vehicles.

"I think the EPA has to be satisfied that any proposed fix passes
environmental muster," Judge Breyer said.

The judge also encouraged the government lawyer to update former
FBI director Robert S. Mueller III, whom he appointed as a special
master to help broker settlement talks in the case.

"It is necessary for him to know where we stand on it in order to
advise the court as to what the court can and should do," Judge
Breyer said.

Judge Breyer, who set aggressive deadlines in the case, has been
credited with nudging the company toward settlement by saying that
VW created an "ongoing" problem by installing so-called defeat
devices that allowed VW diesel vehicles to cheat emissions tests.
Judge Breyer on June 30 once again nudged the company, represented
at the hearing by Robert Giuffra Jr. --giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- of
Sullivan & Cromwell.

When Mr. Giuffra informed the judge that 44 states have signed off
on the deal, announced on June 28, as well as Washington, D.C.,
and Puerto Rico, Judge Breyer prodded him to get the remaining
states on board.

"The goal here is to leave no state behind," Judge Breyer said.
"Whether they are big states or little states, they are states,
and they have an important function in this process."

Elizabeth Cabraser of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, lead
counsel for the plaintiffs in the consumer cases, didn't speak
during the June 30 hearing.  Judge Breyer thanked all the lawyers
involved for reaching a deal quickly, but stressed that the
settlement announced on June 28 is merely a proposal and that he
will hold a hearing this month to consider whether it's fair and
reasonable.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Idaho Consumers to Get $12.8MM Settlement Payout
---------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Kennison, writing for MagicValley.com, reports that Idaho
Attorney General Lawrence Wasden says Volkswagen has agreed to pay
millions of dollars to the state and Idaho consumers for violating
consumer protection laws.

The announcement came as part of a series of settlements between
Volkswagen, 43 states and the federal government.  Volkswagen will
pay $15.3 billion for selling and leasing vehicles equipped with
technology designed to cheat emissions systems tests. Lawyers are
calling it the largest auto-related class-action settlement in
U.S. history.

The manager of the local Volkswagen dealership says it will be a
while until the company knows just what it means.

"They're still in more of a holding pattern until the court case
is actually closed," said Kody Richardson, general manager at
Goode Motor Volkswagen Mazda.

The case finalizes July 30, and the tentative plan is for the
settlement to proceed this fall.  Under the settlements' terms,
Idaho will receive more than $2.6 million in civil penalties,
Mr. Wasden said.  The company must also make cash payments to
consumers estimated at $5,100 per eligible Volkswagen owner, and
either buy back or modify certain Volkswagen and Audi 2.0-liter
diesel vehicles sold in the state.  This includes 2,506 vehicles
purchased by Idaho consumers.

The settlement resolves consumer protection claims raised by the
states against Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Volkswagen Group of America
Inc., Porsche AG and Porsche Cars, North America Inc. --
collectively referred to as Volkswagen.

Mr. Richardson said the company has a proposed fix that it will
apply for approval for through the courts.

The buyback option will be offered for some models purchased prior
to September 2015, he said.

"Most of our customers as a whole are happy with their cars,"
Mr. Richardson said.

Mr. Wasden joined a coalition of states in 2015 to investigate
claims the company violated state consumer protection laws.

"The scope of Volkswagen's fraudulent actions was unfathomable,"
the attorney general said in a statement.  "Ensuring that
companies make truthful statements and claims about their products
is important to consumers and essential for the marketplace to
work properly."

The state investigation confirmed that Volkswagen sold hundreds of
thousands of 2.0- and 3.0-liter diesel vehicles in the U.S.
equipped with "defeat device" software intended to circumvent
emission standards for air pollutants.  The company also tried to
conceal the existence of the device from regulators and the
public, Mr. Wasden said.

At the same time, Mr. Wasden said, Volkswagen repeatedly made
false and misleading statements to consumers in their marketing
and advertising campaigns.  The company claimed the vehicles were
environmentally friendly -- or "green" -- and in compliance with
emission standards.  The company allegedly knew the vehicles were
emitting harmful oxides of nitrogen at rates many times higher
than allowed by law.

The settlements require Volkswagen to implement a national
restitution and recall program for more than 475,000 owners and
lessees of 2.0-liter diesel vehicles from model years 2009 through
2015 at a cost of more than $10 billion.

The total payout to Idaho consumers is estimated to be at least
$12.8 million.

Affected Idaho Volkswagen owners will also be given a choice:

A buyback of the vehicle based on pre-scandal NADA value, or;

A modification to reduce NOx emissions provided that Volkswagen
can develop a modification acceptable to regulators.  Eligible
Volkswagen owners will still have the buyback option if regulators
are unable to approve an emission fix.  Owners who choose the
modification option would also receive an Extended Emission
Warranty as well as a Lemon Law-type remedy to protect against
future problems with the modification.

The settlements also make benefits and restitution available to
lessees.  Additional elements of the settlements include:

Environmental Mitigation Fund: Under the federal settlement,
Volkswagen will pay $2.7 billion into a trust to support
environmental programs throughout the country to reduce NOx
emissions.  Idaho will be eligible to receive $16.2 million for
these mitigation programs;

Zero Emission Vehicles: Volkswagen has committed to investing $2
billion over the next 10 years to the development of non-polluting
cars, or zero emission vehicles;

Preservation of Environmental Claims: The attorney general's
settlement preserves all claims under state environmental laws,
and Idaho maintains the right to seek additional penalties from
Volkswagen for its violations of state environmental and emissions
laws and regulations.

Information: VWCourtSettlement.com or call 1-844-98-CLAIM


WISCONSIN: Court Allows McKinley to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LA RON McKINLEY BEY, also known as, Laron
McKinley, and all similarly situated WCI prisoners in isolated
Administrative Confinement, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM POLLARD, BRIAN
FOSTER, TONY MELI, JON E. LITSCHER, CATHY JESS, DR. SCHMIDT, BRIAN
GREFF, PAUL LUDVIGSON, CAPTAIN JOHN O'DONOVAN, CAPTAIN WESTRA, CO
CUNDY, JESSIE J. SCHNEIDER, SHANE M. WALLER, JEREMY L. STANIEC,
JOSEPH BEAHM, JOHN DOES 1-10, MS. BONIS, and JANE AND JOHN DOES,
sued as "ACRC Jane and John Does 1-10," Defendants, Case No. 16-
CV-521 (E.D. Wis.), Judge Rudolph T. Randa ordered as follows:

          -- The plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without
             prepayment of the filing fee (in forma pauperis) was
             granted.

          -- The plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction
             was denied.

          -- The plaintiff's motion to certify class was denied.

          -- The plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel was denied
             without prejudice.

          -- On or before July 29, 2016, the plaintiff may file
             an amended pleading curing the defects in the
             original complaint.

          -- The Clerk's Office shall mail the plaintiff a
             prisoner complaint form.

          -- That the Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of
             Corrections or his designee shall collect from the
             plaintiff's prisoner trust account the $343.81
             balance of the filing fee by collecting monthly
             payments from the plaintiff's prison trust account
             in an amount equal to 20% of the preceding month's
             income credited to the prisoner's trust account and
             forwarding payments to the Clerk of Court each time
             the amount in the account exceeds $10 in accordance
             with 28 U.S.C. section 1915(b)(2).

A full-text copy of Judge Randa's June 30, 2016 screening order is
available at https://is.gd/lJp0pA from Leagle.com.

Laron McKinley is incarcerated at Waupun Correctional Institution
(WCI).  He filed an amended complaint on behalf of all similarly
situated prisoners in isolated Administrative Confinement at WCI,
alleging that prolonged placement there violates inmates' rights
under the United States Constitution.  McKinley filed a petition
to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee (in forma
pauperis), motion for preliminary injunction, motion to certify
class, and motion to appoint counsel.  The plaintiff has been
assessed and paid an initial partial filing fee of $6.19.

William Pollard, Defendant, represented by Wisconsin Dept of
Justice - 1983 Actions.


ZAGARIS INC: Court Declines to Dismiss or Stay Insurer's Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v.
PAUL M. ZAGARIS, INC., a California corporation, JON PAUL ZAGARIS,
KARRIE GOOLD, DANIELLE HARDCASTLE, ESTHER GUTIERREZ, FRED OSHTORY,
and MICHAEL P. DUTRA, Defendants, Case No. C
16-01099 WHA (N.D. Cal.), District Judge Pamela L. Reeves of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California denied Zagaris et al.'s motion to dismiss Hanover's
claim or, in the alternative, stay until a putative class action
is resolved.

Hanover Insurance Company issued a "Miscellaneous Professional
Liability Policy" to a real estate brokerage company for a year-
long period beginning in July 2015. Defendants are insureds under
the policy, consisting of real estate brokerage company Zagaris,
Inc., John Paul Zagaris the managing broker, and several real
estate agents named party to a class action lawsuit. The insurance
policy provided defense coverage and a $3 million limit of
liability for claims, subject to a deductible of one hundred
thousand dollars.

In November 2015, a group of California residents sued insureds in
a separate action in Contra Costa County Superior Court in
Spracher, et al., v. Zagaris, Case No. CIVMSC15-02030. The
Spracher plaintiffs were consumers of insureds' brokerage services
and claimed that during the sale of their residential homes,
insureds sold them "Natural Hazard Disclosure" reports in
connection with the brokerage services. The plaintiffs alleged
that these "Natural Hazard Disclosure" reports were sold as part
of a secret scheme in which insureds received undisclosed
commissions from a third party for each report sold. Those
plaintiffs also alleged that insureds misrepresented the source of
the reports to further conceal the kick-back scheme. As a result,
the plaintiffs in Spracher alleged the following: (1) breaches of
fiduciary duties; (2) aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary
duties; (3) violation of California Civil Code Section 1710(3);
(4) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law; (5)
constructive fraud; (6) unjust enrichment; (7) civil conspiracy;
(8) accounting.

In March 2016, Hanover filed its lawsuit in federal district court
in San Francisco seeking declaratory judgment. Hanover argues that
it has no duty to defend or indemnify insureds and that it is
entitled to reimbursement of the defense costs already incurred
because the Spracher claims are excluded from the policy.

Insureds move to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction, or, in the alternative, to stay the
case pending resolution of the underlying class action. This order
follows full briefing and oral argument.

In his Order dated June 23, 2016 available at https://is.gd/XqMmP3
from Leagle.com, Judge Alsup concluded that dismissal under Rule
12(b)(1) for lack of diversity jurisdiction is not warranted.  He
denied stay considering the convenience of the parties, and the
availability and relative convenience of other remedies.

