CAR_Public/160722.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, July 22, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 146




                            Headlines


21ST CENTURY: "Padilla" Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
ALABAMA: Court Won't Name Guardian Ad Litem in "Dunn" Suit
ALLERGAN INC: Certification of Botox Cosmetic Buyers Class Sought
AMERICAN DEBT: Settlement in "Newton" Lawsuit Gets Final Okay
ANSELMO LINDBERG: Class Cert. Bid in "Wolter" Suit Withdrawn

ARIEL QUIROS: Wants EB-5 Immigrant Investors' Fraud Case Nixed
ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Settlement in "Fox" Suit Has Final Approval
ASSET RECOVERY: "Pirkle" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
BAXTER CREDIT: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Overdraft Fee
BC HYDRO: Activists Lose Bid to Certify Smart Meter Class Action

BEVERAGES & MORE: Sued in Cal. Over Disability Discrimination
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: "Green" Suit Transferred to C.D. California
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Glaser" Suit Over Pradaxa(R)
CACTUS DRILLING: Court Granted Settlement in "Perry" Suit
CALIFORNIA: Oct. 17 Case Management Conference Set

CALIFORNIA: Court Wants Class Notice in "Ashker" Suit Finalized
CALIFORNIA SERVICE: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Calls
CAPITAL ADVANCE: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid Continued to Aug. 4
CITIBANK NA: "Juarez" Case Management Conference Moved to Aug. 17
CHICAGO: Judge Wants "Myers" Complaint Revised

CLICKSPARK LLC: Faces "Sicker" Class Suit to District New Jersey
COLLECTION BUREAU: Illegally Collects Debt, "Schleifer" Suit Says
CONNECTICUT: "Wright" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
CONOPCO INC: Motion for Final Settlement Approval Due Sept. 12
CONTAIN ENERGY: Cantu Seeks Certification of Operators Class

COSL: Oil Workers Entitled to Extra Month's Pay, Court Rules
CUNA MUTUAL: Ogrizovich Seeks Approval of Class Settlement
DEL CITY WIRE: Bones Kart Shop Seeks Stay of Proceedings
DMNO LLC: Black Seeks Certification of Class
DOMETIC GROUP: Clarifies Media Statements on Class Action

DRESSER-RAND GROUP: Agrees to Pay $100K to Plaintiffs' Counsel
DYNAMEX INC: Seeks Decertification of FLSA Collective Action
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Has Until August 28 to Respond to "Stamer" Suit
EL POLLO LOCO: Faces Securities Class Action in California
ELECTRO RENT: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Class Action

ENCOMPASS INDEMNITY: Untimely Removal Remands "D'itri" Suit
ENSIGN INC: Status Conference Continued on Aug. 15
FCA US: Plaintiff Must Be Present at Vehicle Inspection
FCA US: Grimstad et al. Seek Certification of 3 Classes
FEI CO: Investigates Potential Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims

FLINT, MI: Water Crisis Prompts Extra Lead Tests in Philadelphia
FLORIDA: Judge Adopts Findings in "Lopez" Suit
FLORIDA: Hillsborough County Woman Files Suit Over Tampon Tax
FUTURE INCOME: Faces Class Action Over Alleged TCPA Violation
GENERAL MOTORS: Owners of Recalled Cars Can Sue for Loss of Value

GREGORY TURZA: Ruling May Hit Plaintiffs Attorneys' Legal Fees
GRUBHUB: Food Delivery Drivers File Class Action in Chicago
GULF COAST: "Francois" Suit Seeks Certification of Florida Class
HALYARD HEALTH: Aug. 29 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
HARBOR FREIGHT: Sued Over Fictitious Discount Price Scheme

HARBOUR RESTAURANT: Sutherland Seeks Certification of Class
HILLSTONE RESTAURANT: Court Granted Settlement in "Bradescu" Suit
HOGAN TRANSPORTS: Fairfax Seeks Certification of Collective Class
HOME DEPOT: Aug. 4 Hearing on Bid to Transfer Venue of "Henry"
HOME DEPOT: Oct. 27 Case Management Conference Set in "Coffen"

INTERSTATE-RIM: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
J.P. MORGAN: 9th Cir. Affirms Ruling in "Schramm" Suit
JAKARTA WATER: Bukit Duri Class Action Postponed for Third Time
JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Bronstein Probes Potential Securities Claims
KOSTMAYER CONSTRUCTION: Court Granted Certification of Class

LENDINGCLUB CORPORATION: Lead Plaintiff Bid Due Aug. 15
LG: Has Prelim Deal of Suit Over Moldy Front-Loading Washers
LONGWEI PETROLEUM: October 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
LUGGAGE SERVICES: Court Slashes Atty Fee Award in "Talton" Suit
LYFT INC: Dec. 1 Final Approval Hearing on Cotter Settlement

MAKERBOT: Minnesota Court Dismisses Class Action
MARIO BADESCU: Appellate Court Upholds Class Action Settlement
MICHAELS STORES: Anderson Claims Time-Barred, 9th Cir. Says
MIDWEST POULTRY: Judge Okays $8.4MM Egg Antitrust Settlement
MISTRAS GROUP: Settlement Approval Hearing Moved to Aug. 18