Hanover Insurance Company is represented by:

        Kathleen Elizabeth Hegen, Esq.
        Perry Michael Shorris, Esq.
        LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD SMITH LLP
        333 Bush St., Ste 1100
        San Francisco, CA 94104
        Tel: (415)438-6656

Paul M. Zagaris, Inc., et al. are represented by Barron Lewis
Weinstein, Esq. -- bweinstein@mwncov.com -- and Shanti Eagle, Esq.
-- seagle@mwncov.com -- MEREDITH WEINSTEIN AND NUMBERS LLP


ZION HEALTH: "Shin" Suit Alleges Fraud Over Ionizers
----------------------------------------------------
Jong Ick Shin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Diana Lee, Zion Health Tech, Inc., and Ion Co. Ltd.
and Does 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-01225 (C.D.
Cal., July 1, 2016), seeks damages, equitable and injunctive
relief,  punitive damages, costs and expenses, including
attorneys' and expert fees, interest and any additional relief
resulting from breach of implied warranty, fraudulent
misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation and violation of
the California Business and Professions Code.

Defendants sell and market alkaline water ionizers. Despite their
health claims, Defendants do not have evidence that alkaline
ionized water improves hyperacidity, indigestion, chronic
diarrhea, and uncommon intestinal bacteria.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Juan Hong, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUAN HONG, A LAW CORP.
      4199 Campus Drive, Suite 550
      Irvine, CA 92612
      Phone: (949) 509-6505
      Fax: (949) 335-6647
      Email: jhong48@gmail.com


ZOEK: "Alan" Claims Telephone Consumer Protection Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
JASON ALAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. ZOEK and DOES 1-10; Case 2:16-cv-04953 (C.D. Cal.,
July 7, 2016), alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

ZOEK provides search optimization services.

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
     Phone: (877) 206-4741
     Fax: (866)633-0228
     E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
             abacon@toddflaw.com


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMEC's Coverage Suit vs. FFIC Further Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Louisiana granted the joint
motion to extend and modify stay filed by plaintiff AMEC
Construction Management, Inc., and defendant Fireman's Fund
Insurance Company in the case captioned AMEC CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT, INC. v. FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, Civil Action
No. 13-718-JJB-EWD (M.D. La.).

On November 5, 2013, AMEC filed a Complaint for breach of contract
and declaratory judgment, asserting that it is entitled to defense
and indemnity from FFIC in certain asbestos-exposure lawsuits
filed against AMEC.  According to AMEC, FFIC issued policies of
Comprehensive General Liability insurance to Barnard & Burk, Inc.
("B&B").  AMEC argues it is entitled to defense and indemnity from
FFIC because it is the successor in interest to B&B as a result of
a 1981 Asset Purchase Agreement and other corporate transactions.

In the joint motion, the parties explain that Deutsch, Kerrigan &
Stiles, AMEC's counsel of record, has engaged separate counsel,
Schonekas, Evans, McGoey & McEachlin, LLC, to represent it in
connection with the Motion to Disqualify and that the parties
"have conferred and agree that it will be necessary to conduct
limited discovery related to the alleged conflict of interest."

"Accordingly, the parties agree that it will be necessary to
extend and modify the stay of these proceedings and the extension
granted to AMEC, so that discovery regarding the underlying
allegations in FFIC's Motion to Disqualify can be completed."  The
parties assert that once discovery is completed, they "will move
to reset the Motion to Disqualify and AMEC's deadline to respond
to same."

A full-text copy of Magistrate Wilder-Doomes' Order dated June 30,
2016, is available at https://is.gd/PeCgYv from Leagle.com.

AMEC Construction Management, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Sean
Patrick Mount, Esq. -- smount@deutschkerrigan.com -- Deutsch
Kerrigan, LLP, Anne Elizabeth Medo, Esq. --
amedo@deutschkerrigan.com -- Deutsch, Kerrigan & Lauren E. Brisbi,
Esq. -- lbrisbi@deutschkerrigan.com -- Deutsch Kerrigan, LLP.

Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Julia
Ann Dietz, Esq. -- jdietz@degan.com -- Degan, Blanchard & Nash,
Charles Belsome Long, Esq. -- clong@degan.com -- Degan, Blanchard
& Nash, Renee F. Smith Auld, Esq. -- rsmithauld@degan.com --
Degan, Blanchard & Nash & Sidney W. Degan, III, Esq. --
sdegan@degan.com -- Degan, Blanchard & Nash.

Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Counter Claimant, represented by
Julia Ann Dietz, Degan, Blanchard & Nash, Charles Belsome Long,
Degan, Blanchard & Nash, Renee F. Smith Auld, Degan, Blanchard &
Nash & Sidney W. Degan, III, Degan, Blanchard & Nash.

AMEC Construction Management, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented
by Sean Patrick Mount, Deutsch Kerrigan, LLP, Anne Elizabeth Medo,
Deutsch, Kerrigan & Lauren E. Brisbi, Deutsch Kerrigan, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmate's Suit vs. City of New York Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pro se plaintiff Gary Moton brings an action against defendant
City of New York, and individual defendants Captain Williams, John
Does 1-2, Jane Does 1-2, asserting that the Defendants violated
his constitutional rights during his detention at the Anna M.
Kross Center on Rikers Island when he and five other inmates were
ordered to scrape ceiling paint containing asbestos in one of the
prison's dormitory units as part of a sanitation detail on July 1,
2015.

The Plaintiff alleges that he was neither informed that the paint
contained asbestos, nor provided with any protective gear such as
a mask. The Plaintiff claims that he has experienced constant
coughing, migraine headaches, and chest pain since the July 1,
2015 sanitation detail. The Plaintiff further alleges that prison
physicians have been unable to diagnose his condition, although he
believes there "could be long term effects that won't show up now"
from asbestos exposure.

On November 24, 2015, the Defendants moved to dismiss the
complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
The Plaintiff opposed the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on January
13, 2016. The Defendants filed a reply in further support of their
motion to dismiss on January 27, 2016.

Magistrate Judge James Cott, on April 29, 2016, issued a Report
and Recommendation, recommending that the Defendants' motion to
dismiss be granted, with leave for the Plaintiff to amend the
Complaint.

Having reviewed Magistrate Judge Cott's Report and Recommendation,
Judge George B. Daniels of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York finds no clear error in the
Report and adopts it in full.  Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss is granted and the Complaint is dismissed, with leave
to amend within 30 days to cure its current defects, if amendment
would not be futile.

The case is GARY MOTON, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, CAPTAIN
WILLIAMS, JOHN DOES 1-2, & JANE DOES 1-2, Defendants, No. 15 Civ.
6485 (GBD) (JLC)(S.D.N.Y.).  A full-text copy of Judge Daniels'
June 24, 2016 memorandum decision and order is available at
https://is.gd/IQbcOG from Leagle.com.

Gary Moton, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

The City of New York, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Scott
Dantowitz , Office of Corporation Counsel NYC.

Capt. Williams, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Scott Dantowitz,
Office of Corporation Counsel NYC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition Co.'s Bid to Junk OSHA Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned THOMAS E. PEREZ, Secretary of Labor, United
States Department of Labor, Plaintiff, v. CHAMPAGNE DEMOLITION,
LLC and JOSEPH A. CHAMPAGNE, Defendants, No. 1:12-CV-1278
(FJS/TWD)(N.D.N.Y.), Plaintiff Thomas E. Perez brings this case in
his official capacity as United States Secretary of Labor against
Defendants Champagne Demolition, LLC and Joseph A. Champagne,
alleging that Defendants discriminated against their employee,
Donald Miles, under section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970.

Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of New York, in a memorandum-
decision and order dated June 29, 2016, ordered that the
Defendants' motions for summary judgment and for imposition of
sanctions are denied and that the Plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment is granted with respect to liability as to both
Defendants.

Judge Scullin ordered the parties to submit letter briefs not to
exceed five pages regarding their respective positions as to
damages, including whether they anticipate the need for a hearing,
on or before July 15, 2016.

A full-text copy of Judge Scullin's Decision is available at
https://is.gd/tfqY1t from Leagle.com.

Thomas E. Perez, Plaintiff, represented by Allison L. Bowles, U.S.
Department of Labor, Patricia M. Rodenhausen, U.S. Department of
Labor & Lindsey A. Rothfeder, U.S. Department of Labor.

Champagne Demolition, LLC, Defendant, represented by Kevin A.
Luibrand, Luibrand Law Firm, PLLC.

Joseph A. Champagne, Defendant, represented by Kevin A. Luibrand,
Luibrand Law Firm, PLLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: School District Declares Asbestos Emergency
------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Blarr, writing for Auburn Pub, reported that the Jordan-
Elbridge Central School District's Board of Education declared an
"emergency," approving a $500,000 project to deal with asbestos,
lead and radon recently detected at its schools.

At a re-organizational meeting, the board voted unanimously to
sponsor the Emergency Asbestos/Lead Abatement and Radon Mitigation
Project for the High School, Ramsdell Middle School and Elbridge
Elementary School.

According to Superintendent James Froio, earlier this year, a
health and wellness inspection uncovered levels of asbestos, lead
and radon present in some parts of the schools. The inspection was
conducted as part of the nearly $10 million capital project that
taxpayers approved  in February to reconstruct, renovate and
improve a number of facilities and buildings.

The project will involve removing lead-contaminated soil and
cleaning adjacent surfaces from the former high school basement
rifle range, removing asbestos-contaminated soil in the 1929
Ramsdell basement, and installing radon mitigation systems and
sealing of exposed soils in the Ramsdell Middle School and
Elbridge Elementary basement and crawlspaces.

"This doesn't impact students and staff because none of the
affected areas are in any functional areas of the schools," Froio
said. "Still, it does impede maintenance that worked in those
areas, and we are taking this very seriously."

The emergency project will cost half a million dollars, which the
district will obtain from its general fund unappropriated fund
balance.

Froio said the district hopes to begin removing any lead and
asbestos contamination and installing radon mitigation equipment
this summer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Experts Weigh In On Asbestos Issue at Mills
------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Santostasi, writing for NewsChannel9.com, reported that
a decades old building burns to the ground in Chattanooga.

Contractors evaluate the site where the old Standard Coosa
Thatcher Mills building used to stand.

When it caught fire, fire officials told us the building contained
asbestos.

The plant sat there vacant for years until one company decided
they wanted to turn the old mill into affordable housing
apartments.

"We look for buildings that are in depressed areas that could
benefit [and] that the area and the buildings could benefit from
redevelopment," said Tim Boyle, City Property Company President.

Boyle plans to create more than 160 loft style apartments on the
property.

He says the buildings that were destroyed were not intended to be
where people would live.

When asked if he knew the building had asbestos inside -- Boyle
told us he's aware.

"We've done studies and that's common for industrial buildings to
have environmental issues," he said.

But, how could the asbestos inside thee walls affect the people
living in this community after the extreme heat, smoke and strong
spray from powerful hoses disturbed it?