MONSTER ENERGY: Court Partly Reverses Marketing Class Action
MYLAN PHARMA: Lawyers Quizzed by Appellate Panel in Provigil Case
NAPLES TRANSPORTATION: "Pfeuti" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
NEW BRUNSWICK: Court Hears Retired Civil Servants' Pension Suit
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: "Lohr" Suit Removed to W.D. Washington

NUCAL FOODS: Direct Purchasers' Settlement Wins Final Approval
OCWEN LOAN: Farrin Seeks Certification of Class
OHIO ADULT PAROLE: "Sabo" Suit Bid for Class Cert. Granted
OREGON: Timber Industry Pays Linn County's Legal Fees
PANALPINA WORLD: November 4 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

PERFUMANIA HOLDINGS: Bid on Class Certification Premature, Denied
PRECISION CASTPARTS: Southeast Portland Residents File Suit
PRIME WHEEL: Faces "Lemus" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
QUICKSIUS LLC: Bid to Stay Proceedings in "Dougherty" Suit Denied
REALTY REFERRAL: Faces "Pileggi" Class Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania

RED ROBIN: Faces "Rogers" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
REINALT-THOMAS CORP: Settlement in "McDaniel" Has Final Approval
SAINT JOHN, NB: Hearing Set in Sexual Abuse Suit vs. Police
SAINT JOHN, NB: Judge Reserves Judgment on Abuse Suit vs. Police
SAKUMA BROTHERS: Settlement in "Demetrio" Suit Has Final Approval

SIRIUS XM: Class Action Trial Scheduled for November 2016
SONOMA, CA: Court Wants Joint Status Report in Retirees' Suit
SPALDING NEVERFLAT: Faces Class Action Over False Claims
SPOTIFY: NMPA Members Join Royalties Class Action Settlement
ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Settles Durata Class Action for $39 Million

STERICYCLE INC: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action
SUNTRUST: Ga. High Court Revives Overdraft Fee Class Action
SUTTER HEALTH: 9th Cir. Sends "Sidibe" Suit Back to Trial Court
SWIFT: Employee Drivers' Class Action Can Proceed
TALMER BANK: Livonia Pension System Sues Over Merger

TEXAS: Loses Bid to Boot Special Masters in Foster Care Reform
TROTT & TROTT: "Wilson" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Over Logan Airport Fee Nixed
UNION BANK: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Ross" Suit Claims
UNITED STATES: Former Prosecutor Sues Obama for Inciting Race War

UNIVERSAL PICTURES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
VHU EXPRESS: Benjamin's Bid for Conditional Cert. Partly Granted
VIGILANT CANINE: Bid for Default Judgment in "McGuire" Denied
VISIONWORKS INC: Bid to Seal Docs in "Graiser" Suit Denied
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Employees Attempted to Cover Up Emissions Cheating

WESTLAKE Services: Settlement in "Duchene" Suit Approved

* Israel Court Set to Decide on Gas Monopoly Class Action
* Lawsuits Over 401(k) Plans on the Rise


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Pipefitter Sues 20+ Companies
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Texas Couple Sues USX Corp. Over Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Plumber Sues Dozens Over Lung Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmate Allowed to Amend Pro Se Complaint
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Vacates Money Judgment vs. Crane Co.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Time in 5 NY Suits Enlarged to 2017
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sunday House Demolition Cited for Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Citizens Concerned Over Stedham School Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos at Sunnyside Delays Roof Project
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thatcher Mill Fire Causes Asbestos Concerns

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calgarians w/ Asbestos Cancer Need More Choices
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Newmarket Man Dies from Asbestos-related Illness
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hearing Follows Claims of Asbestos at UofL
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Delays Children's Museum Opening
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Qld Parliament Asbestos Removal Cost $300K

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Italian Court Convicts Former Olivetti Execs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Number of Asbestos Claims Dropped in 2015
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alberta Asbestos Deaths Higher Than Reported
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removed at Hillcrest Middle School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: John Holland Defends Perth Asbestos Action

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Roofing in Namibia Need to Be Removed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Judge Recommends Summary Judgment Award
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ind. Court Refuses to Transfer Suit to Ill.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Destroyed Evidence Factors in Defense Win
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Angry Over WA Asbestos Scandal

ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Korea Strengthens Asbestos Regulations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Judge Sentences Developer in Asbestos Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Southampton Man Dies of Asbestos, Smoking
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Qld Gov't Call for Release of Asbestos File
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Teacher Exposed to Asbestos in Classroom

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Yuanda's Australian Projects Need Probe


                            *********


21ST CENTURY: "Padilla" Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Daniel M. Padilla, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. 21st Century Oncology
Holdings, Inc. and 21st Century Oncology of California, Case No.
RG16817512, was removed from Alamenda Superior Court to the U.S.
District Court California Northern District (San Francisco). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-03711-WHO to the
proceeding.

The Defendants are providers of radiation therapy and integrated
cancer treatments.

Daniel M. Padilla is a pro se plaintiff.

The Defendant is represented by:

      Matthew D. Pearson, Esq.
      BAKER HOSTETLER LLP
      11601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1400
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (310) 820-8800
      Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
      E-mail: mpearson@bakerlaw.com


ALABAMA: Court Won't Name Guardian Ad Litem in "Dunn" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSHUA DUNN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JEFFERSON S.
DUNN, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Alabama
Department of Corrections, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.
2:14cv601-MHT (M.D. Ala.), District Judge Myron H. Thompson
concluded that the appointment of a guardian ad litem (GAL) is not
necessary in light of the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program's
participation in the litigation.

In the course of preliminarily approving the settlement of the
Phase 1 claims in this case, the court ordered the parties to
address "whether the court should appoint a guardian ad litem
[GAL] to represent at the fairness hearing the interests of class
members who are incompetent or otherwise unable to understand or
comment on the terms of the settlement agreement."  The parties
have submitted briefs, both taking the position that appointment
of a GAL is not necessary.

The Court agrees.  According to Judge Thompson, a finding that
competent named plaintiffs are adequate representatives -- for
purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4) -- of a class
that includes some incompetent members is in no way inconsistent
with a finding that a GAL should be appointed to advise the court
as to whether those incompetent class members' interests will
fairly be served by a proposed settlement agreement, just as a
finding of Rule 23(a)(4) adequacy does not obviate the need for a
fairness hearing at which competent class members -- though
'represented' in one sense by named plaintiffs -- can themselves
be heard.

No later than August 17, 2016, plaintiff Alabama Disabilities
Advocacy Program is to file a brief setting forth in detail its
position as to why a settlement agreement promotes the interests,
and fairly resolves the claims, of prisoners with cognitive and
communication-related disabilities so severe that they would
likely be unable to understand the terms of the agreement or
submit intelligible comments on them.

A copy of the Court's July 7, 2016 Order is available at
http://goo.gl/uFzwZhfrom Leagle.com.

Ruth Naglich, et al., Defendants, represented by Bryan Arthur
Coleman -- bcoleman@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard, Cooper & Gale,
PC, Evan Patrick Moltz -- emoltz@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard,
Cooper & Gale, P.C., Matthew Reeves -- mreeves@maynardcooper.com -
- Maynard Cooper & Gale PC, Mitchell David Greggs --
mgreggs@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC, Mitesh
Bansilal Shah -- mshah@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard, Cooper &
Gale, PC, William Richard Lunsford -- blunsford@maynardcooper.com
-- Maynard Cooper & Gale PC, Melissa K. Marler --
mmarler@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard, Cooper & Gale PC & Stephen
C. Rogers -- srogers@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard Cooper and Gale
PC.

Alabama Department of Corrections, Defendant, represented by David
Randall Boyd -- dboyd@balch.com -- Balch & Bingham LLP, John Eric
Getty -- egetty@balch.com -- Balch & Bingham LLP, John W. Naramore
-- jnaramore@balch.com -- Balch & Bingham LLP, John Garland Smith
-- jgsmith@balch.com -- Balch & Bingham LLP, Michael Leon Edwards
-- medwards@balch.com -- Balch & Bingham LLP, Susan Nettles Han --
shan@balch.com -- Balch & Bingham, LLP, Anne Adams Hill, Alabama
Department of Corrections, Elizabeth Anne Sees, Alabama Department
of Corrections, Joseph Gordon Stewart, Jr., Alabama Dept of
Corrections & Steven C. Corhern -- scorhern@balch.com -- Balch &
Bingham.


ALLERGAN INC: Certification of Botox Cosmetic Buyers Class Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit styled ADEL TAWFILIS,
DDS, d/b/a CARMEL VALLEY CENTER FOR ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL
SURGERY, AND HAMID A. TOWHIDIAN, M.D., on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ALLERGAN, INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 8:15-cv-00307-JLS-JCG (C.D. Cal.), move
the Court to certify the following class or classes:

     "All purchasers within the United States who purchased Botox
      Cosmetic directly from Defendant Allergan, Inc. during the
      Class Period. Excluded from the class definition are all
      judicial officers assigned to this case, as well as their
      staff and immediate relatives. The class definition also
      excludes all employees, agents, or officers of Defendant
      Allergan, Inc., and all federal, state, and local
      government employees."

For the damages class, the Class Period referenced in the class
definition is the period of time beginning on April 1, 2015 and
continuing until the date that Court enters an Order certifying
the action as a class action.

For the injunctive relief class, the Class Period referenced in
the foregoing class definition is the period of time beginning on
September 25, 2013 and continuing until the date that Court enters
an Order certifying the action as a class action.

In the event that the Court were to find that the class definition
is unsuitable for class certification, Plaintiffs request
certification of any narrower alternative class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jUNrK8ux

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roy A. Katriel, Esq.
          THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM, P.C.
          4225 Executive Square, Suite 600
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 242 5642
          Facsimile: (858) 430 3719
          E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com

               - and -

          Ralph B. Kalfayan, Esq.
          KRAUSE KALFAYAN BENINK &
          SLAVENS LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite 530
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 232 0331
          Facsimile: (619) 232 4019
          E-mail: ralph@kkbs-law.com


AMERICAN DEBT: Settlement in "Newton" Lawsuit Gets Final Okay
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HEATHER L. NEWTON, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN DEBT SERVICES,
INC., et al, Defendants, Case No. 3:11-cv-03228 EMC (N.D. Cal.),
District Judge Edward M. Chen granted parties' Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement and the plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's
Fees and Costs.