Asbestos expert Dr. Arthur Frank weighs in.

"Asbestos particles can stay in the air literally for hours, but
even if they settle out -- if there's a wind or a clean-up
activity as they get put back up in the air, then can drift and
contaminate a neighborhood," Frank said.

Wednesday, a spokesperson for the Chattanooga-Hamilton County Air
Pollution Control Bureau refused to answer our questions on
camera.

She did say even though air pollution investigators responded to
the fire scene, the air quality outside the plant is not being
monitored.

But, Frank tells us it's not just the air we should be concerned
about.

"It can get into the water and if that water is used as somebody's
drinking supply, it could get into people's drinking water," he
said.

A Chattanooga fire department spokesperson says the fire remains
under investigation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Perth Children's Hospital
------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Gartry, writing for ABC News, reported that fragments of
asbestos have been found in roof panels at the new Perth
Children's Hospital after controlled tests, the West Australian
Government has confirmed, with exposed workers set to undergo
health checks.

It comes after the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union
(CFMEU) warned hundreds of workers at the $1.2 billion hospital in
the suburb of Nedlands may have been exposed to white asbestos.

Health Minister John Day told ABC 720 Perth tests had found
asbestos present in four of seven samples taken from a roof panel,
supplied by Chinese subcontractor Yuanda to lead contractor John
Holland.

"It's so called white asbestos or chrysotile ... it's very
disappointing that it is the case, it should not be there," he
said.

"It does not accord with what was expected to be provided by the
company manufacturing them, and according to the testing and
samples that were certified about three years ago as being
suitable and appropriate for this use.

"It is not what West Australians expect in the $1.2 billion that
is being funded for this wonderful new Perth Children's Hospital."

John Holland said the hospital's roof would need to be replaced,
and conceded the work could delay the planned opening of the new
facility in October.

There are 150 of the roof panels in question on the eight floor of
the building, which John Holland had independently tested in 2013
and found to be asbestos free.

A statement issued by John Holland said that Yuanda Australia had
provided them with inspection and test certificates for all its
products supplied to the hospital project, including the roof
panels, to confirm they did not contain asbestos.

John Holland said action would be taken to "investigate and
determine the failure of this process".

The CFMEU said there were up to 25 employees working directly on
the asbestos-affected area at the hospital when one of them cut
into a sealed roof panel and made the discovery.

Work continuing despite contamination fears

CFMEU WA secretary Mick Buchan questioned how a banned imported
product could end up in a new hospital, and said asbestos could
have spread throughout the site.

"We took a sample from a working platform ... it was cut through
with an angle grinder creating plumes of contaminated dust," Mr
Buchan said.

"That dust then could have then filtered all the way down to the
ground floor, it could have gone through the air conditioning
system ... on the walls, anywhere.

"We've got workers who dusted off their clothes, hopped into their
car and went home ... it starts a whole train reaction."

John Holland project director Lindsay Albonico said 40 workers had
expressed concern over exposure to asbestos and he could not rule
out further contamination.

"It's not impossible but we immediately set up airborne monitoring
stations in that location and that happened over a 24-hour
period," Mr Albonico said.

"There is no evidence of that spreading."

Mr Albonico said 20 workers were in the area over the 24-hours the
fragments were left out in the open and the company was providing
support.

"We've talked to them about managing their apparel, we've talked
to them about what impacts that might have on their family, we've
gone to where they would have gone immediately in terms of their
crib rooms, we've tested their crib rooms and all of those results
have come back negative," he said.

Matthew Ryan, a welder who was working in the atrium area as the
panel in question was being cut into, said he could barely see his
hands in front of his face at times.

"There was that much dust coming off as they were cutting it," Mr
Ryan said.

Mr Ryan said as of this morning, he had still not been offered any
support or information through John Holland and he was terrified
he may have exposed his family.

"No-one's been in touch with us," he said.

"We've spoken to somebody from John Holland who said yes there
were samples found which were positive and that's as far as it's
gone.

"I went home and picked up my daughter wearing the same clothes I
was working in."

WA Premier blasts John Holland

Premier Colin Barnett described the asbestos scandal as "totally
unacceptable", but said he did not believe it would delay the
hospital's opening.

"Hopefully there'll be no risk of health problems for those
workers," he said.

"There have been some other issues around John Holland .... I
think John Holland will be extremely embarrassed about it. It will
affect its ability to win other government contracts.

"So they've got some reputational damage to restore."

But Mr Day said John Holland was taking "full responsibility" for
replacing the panels, and said they appeared to have acted in good
faith.

He said the company's Australian head Glenn Palin had told him
"we've been dudded too".

It was revealed an urgent check had been carried out at the new
Royal Adelaide Hospital after the discovery of an asbestos-tainted
building product in a Brisbane office tower.

However the checks revealed the suspect gaskets used in Brisbane
by Yuanda Australia had not been used on the Adelaide hospital.

It was also revealed that SA-based company Australian Portable
Camps was being investigated over imports from China which
illegally contained the deadly substance.

Asbestos imports to Australia have been banned for more than a
decade.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Engineers for Automakers Must Redact Agendas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Madison-St. Clair Record reported that engineers who help Ford,
General Motors and Chrysler defend asbestos suits must remove
redactions from agendas of their meetings with lawyers for the
automakers, Fifth District appellate judges ruled on June 30.

They affirmed Madison County associate judge Stephen Stobbs, who
ruled that redacted portions of Exponent Inc. agendas were
relevant to all friction cases of the Maune Raichle firm.

Justice Thomas Welch wrote that Exponent publishes asbestos
related findings in peer reviewed scientific journals.

"Maune Raichle argues that Exponent studies are not independent
studies in that the documents at issue evidence 'backroom
discussions' and 'a financial and business relationship' between
Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors and Exponent," Welch wrote.

Exponent produced the agendas in 2014, with redactions.

Maune Raichle moved to compel production of full agendas.

Stobbs ordered Exponent to produce them for his inspection in
chambers.

In January 2015, he ordered Exponent to produce them without
redactions.

Exponent moved for reconsideration, and Stobbs denied it in March
2015.

Stobbs wrote that Exponent waived any privilege by disclosing
documents to all three automakers for joint defense.

He wrote that the documents appeared to have been prepared for
business purposes rather than to memorialize any theories or
litigation plans.

Exponent informed Stobbs that it would not comply, and it
requested a contempt order for the purpose of setting up an
immediate appeal.

Exponent and Maune Raichle jointly prepared an order, and Stobbs
signed it.

He fined Exponent a dollar, and an appeal followed.

The Fifth District found in favor of the firm.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GM UK Sentenced Following Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Applebey, writing for SHPonline.co.uk, reported that
General Motors UK Ltd has been fined GBP120,000 after it was
discovered that asbestos boarding panels had contaminated a site.

The motor company was prosecuted by the Health and Safety
Executive (HSE) after work being undertaken at its North Road,
Ellesmere Port site in 2014 exposed contractors to risks
associated with asbestos.

The HSE investigation found that during work to replace high
pressure hot water boilers with gas burners in the company's paint
unit, suspected asbestos insulating boards (AIB) were discovered
beneath external cladding on the stores building.

Contractors carrying out the refurbishment had submitted a risk
assessment and method statement for the work which was originally
due to traverse a roof.

When the location of the new pipework was changed to the side of
the building no review of the risk assessment for the job,
specifically in relation to asbestos was undertaken. Subsequent
sampling confirmed the presence of asbestos.

On the day the suspected boards were discovered the asbestos
register was not fully available to the contractor to allow them
to check whether the boards contained asbestos. No direct
instruction was given by General Motors to the contractor to stop
the work to prevent any AIB being disturbed. The work, including
the removal and cutting of holes in AIB board, continued without
suitable precautions.

Liverpool Magistrates' Court heard no assessment of the risk was
undertaken by General Motors to determine if the work was
notifiable or licensed asbestos work. On completion of the work
licensed contractors were employed to conduct a clean-up and
decontamination programme of the roof and in the stores.

General Motors UK Ltd, of Osborne Road, Luton, Bedfordshire,
pleaded guilty to a single breach of Section 3 (1) the Health and
Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and was fined GBP120,000 and ordered
to pay GBP 11,779 in prosecution costs.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Jane Carroll said:
"Asbestos kills around 5,000 workers each year; this is more than
the number killed on UK roads. Asbestos can be present within any
premises built or refurbished before the year 2000.

"Whenever asbestos containing materials are found to be present,
companies have a legal duty to document and implement an Asbestos
Management Plan which includes measures to adequately control the
risk of exposure to asbestos fibres."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NYC Juries Awards $28MM in Two Trials
------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reported that asbestos firm Belluck and Fox won two
multimillion-dollar verdicts in asbestos lawsuits against Burnham
LLC in June, and one of its lawyers said he doesn't expect the
pace of such cases to slow, even decades after asbestos left
common use.

A New York City Asbestos Litigation jury awarded the estate of
Vincent Geritano $6.25 million on June 13 and another NYCAL jury
awarded Frank Gondar $22 million on June 24. Both cases involved
exposure to asbestos from boilers made by Burnham, and that
exposure led to mesothelioma, a form of lung cancer that is the
signature of asbestos exposure, according to Seth Dymond, a
partner with Belluck and Fox.

The awards are in line with what other juries have decided over
the past decade, he said.

"These are actually somewhat consistent with the range of jury
awards that we've seen -- not just my firm, but us in asbestos
litigation -- have seen, at least in New York City in the last 10
years or so," Dymond told Legal Newsline.

"That kind of goes hand-in-hand with the fact that this is really
one of the worst cancers you can get. It's terminal. It's usually
extremely painful. There's a lot of physical suffering as well as
mental suffering, and it's a very short time period between
diagnosis and death.

"I think that is the most important factor in why juries look at
this and say this worth a substantial amount of money."

Geritano spent three years in the 1960s repairing and removing
boilers, usually in residential buildings. The process of removing
them was especially hazardous, Dymond said, because it was in an
enclosed space and produced significant amounts of dust that
contained asbestos.

"The claim against Burnham, which is generally the claim in most
of these cases, is that they failed to warn Mr. Geritano of the
hazards of asbestos associated with all the types of uses of the
boilers, including service, maintenance and removal," he said.

Geritano was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2014 and died seven
months later at the age of 70.

Gondar, who is still alive, was a New York City police officer and
then a teacher who also ran a part-time construction business from
1953 to 1973. Most of his work involved installing drywall and
floor tiles in basements, and there were often other contractors
there at the same time removing boilers, some of which were made
by Burnham.

"So it's really the same exposure from removal that we had in
Geritano," Dymond said, "which is the sledgehammering of these
boilers to get them out of the basement and the asbestos dust
flying all over the basement."