Pursuant to the Court's class certification order, Members of the
Class are all consumers in California who paid QSS directly, or
indirectly through ADS, for debt settlement services during the
four years preceding filing of the complaint, who opened a Special
Purpose Account with Rocky Mountain Bank & Trust to be
administered by Global Client Solutions, LLC, and did not receive
a full refund of all fees and charges paid to all Defendants.

The Court approved attorneys' fees award of $348,091, and costs
award of $19,409 among Plaintiff's Counsel. A class representative
services award of $7,500 to Plaintiff is approved.

Following the Settlement Agreement, Global and Rocky Mountain Bank
shall pay for administration, class representative service award,
and attorneys' fees and costs by delivering a check in the amount
of $375,000.00, addressed to and payable to the Consumer Law
Office of William E. Kennedy, not later than 15 days after the
Effective Date.

Not later than 40 days after the Effective Date as that term is
defined in the Settlement Agreement, CPT Group, the Administrator
shall distribute the payments to the Class Members by first class
mail. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the
Administrator shall distribute the $375,000 pro rata to each of
the Class Members, including Class Representative. The
undistributed funds shall be donated, half to the Watsonville Law
Center in Watsonville, California, and half to the Katherine and
George Alexander Law Center in San Jose, California as cy pres.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
http://goo.gl/QnEJXLfrom Leagle.com.

Global Client Solutions, LLC, et al., Defendants, represented by
Jeffrey Aaron Backman -- jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon
Marder, John Henry Pelzer, Greenspoon Marder PA, pro hac vice,
Meredith H. Leonard, Esq. -- meredith.leonard@gmlaw.com --
Greenspoon Marder PA, Richard Wayne Epstein --
richard.epstein@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder PA & Robert Samuel
Boulter.


ANSELMO LINDBERG: Class Cert. Bid in "Wolter" Suit Withdrawn
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Robert W. Gettleman entered an order in the class action
lawsuit styled Elisa Wolter, et al., the Plaintiff, v. Anselmo
Lindberg Oliver LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04205 (N.D.
Ill.), withdrawing the motion to certify class based on the docket
entry by the Clerk on July 19, 2016.

A Status hearing was held in the case on July 19, 2016. A joint
status report is due today, July 22, 2016.  Another status hearing
is set for July 27, 2016 at 9:00 a.m.

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


ARIEL QUIROS: Wants EB-5 Immigrant Investors' Fraud Case Nixed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Galloway, writing for VT Digger, reports that the Miami
businessman who is accused of defrauding 700 EB-5 immigrant
investors at a ski resort in the Northeast Kingdom is asking a
Washington County Superior Court judge to dismiss allegations made
by state regulators.

The Vermont Department of Financial Regulation has brought 15
charges of securities violations against Ariel Quiros, the owner
of Jay Peak Resort, and his partner, Bill Stenger, the CEO and
president of the ski area.

The state, in the amended complaint, is seeking $375,000 in civil
penalties and costs for prosecution and investigation of the case.

Mr. Quiros has been accused by the Securities and Exchange
Commission of stealing more than $55 million from investors.  The
SEC alleges that he and Mr. Stenger misused $200 million in EB-5
immigrant investor funds in a "Ponzi-like scheme."  Mr. Quiros has
asked the federal court in Miami to dismiss the case.  The alleged
fraud is also subject of an FBI investigation.

Mr. Quiros is also fighting the case in superior court.
Mr. Stenger, meanwhile, has asked for more time to respond to the
state allegations and is likely to settle soon with the SEC.
Mr. Quiros is represented by Dinse, Knapp & McAndrew, while the
extension for Mr. Stenger was signed by Scott Kline, an assistant
attorney general.  Washington Superior Court Judge Thomas Tomasi
on July 8 granted Mr. Stenger's request for an extension until
Aug. 3.

Ritchie Berger, Mr. Quiros' defense attorney, argues that the
state has "grossly overreached" and fails to "allege actionable
fraud in connection with the sale of any security"; that the state
has filed the claim under the consumer protection act, which
doesn't govern securities transactions; and that the claims
regarding Mr. Quiros' purchase of Jay Peak Resort in June 2008
using investor money are "time-barred."

Mr. Berger says the state "unveiled this lawsuit amidst great
fanfare," and alleged it was a significant securities enforcement
case.  But the lawsuit, he says, is ultimately a "misguided
enforcement action."

"While the State's characterization of the litigation may have
made good sound bites in the news, the actual allegations of the
Complaint tell a very different and less sensational story,"
Mr. Berger writes.

Mr. Quiros' defense attorney says five of the seven projects
promised by the developers were completely constructed and the
remaining two were under construction.  The state's "primary
accusation," Berger writes, is that Mr. Quiros failed to use
investor funds the way as stated by the private placement
memoranda for each project, and yet the projects were, for the
most part, built.

The state's allegations are the "stuff of everyday private
commercial disputes: broken promises and misuse of partnership
funds," Mr. Berger says, and "fall far short of making out
securities fraud."  He describes the investors as "wealthy enough"
to invest $500,000 in an EB-5 project "and are all entirely
capable of enforcing their own rights against Mr. Quiros and the
other defendants." Berger points to class action lawsuits that
have already been filed on behalf of investors.

Mr. Berger argues that the alleged misrepresentations made to
early Jay Peak investors in the Tram Haus and Hotel Jay in 2006
and 2007 can't be pinned on Mr. Quiros because he didn't own the
resort until 2008.

Deceptive conduct, or a misrepresentation or omission of factual
information in connection with the sale of a security, is central
to any securities fraud claim, Mr. Berger writes.  The state,
however, in this case, he says, targeted conduct that allegedly
occurred after the securities were sold.

The SEC and the state have alleged that Mr. Quiros purchased the
Jay Peak Resort on June 23, 2008, using money from immigrant
investors that was supposed to be held in escrow for the
construction of the two hotels.  Subsequently, Messrs. Quiros and
Stenger had to acquire more investor funds to backfill the
projects, the SEC alleges, setting up a "Ponzi-like" scenario in
which the developers were taking money from investors in later
projects to pay for earlier ones.

Mr. Quiros also allegedly leveraged more than $100 million in
investor funds in margin loans through Raymond James Financial
Inc.  The company reached a $5.95 million settlement with the
state on June 29.

Mr. Stenger was the front man for the operation.  He solicited
investors, distributed marketing materials and oversaw the
drafting of the agreements with investors, known as private
placement memoranda, for how the projects were to be paid for and
built and ultimately how the resort would pay back investors.

Mr. Berger alleges that Mr. Stenger had "ultimate responsibility"
for the private placement memoranda; Mr. Quiros, on the other
hand, "reviewed" and "was familiar" with the contents of the
agreements and "approved" certain portions of them.  Therefore,
Mr. Berger says, Mr. Quiros cannot be held accountable for alleged
omissions and misrepresentations made to investors in the limited
partnership agreements.

The fact that "the developers made specific representations as to
how the partnership funds were going to be managed and used," and
Messrs. Quiros and Stenger "subsequently deviated" from those
representations does not constitute securities fraud, Berger says.

While the representations Mr. Quiros made may have been false at
the time, Berger says, the law is "well settled that false
representations or broken promises" that could affect the future
are not the basis of "actionable fraud."  The state has not
proven, he said, that Mr. Quiros made promises and "had no
intention of keeping them."

Mr. Berger points to the completion of five of the seven projects
as proof that there is "no factual allegation of an intent to
misuse funds."


ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Settlement in "Fox" Suit Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANN FOX, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. CV 14-734-GW(FFMx), (C.D. Cal.), District
Judge George H. Wu granted final approval of the parties' Class
Action Settlement and the plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees
and Costs.

For purposes of the Settlement and the Final Approval Order and
the Judgment, the lawsuit is certified as a class action on behalf
of the following Class Members consisting of all persons who were
called using a dialer without consent on a cellular telephone by
Asset Acceptance, LLC or someone acting on behalf of Asset
Acceptance, LLC between April 17, 2009 and September 4, 2014.
Excluded from the Class is Defendant, its parent companies,
affiliates or subsidiaries, and any entities in which any of such
companies has a controlling interest; the judge or magistrate
judge to whom the Lawsuit is assigned; and, any member of those
judges' staffs and immediate families, as well as persons who
validly requested exclusion from the Settlement Class.

Class Counsel is awarded $262,500 for attorney's fees and costs.
Compensation for the Class Representative in the amount of $2,500
is granted.

Heffler Claims Group, the Settlement Administrator, shall conduct
all administration of the Common Fund and shall prepare and issue
all disbursements of the Individual Cash Settlement Amounts from
the Common Fund to Authorized Claimants entitled to such benefits
within the time period specified in the Agreement.

A copy of the court's July 1, 2016 decision is available at
http://goo.gl/C2EsdGfrom Leagle.com.

Asset Acceptance LLC, Defendant, represented by Ashley R Fickel
-- afickel@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett LLP & Edward D Totino, DLA
Piper LLP.


ASSET RECOVERY: "Pirkle" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff moves the court to certify a class in the lawsuit
styled GAIL PIRKLE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ASSET RECOVERY SOLUTIONS,
LLC and BUREAUS INVESTMENT GROUP PORTFOLIO NO 15 LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-946 (E.D. Wisc.).

The Plaintiff further requests that the Court both stay the motion
for class certification and to grant Plaintiff (and Defendants)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
motion.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BAXTER CREDIT: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Overdraft Fee
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that a Hayward resident alleges a credit union charged her an
overdraft fee despite her account having enough money for the
transaction.

Sondra Ramirez filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on July 5 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against Baxter Credit Union and Does 1
through 10 citing breach of contract, unfair competition, unjust
enrichment and other counts.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she
suffered damages as a result of being charged an overdraft fee by
the defendant. The plaintiff holds Baxter Credit Union and Does 1
through 10 responsible because the defendants allegedly charged
plaintiff and the class an overdraft fee even when there was
sufficient funds in the account to pay for the proposed
transaction.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks compensatory
damages, disgorgement, to restore and return all monies allegedly
wrongfully obtained plus interest, all legal fees and any other
relief as the court deems just. She is represented by Richard D.
McCune and Jae K. Kim of McCune Wright LLP in Redlands and Taras
Kick, G. James Strenio and Robert J. Dart of The Kick Law Firm APC
in Santa Monica.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case
number 3:16-cv-03765-DMR


BC HYDRO: Activists Lose Bid to Certify Smart Meter Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
CKNW News reports that it's the end of the legal road for a group
of activists fighting against BC Hydro's smart meters.