Even though the use of asbestos in the United States fell sharply
after the 1970s, the way the disease proceeds makes it likely that
people continue to be diagnosed well into the future, Dymond said.

"I personally do not expect it to go down," he said. "The main
reason is because this inherently is a disease that has a long
latency period, meaning once you're exposed the earliest you
really contract the disease is 15 years, and it can go as long as
you live, so 50, 60 or more years.

"So what that means to me is that although a lot of the asbestos
in the country was no longer used after, say the 70s, people,
because of medicine and science are living longer. Let's say if
someone had a heart attack, 30 years ago they might have died from
the heart attack, but now medicine is at a point where we can save
them from that. It could be that 10 years after that develops
mesothelioma and they otherwise would not have.

"So I think the fact that people are living longer means that
we're going to continue to have people at a steady rate that are
developing this disease."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wolverhampton Worker Dies of Asbestos Disease
--------------------------------------------------------------
Express & Star reported that Barry Ellis, from Pattingham, could
have been exposed to asbestos over a period of more than three
decades when he was employed by several different firms, according
to his family.

He died on March 17 last year, aged 66. In September a coroner
ruled his death was as the result of industrial disease.

During his career he worked as an apprentice fitter for Central
Plant Limited, based in Ounsdale Road, Wombourne.

Between 1965 and 1970 his duties included making repairs to hire
equipment and re-lining and fitting new brake shoes.

Then between around 1970 and 1972 Mr Ellis worked as an explosive
engineer at Swinnerton & Miller, based on Rosehill, Willenhall.

While there he was routinely required to drill holes through walls
and ceilings so explosives could be inserted.

Thirdly he worked with Wilkins & Mitchell Limited from roughly
1973 until 1992.

His family said he was a driver but also worked in the factory
which produced clutch plates for the automotive industry.

And from around 1994 to 2000 Mr Ellis was employed by Global Power
Press Limited based on the Leamore Industrial Estate in Bloxwich.

His daughter, Jodie Winfield, hopes that anyone who remembers
working with Barry at any of the four companies may be able to
confirm how and when he came into contact with the lethal asbestos
fibres.

Kate Price, a legal expert on asbestos claims who is representing
the family, said: "We hope that anyone who may remember working
with Barry or working at the companies gets in touch as they may
have the answers that Jodie desperately needs.

"Any information from his former workmates will help us achieve
some sort of justice for Mr Ellis."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Discovered at No1 William Street
----------------------------------------------------------
4BC.com.au reported that asbestos has been discovered amongst
imported construction materials on the site of the new government
building No.1 William St.

The 'Tower of Power' site was shut down after it was found a kind
of gasket used to weld two pieces of aluminium together contained
the deadly substance.

If an asbestos laden product can make it into a government
building, what are the chances the same could happen to you?

Asbestos Industry Association president Michael Shepherd says he's
not at all surprised.

"From what we can ascertain records from the Senate enquiry in to
non conforming building products has highlighted that we have had
products come in from a number of countries since about 2009."

"The products we are detecting on building sites we're detecting
by pure chance."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Discovery Linked to Brisbane Co.
----------------------------------------------------------
Craig Cook, writing for The Advertiser, reported that asbestos
used in a major Brisbane construction site leading to its closure,
was supplied by the same company which worked on two key
government-funded building projects in Adelaide.

The Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union has issued a
national alert over potential asbestos contamination after
revelations that tainted building material, installed by Chinese
company Yuanda, had been discovered on a site in Brisbane's CBD.

In April 2013, Yuanda won $85 million worth of contracts on the SA
Health and Medical Research Institute, installing the pine cone
skin-inspired facade of the SAHMRI, and the new Royal Adelaide
Hospital.

CFMEU SA secretary Aaron Cartledge said his union was "highly
suspicious" the gasket product, imported from China and found to
contain asbestos, had been used in Adelaide.

"We are calling for a thorough assessment of all these projects
where Yuanda worked to see if this particular product was used,"
he said.

"Only then we work out where we can go. With a brand new hospital
you wouldn't want any asbestos in that build.

"It's going to be a big decision either way for someone to say
it's all safe or to say look we've got to pull it all out."

Mr Cartledge said SafeWork SA must be involved in the review of
all building works.

Yuanda also worked on the City Central Tower 8 in Franklin Street,
Illumin8 building at the Adelaide University and the People's
Choice Credit Union building in Flinders Street.

In a rapid response, SA Health Partnership, responsible for the
nRAH project, has rejected the asbestos-tainted gaskets were used
in the building of the $2 billion project.

"SAHP acknowledges recent media interest in an office tower
currently under construction in Brisbane, and the use of materials
containing asbestos on that specific construction site and in
particular the use of a brand-named welding product," SAHP chief
executive, Duncan Jewell, said.

"It is a project requirement that the details of all products and
specifications used by each contractor/subcontractor are provided
to the builder, and are recorded accordingly.

"The builder has confirmed to SAHP that the products used on the
Brisbane Tower have not been used on the new Royal Adelaide
Hospital Project."

A spokeswoman for SAHMRI said they had checked their records of
all products used by Yuanda.

"We are confident the product in question has not been used on our
building," she said.

"We received an International gold star rating for the building
and we would not have received that if there had been any issues
with products used."

The asbestos product in Brisbane was discovered by a union
delegate during construction of the Queensland Government's 41-
storey skyscraper, which will be the city's tallest building.

Hundreds of workers have been stood down at the site.

CFMEU national secretary Michael O'Connell said the union has been
calling for action from the Federal Government on the importation
of building material.

"There are growing fears about the importation of unsafe and
poisonous building materials that pose a risk not only to workers,
but to the community," he said.

"This is a lethal product that has been proven to cause cancer.
The use and importation of asbestos has been banned in this
country since 2003 and the company has broken the law.

"We don't muck around with this stuff and that's why we have
issued a national alert.

Early this year, it was revealed that asbestos contaminated
materials found its way into the $290 million taxpayer funded
project Seaford rail extension.

Opposition spokesman on Infrastructure and Transport David Pisoni
said it was "completely unacceptable" rail workers were put at
risk of exposure to mesothelioma by the use of "cut price Chinese
imports."

The Advertiser has asked the SA Government for comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Trial Ordered in Recklessness Claim
--------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a New York appellate court
has vacated a judgment entered in an asbestos case against Crane
Co., agreeing with the defendant that the trial court erred when
instructing the jury on the plaintiffs' claim that the defendant
acted with reckless disregard for the decedent's safety.

In its July 8 order, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate
Division, Fourth Judicial Department, granted Crane Co. a new
trial on that specific claim, in part opining that the jury
instruction used by the court effectively reduced the plaintiff's
burden of proof on her claim.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Centeno Workers Protest Asbestos Health Risks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trinidad and Tobago Newsday reported that fears about exposure to
asbestos has prompted scores of daily-rated workers to walk off
the job at the Agriculture Ministry's Research Division in
Centeno.

The workers, who spoke to Newsday on condition of anonymity, said
the roofs of two buildings on the compound contained asbestos,
which prompted the ministry to begin a removal and replacement
exercise.

One roof at a time is being replaced so that workers can be
accommodated in the other building. However workers are so worried
about asbestos particles being blown about whenever planes pass
overhead to/from the nearby Piarco International Airport, Piarco,
that they have refused to do any work all week.

"Right now they want us to work in a cramped room in the other
building while the roof on the first one is being replaced," one
male employee said.

"How management could expect us to work in those conditions? So
since July 4, we have been reporting to work at 7 am as usual but
standing more than 100 metres across the road from the buildings.

Our union rep from NUGFW (National Union of Government and
Federated Workers) told us to leave at 10 am each day, if no
proper place for us to work has been provided." The refusal of
most of the daily- rated workers to perform their duties is likely
to result in them not being paid for each day of their asbestos
protest.

"Our manager, AOII (Agricultural Officer II, Support Services
Unit) Gloria Braithwaite, said they not paying us because we not
doing our duties.

They want us to remain in the building and perform our duties."
Workers at the Research Division also lamented the lack of
information from Braithwaite about the project and her alleged
refusal to have an air quality test conducted by the Caribbean
Industrial Research Institute (CARIRI). "When we spoke to Ms
Braithwaite on July 4 about CARIRI coming in to test the air, she
said there are no particles in the air." Expressing frustration at
the AOII's management style, the male employee told Newsday "this
asbestos thing is the tip of the iceberg because (Braithwaite) is
not seeking the interest of the daily-rated workers." "It's been
more than two years that we haven't gotten medicals, we haven't
received our protective gears, workers aren't getting promoted and
she's also not giving workers the opportunity to act in vacant
positions." Contacted by Newsday, Director of the Research
Division, Audine Mootoo, refuted much of the daily- rated workers'
claims, saying health and safety matters had been addressed
beforehand.

"Prior to the commencement of the project, the opportunity was
provided for all staff to attend a sensitization session at which
all concerns raised were addressed by the competent authorities.
All supervisors are being kept abreast of the progress of the
activities. Every effort was made by the management team to
accommodate the affected staff to continue the functions of the
Research division," Mootoo stated.

She noted that similar works were conducted in 2012 by the same
contractor and that "due diligence regarding air testing is a
compulsory component of the exercise." Mootoo seemed to have
frustrations of her own, saying "management has been challenged by
unauthorised instructions given by the local branch of the NUGFW,
which has caused some disruption of planned arrangements."
Regarding the disruption in service during the renovations, Mootoo
told Newsday "all internal and external stakeholders were advised
of the temporary suspension of the services."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Queensland Govt Bldg
-------------------------------------------------------
Chris O'Brien, writing for ABC News, reported that asbestos has
been found the site of the State Government's new Executive
Building, forcing construction to be suspended at what is one of
Brisbane's most controversial building projects.

The potentially deadly fibre was discovered at the base of the
building on 1 William Street, in metal skirting which came from
China

It has since been removed and work is expected to resume on
Tuesday.

The State Government demanded a report into the incident even
though it will only be a tenant in the privately owned and
developed highrise.

It was commissioned by the former Liberal National Party
government in 2012 to house public servants, replacing the current
Executive Building at 100 George Street.

The building contractor has been contacted for comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pensioner Dies From Washing Father's Clothes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Carr, writing for Southern Daily Echo, reported that a
retired doctor's receptionist died of asbestos-related cancer
after coming into contact with clothes covered with the deadly
substance, an inquest heard.

Janet Sibley, from Princess Road in Ashurst, died on April 25 at
Southampton General Hospital after struggling with mesothelioma.

Winchester Coroner's Court heard how the 69-year-old may have come
into contact with asbestos from washing her father's clothes
during the '60s when he worked at the docks.

She also washed her husband's David Sibley's clothes which may
have also been covered with asbestos.