The Supreme Court of BC has thrown out an application to certify a
lawsuit against the crown corporation as a class-action.

That suit was brought by a group called Citizens for Safe
Technology, who claim the wireless microwave technology used by
smart meters is harmful.

BC Hydro has maintained the devices, which transmit hydro readings
wirelessly, are safe.

In June we told you around 11,000 people are still holding out
against getting a smart meter.

Alex Bronevitch of Mission is one of them, and is disappointed to
hear the crown corporation won.

"There's lots of talk about the smart meters.  But the main thing
is if you don't want one, you're bullied into having to have it.
And if you don't want it you're bullied by these letters saying
they are going to cut your power off."

But Hydro representative Simi Heer says that's not the case.

"Those people are in our meter choices program, so those people
have elected to either get a radio off meter or a legacy meter,
we're not threatening to cut them off."

BC Hydro says they welcome the courts decision, and smart meters
are "now a part of our standard operating equipment and have been
delivering benefits to BC Hydro and our customers for more than
four years."


BEVERAGES & MORE: Sued in Cal. Over Disability Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hadyanto Sytandar, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Beverages & More, Inc. t/a Bevmo, Case No. BC625595
(Cal. Super. Ct., June 30, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's
practice of discrimination on the basis of disability,
specifically by blocking disabled consumers from equal access to
and use of their stores.

Beverages & More, Inc. is based in Concord, California selling
mainly alcoholic beverages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Evan J. Smith, Esq.
      BRODSKY SMITH, LLC
      9595 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 900
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 534-2590
      Facsimile: (310) 247-0160
      E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: "Green" Suit Transferred to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Joel Green and Chevay Jones,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BMW
of North America LLC and BMW AG, Case No. 2:16-cv-03065, was
transferred from the Central District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Western
Division - Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:16-cv-04800-MWF-GJS to the proceeding.

The Defendants are engaged in the import and distribution of BMW
luxury and performance vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
      Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
      CHIMICLES AND TIKELLIS LLP
      361 West Lancaster Avenue
      Haverford, PA 19041
      Telephone: (610) 642-8500
      Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
      E-mail: awf@chimicles.com
              bfj@chimicles.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Christopher J. Dalton, Esq.
      Rosemary Joan Bruno, Esq.
      BUCHANAN INGERSOLL AND ROONEY PC
      550 Broad Street Suite 810
      Newark, NJ 07102
      Telephone: (973) 273-9800
      Facsimile: (973) 273-9430
      E-mail: christopher.dalton@bipc.com
              rosemary.bruno@bipc.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Glaser" Suit Over Pradaxa(R)
---------------------------------------------------------
Milton Glaser v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH, Case No. _________ (Conn.
Super. Ct., June 30, 2016), is an action for damages suffered by
the Plaintiffs as a proximate result of the Defendant's alleged
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
testing, and labeling, of Pradaxa(R).

Pradaxa (R) is a direct thrombin inhibitor that is indicated to
reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with
non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

The Defendants operate a pharmaceutical company with principal
place of business at 900 Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield, Connecticut
06877.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      C. Andrew Childers, Esq.
      CHILDERS, SCHLUETER & SMITH, LLC
      1932 N. Druid Hills Road Suite 100
      Atlanta, GA 30319
      Telephone: (404) 419-9500
      Facsimile: (404) 419-9501
      E-mail: achilders@cssfirm.com


CACTUS DRILLING: Court Granted Settlement in "Perry" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Michael H. Schneider entered an order in the class action
lawsuit styled BRIAN C. PEERY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. CACTUS DRILLING
COMPANY, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 6:15-cv-00094-MHS
(E.D.Tex.), granting Peery's unopposed motion for final approval
of collective and class action settlement.

Solely for settlement purposes, the FLSA settlement class is
defined as:

     "Any and all persons employed by Cactus Drilling as a
      Yard Hand, Floor Hands, Lead Tong Hand, Motor Men,
      Derrick Hand, and/or Driller from February 2, 2012 through
      October 14, 2015 who opted-in by timely submitting a Claim
      Form Package."

The Court approves Class Counsel's request for 35% of the Maximum
Gross Settlement Amount as reasonable attorneys' fees and for
reimbursement of $1,443.62 in reasonable costs and litigation
expenses. The Claim Administrator's fee of $27,000 is also
approved.

The Court also approves the payment of the Service Payment of
$10,000 to Peery.

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


CALIFORNIA: Oct. 17 Case Management Conference Set
--------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thelton E. Henderson ordered that a Case Management
Conference shall be held on October 17, 2016, in the case, JOHN
DOE, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. KAMALA D. HARRIS, et al., Defendants, No.
C 12-5713 THE (N.D. Calif.). The parties shall file an updated
joint case management statement no later than seven days prior to
the case management conference.

Following the death of Plaintiff Doe, the action will still
proceed in favor of the remaining Plaintiffs under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 25(a)(2).

The case involves the unconstitutionality of an enacted
Proposition 35 that required all persons, to register under
California Penal Code section 290, who have been convicted of sex-
related offenses to provide to police their Internet identifiers
and the names of their Internet service providers.

The Court deferred the entry of final judgment of the case to
allow for a further reasonable time to enable Intervenors to
continue pursuing legislation that may resolve the matter. At any
juncture during which this case remains pending and it becomes
apparent that Intervenors' efforts to pass legislation are either
successful or not successful, the parties will provide a joint
update to the Court. Parties are barred from seeking extension of
the case beyond the current 2015-2016 legislative session.

A copy of the Court's July 7, 2016 Order is available at
http://goo.gl/sQUL3pfrom Leagle.com.

Kamala D. Harris, Defendant, represented by Robert David Wilson
-- Robert.Wilson@doj.ca.gov -- California State Attorney General's
Office.


CALIFORNIA: Court Wants Class Notice in "Ashker" Suit Finalized
---------------------------------------------------------------
TODD ASHKER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants, No. C 09-05796 CW (N.D. Cal.), the
parties on September 1, 2015, reached a Stipulation and Settlement
Agreement to resolve this case regarding Defendants' policies and
practices related to gang management and their use of segregated
housing, including the Security Housing Unit (SHU) at Pelican Bay
State Prison. The Court granted final approval of the Settlement
Agreement on January 26, 2016.  The Settlement Agreement provides
entitlement to Plaintiffs' counsel's reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs.  By this Order, the Court sets forth the notice and
approval process concerning an agreement negotiated by the parties
for payment of $4,550,000 to Plaintiffs for all attorneys' fees
and costs incurred during the four years of litigation leading to
the date the Settlement Agreement was executed on September 1,
2015.

District Judge Claudia Wilken directed the parties to prepare a
final version of the Class Notice, incorporating the Scheduling
Order.

Within 10 business days of the preparation of the final version of
the Class Notice, Defendant California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation (CDCR) is directed to post the Class Notice in
English and Spanish in all housing units of all prisons housing
prisoners who are or have been Ashker class members in such a
manner as to make the notice visible to all prisoners.  All 32
male prison institutions are required to be posted with the
notice.  CDCR is also directed to place a copy of the Order and a
copy of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion in the law library of every
such prison.

Any member of the class can write to the Federal Court about
whether the Fee Accord is unfair and should not be approved. A
written comment containing the author's full name and CDCR number
including all objections and reasons together with any and all
supporting papers shall be signed by the class member.

At the conclusion of the notice period, the parties shall have ten
days in which to file a response to the objections, if any, raised
by class members, and for Plaintiffs to submit a proposed order
for approval of the Fee Accord and Plaintiffs' motion for
attorneys' fees and costs in compliance with Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 23(h) and 52.

Hearing shall be set 14 days from the date the parties file any
further briefing addressing class members' objections, with the
intention of holding that date for addressing objections and
determining approval. Payment shall be made within ten business
days following entry of the Court's order approving the Fee
Accord.

A copy of the court's order dated July 1, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/ZMVTx6from Leagle.com.

Mathew Cate, Secretary, CDCR, et al., Defendants, represented by
Adriano Hrvatin -- adriano.hrvatin@doj.ca.gov -- California
Department of Justice, Christine Marie Ciccotti --
christine.ciccotti@doj.ca.gov -- California Attorney General's
Office, Jay Craig Russell -- jay.russell@doj.ca.gov -- Office of
the Attorney General, Jillian Renee O'Brien, California State
Attorney General's Office, Loran Michael Simon, California State
Department of Justice & Martine Noel D'Agostino, CA State Attorney
General's Office.


CALIFORNIA SERVICE: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that an Oakley man alleges a Novato business repeatedly called him
despite of never previously having contact with it.  He has filed
a class-action suit.

Hector Membreno filed a complaint on behalf of all others
similarly situated on July 5 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against California Service Bureau
Inc. alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that between
2015 and 2016, he was called on his cellular telephone several
times without his consent by the defendant.  The plaintiff holds
California Service Bureau Inc. responsible because the defendant
allegedly called plaintiff using an autodialer and/or artificial
or pre-recorded voice.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks injunctive
relief, $1,500 as treble damages for each and every call, $500 as
statutory damages for each and every violation, all damages, all
legal fees and any other relief as the court deems just.  He is
represented by L. Timothy Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com --
Annick M. Persinger -- apersinger@bursor.com -- and Yeremey O.
Krivoshey -- ykrivoshey@bursor.com -- of Bursor & Fisher PA in
Walnut Creek.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case
number 3:16-cv-03763


CAPITAL ADVANCE: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid Continued to Aug. 4
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. John Robert Blakey entered an order in the class action
lawsuit styled Scott D.H. Redman, the Plaintiff, v. Capital
Advance Solutions, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04380
(N.D. Ill.), continuing Plaintiff's motion to certify a class to
August 4, 2016 at 9:45 a.m. in Courtroom 1725 based on the docket
entry made by the Clerk on July 19, 2016.