Mr Sibley told the hearing he worked at a chemical plant in
Gosport where he was exposed to the deadly substance from 1989 to
2004.

Senior coroner Grahame Short recorded a verdict of death due to
industrial disease.

Mr Short said: "She is likely to have come into contact with
asbestos on a secondary basis as a result of washing clothes
either from washing her father's clothes during the 60s, or during
a later period when her husband was working in Gosport in a
location where asbestos was present."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Upholds $3MM Verdict
---------------------------------------------------
Phil Fairbanks, writing for The Buffalo News, reported that Gerald
Suttner never lived to see his landmark court victory.

The former pipefitter at General Motor Co.'s engine plant in
Tonawanda died at age 77 in 2011, well before New York's highest
court upheld a verdict on behalf of his widow.

The court, in a decision anxiously awaited by industry and
business groups across the country, ruled against Crane Co., the
Connecticut manufacturer found partially responsible for Suttner's
death. Suttner, who retired from GM in 1996 after more than 30
years of employment, was diagnosed with mesothelioma two years
before his death.

A few months after Suttner died, a jury found Crane and several
other companies failed to warn him about the risks of working with
asbestos-containing replacement parts used in valves at the plant.
The jury also awarded $3 million to his family.

"Crane manufactured a product that, when used as intended, put
workers at risk for terminal cancer," John N. Lipsitz, one of
Suttner's lawyers, said in a statement.

Lipsitz compared Crane's obligations to those of a gas grill
manufacturer and its responsibility to warn users about the risk
of explosion, even if the grill manufacturer does not sell the
replacement propane tanks that fuel them.

The Court of Appeals agreed and upheld the jury verdict against
Crane.

In its appeal, Crane argued that it did not have an obligation to
warn Suttner and, in a friend of the court brief, the National
Association of Manufacturers and Business Council of New York
State joined several other national and statewide business groups
in asking the court to overturn the verdict.

Crane, which said it never manufactured asbestos-containing
products, says the court ruling creates a new standard for when
manufacturers have a duty to warn users about potential hazards.

"We are disappointed by the Court's ruling, which is in conflict
with those made by courts in other states, as well as on the
federal level," the company said in a statement after the ruling.

The appeals court decision upheld a ruling by an appellate court
in Rochester, as well as the jury verdict in Buffalo.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Walton Factory Worker Dies of Mesothelioma
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tom Belger, writing for Liverpool Echo, reported that the family
of a Walton factory worker who died of mesothelioma are appealing
for answers over his death.

Eric Victor Gooch died aged 81 in August last year just a few
months after he was diagnosed with mesothelioma, which is most
often caused by asbestos.

The children of the lifelong Evertonian believe he may have been
exposed to the dangerous material at the ACDelco car parts factory
in Kirkby , where he worked as a foreman for more than 30 years.

It comes as new figures show the death toll rising from the rare,
asbestos-related cancer for men in the north west.

Research by the Health and Safety Executive reveals 75.7 deaths
per million men in the region in 2012-14 -- up from 72.2 in 2009-
11, and one of the highest rates in Britain.

Eric Victor Gooch's family are appealing for answers over the
former factory worker's deathEric Victor Gooch's family are
appealing for answers over the former factory worker's death
The number of cases is expected to keep rising until around 2020
because of the heavy use of asbestos in industry until the 1970s,
according to Cancer Research UK.

Now Mr Gooch's family are appealing for other former employees who
worked at the now-closed factory on Moorgate Road between the
1950s and the 1990s to come forward.

Valda Pearson, Eric's daughter, 59, said the lifelong Evertonian
still had a "zest for life" in his 80s, and claimed his death
could have been prevented.

She said: "It is extremely upsetting to know his death could have
been prevented if he had been provided with protection from
asbestos dust, and that a company he dedicated 30 years of his
life to could have caused it.

"He enjoyed working there. But many companies at the time weren't
as aware as they should have been.

"Mesothelioma can lie dormant for 40 or so years and then suddenly
spiral. The symptoms started 12 months before he died. He lost his
sense of taste, he was losing weight -- but nobody joined the dots
until it became really serious a few months before he died.

"He had lots of years left in him, as he had such a zest for life
and things he wanted to do. But there's nothing we can do about
our dad, and we are not dependents so it's not of economic value
to us.

"We would like to know where he got it from, and this is about
raising awareness for other people. Some younger people may be
leaving young children or widows, and there is a government fund
set up for them."

A spokesman for General Motors, which owns ACDelco, said: "We
cannot comment as we have not received any formal allegations."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carpenter Dies After 40-Year Exposure
------------------------------------------------------
Megan Archer, writing for The Oxford Times, reported that a former
carpenter who died of asbestos-related cancer said before his
death he was appalled at the lack of protection given to him and
his colleagues.

Peter Wickson, of Eynsham, died in February from the illness, an
inquest heard on Wednesday.

He had been exposed to the poisonous substance for nearly 40 years
while working for Hinkins and Frewin Ltd in Oxford.

Mr Wickson spent much of his life working as a carpenter for the
company, which has since been dissolved.

Starting as an apprentice he worked his way up and would regularly
cut asbestos board as part of his daily routine, often coming home
covered in dust.

He "just accepted" it was part of the job, the inquest was told.

The 72-year-old first went to his GP in May 2015 with a pain in
his arm, which doctors said could be golfer's elbow.

But it progressively got worse and soon the cancer spread to Mr
Wickson's chest and brain.

He developed a particularly severe form of mesothelioma, and died
at the Sobell House Hospice in Oxford less than a year after being
diagnosed.

In an in-life statement to the inquest, Mr Wickson wrote: "Looking
back, I am appalled at the lack of protection given to me and my
colleagues.

"I am very angry about it, especially since my diagnosis. I
believe this illness could have been prevented."

He added his two passions in life were repairing and restoring old
clocks as well as growing orchids, two hobbies he had to give up
soon after being diagnosed.

Mr Wickson's family, including his partner Margaret, and son Rob,
attended the inquest.

Assistant coroner for Oxfordshire Rosamund Rhodes-Kemp said to
them: "It's horrific to read the exposure Mr Wickson had on many
occasions. I'm very sorry.

"He was very unlucky at the type of mesothelioma he suffered. But
it might not be surprising considering the level of exposure and
ignorance of what it could do."

She went on to say he went without any protection during the
1950s, 1960s and 1970s. It was only in the 1980s that awareness
grew.

Ms Rhodes-Kemp added: "But at this stage it was far too late for
him."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contaminated-Clothing Doctrine Extended
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Booth, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reported that
the precedent-setting New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that said
spouses who became ill after handling the asbestos-tainted
clothing of their partners could be awarded damages may be
extended to offer protection to non-married couples or roommates,
the court ruled.

The court unanimously said that its 2006 ruling in Olivo v. Owens-
Illinois could be applied in other contexts after a detailed
analysis of the relationships between the employer, the employee
and the person seeking damages.

The July 6 ruling in Schwartz v. Accuratus came through a request
by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which asked
the court to settle a question of law. The Third Circuit asked the
court to rule whether Olivo was limited to spousal relationships
only.

Justice Jaynee LaVecchia, writing for the court, said the issue
could not be completely addressed in a question of law.
"While there may be situations in which household members are in
contact with toxins brought home on clothing, a refined analysis
for particularized risk, foreseeability, and fairness requires a
case-by-case assessment in toxic-tort settings. Our response to
the question asked by the Third Circuit will have to be limited to
clarifying that the duty of care encompassed by Olivo may extend,
in appropriate circumstances, to a plaintiff who is not a spouse."
LaVecchia also was the author of the ruling in Olivo.

In Olivo, the case involved a woman, Eleanor Olivo, who died after
being contaminated with asbestos from years of washing her husband
Anthony's asbestos-tainted clothing after he returned home daily
from his job as a welder for Exxon Mobil.

In Schwartz, the case involves a woman, Brenda Schwartz, who
suffers from chronic beryllium disease allegedly caused by contact
with clothes brought home by her then-boyfriend, Paul Schwartz.
Schwartz, who lives in Pennsylvania, worked for the Accuratus
Ceramics Corp. in Warren County, from 1978 to 1979. He shared an
apartment with another Accuratus employee, Gregory Altamose.
Brenda Schwartz stayed at the apartment often and laundered the
tainted clothing on a regular basis.

The lawsuit originally was filed in a Pennsylvania state court,
but was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. There, Judge C. Darnell Jones dismissed
the case, ruling that no Pennsylvania or New Jersey court had
extended the duty of care to nonspouse roommates. He said that
expanding Olivo would "stretch the New Jersey Supreme Court
decision. . . beyond its tensile strength."

Schwartz appealed to the Third Circuit, which asked the New Jersey
Supreme Court to answer its question of law. The New Jersey court
did not rule on the merits of Schwartz's case.
"The duty of care for take-home toxic-tort liability discussed in
Olivo was not defined on the basis of Eleanor's role as the
lawfully wedded spouse of Anthony," LaVecchia said. "Our reasoning
in Olivo was not so much that Eleanor was married to a worker at
Exxon who brought asbestos-contaminated clothing home from work
but that it was foreseeable that she would be handling and
laundering the soiled, asbestos-exposed clothes, which Exxon
failed to protect at work and allowed to be taken home by
workers."

LaVecchia said case law must evolve as societal value and public
policy changes.

"[T]he common law requires flexibility to grow and change when
appropriate to accommodate new expectations and ideas," she said.
"Olivo must be recognized as a step in the development of the
common law, which of necessity is built case by case on individual
factual circumstances."

Attorneys for both the plaintiff and the defendant found reason to
praise the ruling.

"It's an excellent opinion that expresses our interpretation of
Olivo," said Schwartz's attorney, Ruben Honik. "It allows us to
pursue the circumstances of our own case in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania," said Honik, of Golomb & Honik in Philadelphia.

"The court did place some restrictions and did not say that Olivo
should be fully as extended as the plaintiff sought in this case,"
said Accuratus' attorney, Joseph Harraka Jr. of the Cherry Hill
office of Becker LLC. "It's a fair compromise based on various
factors that would be taken into consideration, such as
foreseeability and fairness."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illinois County Leads Nation in Asbestos Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois News Network reported that one downstate Illinois county
led the nation in lawsuits related to a type of lung cancer last
year.

Anyone who watches daytime television is bound to see an attorney
advertisement seeking potential clients who suffer from
mesothelioma, or lung cancer commonly caused by asbestos exposure.

According to a report by consulting firm KCIC, downstate Madison
County, Ill., accounted for nearly half of the country's
mesothelioma-related lawsuit filings in 2015. Lawyers filed 1,012
lawsuits in the county last year. The next-highest was Cook
County, Ill., with 114. Madison County is home to about 267,000
people.

Travis Akin, executive director of Illinois Lawsuit Abuse Watch,
called the numbers an alarming trend. "It just screams that we
need some commonsense reforms here in Illinois," he said. "The
situation that we thought would get better just seems like it
continues to get worse. The asbestos lawsuits have become a
cottage industry in Madison and St. Clair counties."

The report lists St. Clair County with 101 asbestos-related
lawsuits in 2015. St. Clair County was cited as accounting for 0.3
percent of national mesothelioma cases.

Akin said Madison County's reputation for asbestos-related
lawsuits only draws more lawsuits. "If you build a judicial
hellhole, the lawsuits will come. Word gets out. 'Hey, file your
lawsuit here. Find a way to file in Madison County.'"

The study also noted that Edwardsville, Ill.-based Gori, Julian &
Associates filed the most asbestos-related cases by any firm in
the country last year with 460 filings. The report says the firm
filed 263 mesothelioma cases in 2015, with 253 filed in Madison
County. Mesothelioma cases are included in the asbestos-related
filings.

KCIC estimated that its study accounts for more than 90 percent of
all asbestos-related filings in the United States. When factoring
in all asbestos-related filings, 1 of every 4 suits were filed in
Madison County.

Madison County Chief Circuit Judge David Hylla wasn't immediately
available for comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Dies of Cancer After Asbestos Contact
----------------------------------------------------------
Ray Brookfield, writing for Banbury Guardian, reported that a firm
of solicitors is appealing for people who may have come into
contact with asbestos at work following the death of a Bicester
man.

Lorry driver Raymond Brookfield died in January this year of
mesothelioma, an incurable asbestos-related cancer, caused by
being exposed to the deadly substance as a younger man.

After suffering health problems, he was forced to give up work in
May 2015 and one month later was diagnosed with the disease. An
inquest held in April concluded that Ray was a victim of
industrial disease.

Ray's devastated family have instructed expert industrial disease
lawyers Irwin Mitchell to investigate exactly how he came into
contact with toxic asbestos fibres. Mesothelioma causes
approximately 2,500 deaths every year.

Ray's wife Doreen is appealing to her late husband's former
colleagues at Banbury Buildings Ltd and Compton Buildings Ltd to
come forward and help the family piece together how Ray came into
contact with asbestos.

In the 1970s Ray worked for Banbury Buildings Ltd where he
delivered pre-fabricated garages, and Compton Buildings Ltd where
he assembled them. Parts of these buildings, including the roofs,
were made from asbestos.

Ray worked for Banbury Buildings Ltd in Adderbury, between 1970
and 1971 and again from 1973 to 1974. In 1975 he took a job as a
labourer at Compton Buildings Ltd.

His son Gary, 56, also a lorry driver, said: "We are all
devastated by his death and knowing exactly how he came to be
exposed to asbestos would answer a lot of questions that have
troubled us since he was diagnosed."

Iain Shoolbred, an expert asbestos-related disease lawyer at Irwin
Mitchell, representing Ray's wife, Doreen, said: "Ray intended to
work for as long as he could.

"Sadly he was prevented from doing that, when, shortly before
being given his diagnosis, he grew too weak to continue the job he
loved.

"The dangers of asbestos dust were well known years before Ray was
exposed to the fibres. The first Asbestos Regulations, to manage
the use of asbestos because of its danger to health, became law in
1931, so to learn that Ray was exposed to the fibres as late as
the 1970s has been very upsetting for his family.

"Typically those whom are exposed to asbestos, like Ray do not
develop cancer for decades after they initially come into contact
with it.

"This can mean that the help of former colleagues can be
invaluable in investigating the circumstances of their employment.

"We are appealing to anyone who may have worked with him directly
or at either of the two companies in the 1970s to come forward
with any information, no matter how small, they may have on the
working conditions there."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure to Asbestos in Okla. Schools Reduced
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Daily Ardmoreite reported that the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency recently awarded $202,970 to the Oklahoma
Department of Labor to help protect school children and state
workers from possible asbestos exposures.

The Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act program provides
protection through on-site surveillance where asbestos is found.
AHERA requires local education agencies to inspect schools for
asbestos-containing building material and prepare management plans
to reduce the hazard. The Act also establishes a program for the
training and accreditation of individuals performing certain types
of asbestos work.

Although asbestos is hazardous, human risk of asbestos disease
depends upon exposure. Removal is often not the best course of
action to reduce asbestos exposure. Improper removal may create a
dangerous situation where none previously existed. EPA only
requires removal in order to prevent significant public exposure
to asbestos, such as during building renovation or demolition. EPA
recommends in-place management whenever asbestos is discovered.
Instead of removal, implementation of a management plan will
usually control fiber release when materials are not significantly
damaged and are not likely to be disturbed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Rampant in OC Schools, Jury Finds
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Cortina, writing for The Capistrano Dispatch, reported that
more than two-thirds of the 600 K-12 public schools in Orange
County have encapsulated asbestos present in at least one of their
buildings. And a recent Orange County Grand Jury report, "Dealing
with Asbestos in Orange County Public Schools," recommended
districts "safely (remove) asbestos and other hazardous materials"
from County schools.

The Jury cited potential renovations, spurred by bond measures --
including the proposed $889 million CUSD school improvement bonds
--as one potential catalyst for asbestos exposure. As is, however,
the report "strongly (cautioned) that current EPA standards
provide the mere presence of encapsulated asbestos at a school
site does not present any immediate danger to schoolchildren or
staff at the site."

Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral that is unsafe for
humans when we are exposed to it outside of its safe encapsulated
form. The Grand Jury came to its findings by interviewing school
parents, staff and board members. Its cleanup recommendations for
school districts included holding at least one monthly meeting
about dealing with hazardous materials; developing communication
plans with parents; develop comprehensive plans for construction,
particularly those that involve asbestos-laden areas; designate
certain people to take EPA training; and more.

The full report can be viewed at www.ocrgandjury.com. The Grand
Jury recommended that their suggestions occur within nine months
of the release of the report.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Marine Accuses Manufacturers of Negligence
--------------------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reported that
a former U.S. Marine is suing dozens of companies associated with
the manufacturing and distribution of asbestos, alleging failure
to comply with consumer protection laws.

Fred S. Roth filed a lawsuit May 17 in St. Clair County Circuit
Court against American Optical Corp., Ameron International Corp.,
Armstrong Pumps Inc. Aurora Pump Co., Breazer East, Inc. Bechtel
Corp. BMI Refractory Services, Inc., BMW Constructors Inc., et al,
alleging battery, manufacturing defect, fraudulent
misrepresentation and intentional infliction of emotional
distress.

According to the complaint, during the course of Roth's work, he
was exposed to asbestos fibers emanating from certain products he
was working with, causing him to develop asbestos related
diseases. On Jan. 13, the suit says, he first became aware he had
developed lung cancer, an asbestos-induced disease.

The lawsuit states Roth has been compelled to expend large sum of
monies for hospital and medical expenses necessary for the
treatment of lung cancer. He has also suffered and will continue
to suffer great physical pain and mental anguish, the suit says.

The plaintiff alleges the defendants manufactured, distributed,
sold and installed products containing asbestos fibers, knew or
should have known that asbestos fibers contained in their products
was toxic and poisonous to persons inhaling, ingesting and/or
absorbing them, and failed to exercise reasonable care and caution
for the safety of those persons working with products containing
asbestos.

Roth seeks a trial by jury and judgment of more than $50,000, to
compensate for his injuries. He is represented by attorneys Randy
L. Gori and Barry Julian of Gori, Julian & Associates PC in
Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 16-L-265


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Discovered Beneath Gym Floor
------------------------------------------------------
Vindy.com reported that Austintown schools Superintendent Vince
Colaluca said asbestos was found under the water-damaged Fitch
High School gym floor, causing the floor to be a total loss.

In June, a pipe burst in a restroom near the gymnasium,
waterlogging and warping the floor.

Lewis VanHoose, school district athletic director, said the
abatement process has been started, which is the first step on the
long road ahead.

"Since asbestos was found, it has to be environmentally taken care
of, so we have to remove the floor and all the asbestos before we
start putting down a new one," he said.

Colaluca said the asbestos originated in the tar paper put down
before the gym floor was put in, more than 50 years ago, as a
moisture barrier between floor and the concrete underneath.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Chinese Trains in NZ Despite Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------------
RNZ.co.nz reported that KiwiRail has confirmed it will buy another
15 Chinese locomotives, despite reliability problems and asbestos
contamination in the engines it already has.

KiwiRail has spent at least $12 million clearing the material from
the engines, and documents show that 24 -- at least half of them -
- that had been given the all-clear still contain asbestos.

Rail and Maritime Transport Union general secretary Wayne Butson
said the DL class locomotives were unreliable and did not meet
international performance benchmarks.

"The sad reality is the we've only just learnt in the last couple
of days that the KiwiRail board have authorised the purchase of
another 15.

"And I think everyone is aware that unless these locomotives
become more reliable, then actually the future of the industry
will be in jeopardy."

Mr Butson said the DL locomotives were not fit to be on the
tracks.

However, a spokesperson for KiwiRail said they were confident the
15 new locomotives would be reliable and asbestos free.

They said KiwiRail needed the locomotives to meet customer demand,
and they would come into service in 2018.

Forty of 48 Chinese-built DL-class engines have been part of
massive clean-up effort since the problem was first discovered in
February 2014.

Workers from China were brought in to remove the asbestos two
years ago, but

KiwiRail has since discovered asbestos on the metal sheeting of
the driver's compartment as a form of sound proofing.

It has also been found under paint, inside door panels and roof
cavities.

The company invoked a warranty and the Chinese sent workers to New
Zealand to repair the trains, with the clean-up costing $12
million as of February 2015.

However, this year the company found asbestos in the locomotives'
gaskets as well.

The discovery was first revealed at an Employment Relations
Authority hearing where the Rail and Maritime Transport Union was
arguing Kiwirail should have used local workers for the clean-up.

Documents obtained by RNZ show the asbestos was discovered in
April this year in the first and second generation DL Class
locomotives, which were delivered in 2010 and 2013 respectively,
many of which had already been through an asbestos removal
process.

The contaminated gaskets are located in the exciter, a component
which helps generate and regulate electricity produced by the
alternator, and in an insulator gasket connected to the braking
systems.

The latter was not notified to staff until 19 May.

The documents state KiwiRail will now remove 'Asbestos Free'
stickers from many of the locomotives, and put 'Warning, Contains
Asbestos' stickers on instead.

KiwiRail is yet to comment on whether those gaskets are being
replaced with asbestos-free parts, but the documents said it was
not likely to be a health risk unless disturbed.

Mr Butson said those gaskets were being removed.

He said ever since the first discovery they were finding "more
bits of asbestos in various places".

"Who knows where we're going to continue to find it".

Mr Butson said the locomotives were unreliable, and on average
failed every 20,000-30,000km compared to an international
benchmark of 80,000km.

"These locomotives just have been an extremely bad purchase. They
still can't operate at maximum line speed, the suspension's not
good enough, otherwise they'll bounce off the track," he said.

"The DL locomotives we think are appropriately named -- they're
the dog and lemon locos."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dunedin Near Top For Asbestos Concerns
-------------------------------------------------------
Chris Morris, writing for Otago Daily Times, reported that the
number of people concerned about exposure to asbestos is
continuing to climb across New Zealand, and Dunedin is among the
centres leading the charge, new figures show.

WorkSafe New Zealand data showed 20,323 people were on the
country's asbestos exposure register, as of December last year,
and the tally was continuing to climb as more concerns about
exposure were recorded.

Since 2011, another 2182 names had been added to the register from
across New Zealand, the data showed.

That included 120 people from Dunedin, as well as others from Gore
(5), Balclutha (4), Alexandra and Oamaru (3 each) and Queenstown
(1).

Invercargill had 64 names added to the exposure register in the
same period.

The statistics put Dunedin in third place for asbestos-related
exposure concerns since 2011, behind only Christchurch (713) and
Auckland (237), the data showed.

A WorkSafe spokesman said the large number of register entries
coming from Christchurch was "not surprising", given the amount of
rebuilding under way following the Canterbury earthquakes.

It was not clear why Dunedin featured so prominently on the list,
and WorkSafe "does not have a view on that", the spokesman said.

"Regional variations could be influenced by any number of factors,
from the age of buildings, the level of building activity [or]
local publicity about asbestos."

The data was released to the Otago Daily Times in response to an
official information request, following a three-part ODT Insight
asbestos investigation.

That revealed the cost of the asbestos clean-up facing Dunedin and
other centres, and warned asbestos-related illness would claim
more lives -- including do-it-yourself home renovators -- in the
decades ahead.

The WorkSafe spokesman said the asbestos exposure register was a
voluntary list of all people with concerns they may have been
exposed to asbestos fibres at work, in the home, or from other
sources.

It did not mean those being added to the register had developed,
or necessarily would develop, asbestos-related disease, he
stressed.

Prof David Skegg, a cancer epidemiologist from the University of
Otago's department of preventive and social medicine, said it was
difficult to draw "useful conclusions" from the data.

Only a "small minority" of those exposed to asbestos would be on
the register, depending on levels of public awareness in different
areas, for example, he said.

Those being added in recent years might also only be coming
forward "many years after a significant exposure", he said.

But Dunedin's high place on the list "could be a good sign, as it
indicates a significant level of awareness", he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Concerned About Asbestos at Old Morgue
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eryn Taylor and Stephanie Scurlock, writing for WREG.com, reported
that some Shelby County employees said the old morgue at 1060
Madison is a death trap, not because of the bodies it used to
store, but because of what oozed out of the walls, floors and
ceiling during recent construction.

They discovered the toxic fire proofing material asbestos.

"It's in most of your buildings that were built before 1970's,
1980's."

Buck Walker is an independent asbestos removal instructor.

He said you need a special abatement permit to work around the
material and special haz mat suits.

In a letter to Shelby County Mayor Mark Luttrell, the attorney who
represents the employees said, "our clients are concerned not only
for their physical and emotional well-being, but also for their
families who are exposed when they return home carrying asbestos
in their clothing."

"If you're working on any building, should you be told that
there's the possibility of asbestos in it? There should be a
survey and documented survey in place to let you know what
materials are asbestos containing and also where the materials are
located inside the building," said Walker.

The attorney for the employees claimed they are "compelled to work
in conditions which expose them to asbestos."

Knowingly exposing a worker to asbestos without proper equipment
is against the law and these workers claim that Shelby County
Support Services Division did that even though they knew this
building and several others across the county had asbestos inside.

"Were those employees put in a dangerous situation working in that
building? There's no evidence of that, Stephanie," said Mayor
Luttrell.

He admitted there is asbestos in the morgue, but he's confident no
county employees are in danger while working there.

"If you find asbestos in the building then there are certain
protocols that you follow to assure that only people who are
removing the asbestos are trained to remove the asbestos are in
the building until the building is cleaned. So that was the
procedure we followed."

WREG requested the asbestos survey of 1060 Madison through the
Tennessee Open Records Act to see where the asbestos was found and
when it was removed.

We are still waiting on that information.

"When you're rehabbing old buildings, tear the ceiling down, pull
up old tile, that's when the asbestos fibers get released in the
air and can be inhaled and that's the problem," said Dr. James
Patterson.

It takes 10 to 20 years before health problems surface.

"Asbestos  can cause a series of lung diseases ranging from an
emphysema type pattern all the way to lung cancer."

The employees said they want to resolve their concerns without
suing the county.

They're asking certain procedures and protocols be put in place to
protect them.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family's Last Ditch Attempt at Compo for Vet
-------------------------------------------------------------
Conan Young, writing for Radionz.co.nz, reported that the family
of a war veteran is making a last-ditch effort for compensation
from the Defence Force for the cancer they say was caused by
asbestos exposure in Vietnam.

Phillip Taylor-Meihana died last year, just after the Department
of Veterans' Affairs turned down his bid for a lump sum payment
for the cancer he said had been caused by the asbestos used to
line ammunition bunkers at his base in Vietnam.

Now his family is continuing its fight for compensation with the
Waitangi Tribunal, which is conducting a wide-ranging inquiry into
the mistreatment of Maori in the defence forces.

His daughter-in-law, Marama Meihana, said the only way Mr Taylor-
Meihana could have inhaled asbestos was when he was ordered to
demolish ammunition bunkers lined with the dangerous substance as
his battalion prepared to leave its base in Vietnam in 1971.

Marama MeihanaMarama Meihana Photo: RNZ/ Conan Young
Her father-in-law died within a month of being diagnosed with
asbestos-related cancer, she said.

"So as a family we're still trying to comprehend and come to terms
with how our father, this fit and strong man, could go down so
quickly with this kind of cancer."

Ms Meihana was clear about what she would like to see come out of
the hearing.

"My husband still serves in the army to this day and as a wife and
a mother we have been around the army camps and it's been good for
us... [It's about] fairness, processes, anything to make it easier
for other veterans and their whanau as well."

It should be easy for the Defence Force to establish whether
asbestos was used to line the ammunition bunkers, said the lawyer
representing the Meihanas, Charl Hirschfeld.

"Once it's gone into it, it shouldn't be a difficult exercise at
all.

"I think the research will definitely show that it was a common
material used at the time, particularly within the armed forces,
that's already well known.

"It's just really pinpointing where these particular locations
were."

The claim would have wide-ranging implications for all veterans,
Maori and Pakeha, he said.

The Waitangi Tribunal's ongoing inquiry is looking at injustices
against Maori servicemen and women from 1840 to the present day.

Once its inquiry is complete, the tribunal is expected to make
recommendations to the government on how to address any
injustices.

A Defence Force spokesperson said it was unable to comment on the
specifics of the case due to privacy concerns.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ga. Supreme Court Reverses $4MM Verdict
--------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that the Georgia Supreme Court
has reversed an intermediate appellate court order affirming a $4
million verdict entered against Scapa Dryer Fabrics Inc., saying
that the "each and every" exposure testimony proffered by Dr.
Jerrold Abraham did not fit the pertinent causation inquiry under
Georgia law.

In the July 5 opinion, the high court found that the plaintiff's
expert "did not undertake to estimate the extent of exposure in
any meaningful way, and he did not qualify his opinion on
causation by limiting it to such estimate of exposure."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos in Science Lab Gave Teacher Cancer
------------------------------------------------------------
Sunshine Coast Daily reported that a former Sunshine Coast science
teacher has settled a claim against Education Queensland after
Bunsen burner equipment made from asbestos contributed to him
contracting mesothelioma.

The un-named father of two and grandfather of four taught in a
Toowoomba school for 11 years, working in the science laboratory
where he was exposed to asbestos dust and fibres.

As a teacher in the 1970s and '80s, he said they had no idea
mesothelioma was associated with the use of asbestos material in
the workplace.

"I spent each and every day in the science lab for 11 years,
inadvertently breathing in the ticking time bomb," he said.

"During chemistry and physics lessons, the students and I would
set up the Bunsen burners with safety mats which were made of
asbestos.

"As the equipment was moved about the lab, asbestos flaked off in
minute quantities onto our clothes and into the atmosphere."

His teaching career continued with relief work in schools across
the Sunshine Coast, where equipment made from asbestos was also
used.

He said that prior to his diagnosis he was very fit and healthy.

"It came as a huge shock to me and my family to be told I had
asbestos cancer after more than 35 years as a teacher."

Slater and Gordon senior asbestos lawyer Martin Rogalski settled a
legal claim for the former teacher and said, unfortunately, his
were not isolated circumstances.

"While asbestos is commonly linked with mining and construction
work, I have seen a number of clients who were first exposed to
asbestos in classrooms, hospitals and offices," Mr Rogalski said.

"Mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases can take a
number of years to develop, which means people who were exposed 30
to 50 years ago still might not have any major symptoms.

"It is important for people to remain vigilant about their health
and to seek medical advice if they believe they have ever come in
contact with the substance.

"Employers have a responsibility to not only ensure their
employees are aware of the presence of asbestos, but also to
provide the appropriate protective equipment and training."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Indigenous Australians Have Highest Death Rate
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angus Sargent, writing for ABC News, reported that indigenous West
Australians have the highest death rate for malignant mesothelioma
in the world, a study into asbestos-related diseases has found.

Malignant mesothelioma is an aggressive form of cancer that can
develop following inhalation or ingestion of asbestos spores.

The condition affects the membrane lining of the lungs and abdomen
and can take a number of years to develop after first exposure.

The University of Western Australia study also found 67 per cent
of mesothelioma cases affecting Indigenous West Australians could
be linked directly to asbestos mining at the Wittenoom Gorge in
the Pilbara.

Senior research fellow Peter Franklin said this was likely due to
higher exposure by people involved in the transport of asbestos at
the site, who were mostly Aboriginal.

"It was quite well known that Aboriginal people did work in the
mine and often they were given the jobs that other people didn't
want to do," Dr Franklin said.

This often involved moving hessian sacks containing raw asbestos
more than 300 kilometres to storage areas at Roebourne, before
they were shipped to Perth from Point Samson or Port Hedland.

President of the Asbestos Diseases Society Robert Vojakovic, who
also worked at Wittenoom, said they were never provided with any
safety equipment.

"I was never given any mask ... the Indigenous people were not
given anything," he said.
"The roads to Point Samson and Roebourne were pretty rough, there
was a lot of pot holes ... when they came back to Roebourne they
would be grey from all the asbestos."

Between 1943 and 1966 nearly 7,000 people worked at the mine,
which was operated by Australia Blue Asbestos Company.

Hundreds seek compensation

More than 300 former workers have died from malignant
mesothelioma, according to Dr Franklin.

Slater and Gordon lawyer Simon Millman said there had been
hundreds of compensation claims in relation to the Wittenoom
operations.

"An employer owes an employee a duty of care to take reasonable
care not to expose them to illness and injury, and that's the
basis for the claims of people from Wittenoom," he said.

Those who had previously had claims filed against them included
Australia Blue Asbestos Company, CSR Limited, the Shire of
Ashburton and the Western Australian Government.

Robert Vojakovic
PHOTO: Mr Vojakovic says mining companies should have cleaned up
after themselves. (ABC)
In 2007 the township of Wittenoom was degazetted and declared a
contaminated site.

Mr Vojakovic said he was disappointed there was not more effort
made to clean it up.

"The Government didn't do much to clean the place up ... this a
beautiful area, this is their [Banyjima traditional owners]
ancestral home.

"But it's not the fault of the government 100 per cent, it's the
fault of the people [mining companies] that didn't clean up after
themselves."

Dr Franklin said the number of malignant mesothelioma exposure
cases was expected to decline in coming years.

"But that's not to say there may be more cases in the future
because of previous exposure," he said.

The Department of Regional Development has been contacted for
comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CES Countersues SiteTech Over Asbestos Removal
---------------------------------------------------------------
CES Synergies, Inc., countersued SiteTech, Inc., over negligence
allegations, 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, "On or about March 16, 2016, SiteTech, Inc.,
filed suit against CES. In this suit, SiteTech alleges negligence
by CES for failing to remove asbestos-containing materials in a
timely manner alleging damages in excess of $75,000. CES denies
any liability and has countersued for amounts due it on the
project."

CES Synergies, Inc., is a Nevada corporation formed on April 26,
2010.  The Company is the parent company of Cross Environmental
Services, Inc., which was incorporated in 1988 in the state of
Florida.  The Company acquired CES in a reverse merger transaction
that closed on November 1, 2013, and CES is deemed the accounting
acquirer under accounting rules. The Company is an asbestos and
lead abatement contracting firm specializing in the removal of
asbestos and lead from buildings and other structures, and
demolition of structures.  The Company's services include removal
of asbestos and lead, construction, installation, and repair of
ceilings and insulation systems and demolition.  Most jobs are
located within the state of Florida, but the Company accepts and
performs jobs throughout the southeastern United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RI Suit vs. Andrea Electronics Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed in a Rhode Island court remains pending against
Andrea Electronics Corporation, 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, "In December 2010, Audrey Edwards, Executrix
of the Estate of Leon Leroy Edwards, filed a law suit in the
Superior Court of Providence County, Rhode Island, against 3M
Company and over 90 other defendants, including the Company,
alleging that the Company processed, manufactured, designed,
tested, packaged, distributed, marketed or sold asbestos
containing products that contributed to the death of Leon Leroy
Edwards. The Company received service of process in April 2011.
The Company has retained legal counsel and has filed a response to
the compliant. The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit
and intends to file a Motion for Summary Judgment to that affect.
Accordingly, the Company does not believe the lawsuit will have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or
results of operations."

Andrea Electronics Corporation is engaged in designing, developing
and manufacturing microphone technologies and products for
improving speech-based applications software and communications
that require clear voice signals.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suits vs. HB Fuller Remain Pending at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
H.B. Fuller Company continues to defend itself against asbestos
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 have been named as a defendant in lawsuits
in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products containing
asbestos manufactured more than 30 years ago. The plaintiffs
generally bring these lawsuits against multiple defendants and
seek damages (both actual and punitive) in very large amounts. In
many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have
suffered any compensable injuries or that the injuries suffered
were the result of exposure to products manufactured by us. We are
typically dismissed as a defendant in such cases without payment.
If the plaintiff presents evidence indicating that compensable
injury occurred as a result of exposure to our products, the case
is generally settled for an amount that reflects the seriousness
of the injury, the length, intensity and character of exposure to
products containing asbestos, the number and solvency of other
defendants in the case, and the jurisdiction in which the case has
been brought.

"A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in
asbestos-related litigation is paid by third parties, including
indemnification pursuant to the provisions of a 1976 agreement
under which we acquired a business from a third party. Currently,
this third party is defending and paying settlement amounts, under
a reservation of rights, in most of the asbestos cases tendered to
the third party.

"In addition to the indemnification arrangements with third
parties, we have insurance policies that generally provide
coverage for asbestos liabilities (including defense costs).
Historically, insurers have paid a significant portion of our
defense costs and settlements in asbestos-related litigation.
However, certain of our insurers are insolvent.  We have entered
into cost-sharing agreements with our insurers that provide for
the allocation of defense costs and settlements and judgments in
asbestos-related lawsuits.  These agreements require, among other
things, that we fund a share of settlements and judgments
allocable to years in which the responsible insurer is insolvent.

A summary of the number of and settlement amounts for asbestos-
related lawsuits and claims is as follows:

                                Six Months Ended
                          --------------------------
   ($ in millions)        May 28, 2016  May 30, 2015
                          ------------  ------------
   Lawsuits and claims               4             5
      settled
   Settlement amounts             $343          $438
   Insurance payments             $251          $354
      received or expected
      to be received

"We do not believe that it would be meaningful to disclose the
aggregate number of asbestos-related lawsuits filed against us
because relatively few of these lawsuits are known to involve
exposure to asbestos-containing products that we manufactured.
Rather, we believe it is more meaningful to disclose the number of
lawsuits that are settled and result in a payment to the
plaintiff. To the extent we can reasonably estimate the amount of
our probable liabilities for pending asbestos-related claims, we
establish a financial provision and a corresponding receivable for
insurance recoveries.

"Based on currently available information, we have concluded that
the resolution of any pending matter, including asbestos-related
litigation, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
condition or cash flow.  However, adverse developments and/or
periodic settlements could negatively impact the results of
operations or cash flows in one or more future periods."

H.B. Fuller Company, together with its subsidiaries, formulates,
manufactures, and markets adhesives, sealants, and other specialty
chemical products worldwide. The company sells its products
through direct sales force, distributors, wholesalers, and
retailers. H.B. Fuller Company was founded in 1887 and is
headquartered in Saint Paul, Minnesota.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Enjoins "Berry" Suit vs. Johns-Manville
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cecelia G. Morris of the United States Bankruptcy Court for
the Southern District of New York granted the emergency motion
filed by Graphic Packaging International for enforcement of the
confirmation orders of the Johns-Manville Corporation and the
Manville Forest Products Corporation.

By its motion, Graphic sought to enjoin the lawsuit of plaintiff,
Lynda Berry, brought in Louisiana state court against Graphic for
alleged asbestos liability.  Graphic argued that as it is a
successor of MFP, a bankruptcy debtor and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Manville, Berry must first pursue her asbestos
claims against the Manville Personal Injury Trust (the "Trust").
In response, Berry argued that her lawsuit should not be enjoined
as her claims were not discharged or enjoined by the MFP
confirmation order, MFP is not a beneficiary of the Manville
confirmation order or channeling injunction, and Graphic has
waived its right to enforce the bankruptcy Confirmation Orders and
injunction.  Berry also argued that she did not receive due
process.

Judge Morris granted Graphic's motion for an order enjoining
Berry's state law claims against Graphic as a successor to MFP.
Berry's claims against Graphic in her state court action,
currently pending in the Fourth Judicial District for the Parish
of Ouachita in the State of Louisiana, seeking to recover for any
injuries resulting from her exposure to asbestos were enjoined
pursuant to MFP's discharge injunction and the Manville channeling
injunction.  To the extent Berry asserted claims in her state
court action against Manville or MFP seeking to recover for any
injuries resulting from her exposure to asbestos, they too are
enjoined pursuant to the discharge injunction.  Berry's only
recourse is to submit a claim to the Manville Trust.

The cases are In re: JOHNS-MANVILLE CORP. ET AL., Debtors, Case
Nos. 82 B 11656 (CGM) through 82 B 11676 (CGM) inclusive (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y.) and In re: MANVILLE FOREST PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Debtor,
Case No. 82 B 11659 (CGM) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.).

A full-text copy of Judge Morris' June 30, 2016 order is available
at http://bankrupt.com/misc/nysb82-11656-4243.pdf.

The United States Trustee is represented by:

          Alicia Leonhard, Esq.
          UNITED STATES TRUSTEE
          271 Cadman Plaza East, Suite 4529
          Brooklyn, NY 11201

Graphic Packaging International, Inc. is represented by:

          James I. McClammy, Esq.
          Rebecca L. Martin, Esq
          DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL, LLP
          450 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Tel: (212)450-4000
          Fax: (212)701-5800
          Email: james.mcclammy@davispolk.com
                 rebecca.martin@davispolk.com

            -- and --

          J. Eric Lockridge, Esq.
          KEAN MILLER, LLP
          400 Convention Street #700
          P.O. Box 3513
          Baton Rouge, LA 70802
          Tel: (225)387-0999
          Fax: (225)388-9133
          Email: eric.lockridge@keanmiller.com

Lynda Berry is represented by:

          Natalie D. Ramsey, Esq.
          Mark A. Fink, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY MCCRACKEN WALKER & RHOADS LLP
          1105 North Market Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Tel: (302)504-7800
          Fax: (302)504-7820
          Email: nramsey@mmwr.com
                 mfink@mmwr.com

            -- and --

          Charles W. Branham, III, Esq.
          DEAN OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP
          3900 Elm Street
          Dallas, TX 75226
          Tel: (855)722-5910


                    About Johns-Manville

Johns-Manville Corp. was, by most sources, the largest
manufacturer of asbestos-containing products and the largest
supplier of raw asbestos in the United States from the 1920s until
the 1970s.  Manville sold raw asbestos to manufacturers of
asbestos-based products in 58 countries and distributed its own
asbestos-based products "across the entire spectrum of industries
and employment categories subject to asbestos exposure."

As a result of studies linking asbestos with respiratory disease,
Manville became the target of a growing number of products
liability lawsuits in the 1960s and 1970s.  Buckling under the
weight of its asbestos liability, Manville filed for Chapter 11
protection on August 26, 1982, before Judge Lifland.

To avoid the uncertainty of insurance litigation and to fund its
plan of reorganization, Manville sought to settle its insurance
claims.  Manville obtained in excess of $850,000,000 from
settlements with its insurers.  The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York entered an order confirming the
Debtors' Second Amended and Restated Plan of Reorganization on
Dec. 22, 1986.


                            *********

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  * * *