The Court further:

      a. granted the oral motion for entry of default as to all
         Defendants;

      b. denied Plaintiff's motion for discovery without
         prejudice; and

      c. struck a status hearing date of September 14, 2016.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RCK8EjlZ


CITIBANK NA: "Juarez" Case Management Conference Moved to Aug. 17
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Orrick extended the Case Management
Conference from July 19, 2016 to August 17, 2016, pursuant to the
parties' stipulation, in the case, FORTUNATO LOPEZ JUAREZ, on
behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v.
CITIBANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01984-WHO (N.D.
Calif.).

Accordingly, the Court approved, as stipulated, the deadline for
the filing of the joint case management statement from July 12,
2016 to August 10, 2016.

A copy of the COurt's order dated July 5, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/PqMP5rfrom Leagle.com.

Citibank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Marcos D. Sasso --
msasso@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP.


CHICAGO: Judge Wants "Myers" Complaint Revised
----------------------------------------------
In the case, BEN MYERS, AFFORDABLE HOME DEV., LLC, Plaintiffs, v.
CITY OF CHICAGO, DEPT. OF HOUSING, Defendant, Case No. 16 C 5734
(N.D. Ill.), Senior District Judge Milton I. Shadur identified a
highly problematic nature of the Plaintiffs' filing with the Court
that would take a virtual paper lecture to identify all of the
problems with the Complaint. The Court did not dismiss the action
itself, as to which no substantive view is expressed in the order.

According to the Court, the Complaint's effort to bring the
lawsuit as a class action on behalf of poor black tenants who are
systematically losing their section 8 papers as a result of the
City's discriminatory custom and usage fails, because Affordable
qualify as a proposed class action representative. Plaintiffs will
have to include, in any Amended Complaint, a proper identification
of provisions of the federal fair housing laws or of the federal
Constitution or both to confirm their standing to bring this
action.

Striking the Complaint would enable Plaintiffs to replace the
Complaint as promptly as possible with an acceptable work product.
To that end Plaintiff's counsel is urged to consult with (or
perhaps to affiliate with) some informed federal practitioner who
can assist him in putting together a reasonably acceptable Amended
Complaint.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 8,
2016 is available at http://goo.gl/P1S2rufrom Leagle.com.


CLICKSPARK LLC: Faces "Sicker" Class Suit to District New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Clickspark, LLC
d/b/a Degreematch and John Does 1-25.

The case is captioned Sara Sicker, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Clickspark, LLC d/b/a Degreematch
and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:16-cv-03908-AET-LHG (D.N.J., June
30, 2016).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

COLLECTION BUREAU: Illegally Collects Debt, "Schleifer" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Schleifer, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Collection Bureau of Hudson Valley, Inc.,
Case No. 7:16-cv-05170-KMK (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2016), seeks to
stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a
debt.

Collection Bureau of Hudson Valley, Inc. operates a collection
firm located at 155 N Plank Rd, Newburgh, NY 12550.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Zemel, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL ZEMEL
      70 Clinton Ave.
      Newark, NJ 07114
      Telephone: (973) 525-2552
      E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com


CONNECTICUT: "Wright" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
-------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit styled IAN WRIGHT, ET
AL., "class member" Plaintiffs, v. DANNEL P. MOLLOY, ET AL., the
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01179-SRU (D. Conn.), move the Court
for an order of Class Certification.

The "class member" Plaintiffs are prisoners confined in State
Prisons in the State of Connecticut, who are convicted of class A
and B felonies and are been denied good time credits and parole.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nMuikWq8


CONOPCO INC: Motion for Final Settlement Approval Due Sept. 12
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALBA MORALES; LAINIE COHEN; LINDA CLAYMAN; and
KENNETH DREW, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. CONOPCO, INC., d/b/a UNILEVER, Defendant,
CIV. No. 2:13-cv-2213 WBS EFB (E.D. Calif.), District Judge
William B. Shubb granted the parties' stipulation to modify the
July 12, 2016 Scheduling Order but without changing the Final
Approval Hearing date which shall take place as scheduled on
October 17, 2016.

The Court ordered the following modified scheduling order:

     -- Plaintiffs shall direct the Notice Administrator to
commence the media campaign described in the Notice Plan submitted
in support of the Motion for Preliminary Approval by no later than
August 1, 2016, and complete it by no later than August 30, 2016;

     -- Plaintiffs shall file a motion for final approval of the
Settlement, together with supporting papers, by no later than
September 12, 2016;

     -- Plaintiffs shall file any motion for approval of an award
of attorneys' fees and expenses, as well as any motion for lead
plaintiff awards, by no later than September 12, 2016;

     -- Class members shall file any objections to the Settlement,
the Plan of Allocation, and/or Plaintiffs' requests for an award
of attorneys' fees and expenses and lead plaintiff awards, by no
later than September 29, 2016;

     -- Class members shall file any requests for exclusion by no
later than September 29, 2016;

     -- Responses to any objections or requests for exclusion
shall be filed by no later than October 7, 2016, together with a
final report on effectuation of the Notice Plan;

     -- The Final Approval Hearing shall take place as scheduled
on October 17, 2016, at 1:30 p.m.; and

     -- Class members who wish to receive a portion of the
Settlement fund shall file claim forms by no later than October
24, 2016.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 14, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/jMbV82from Leagle.com.

Conopco, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jay P. Lefkowitz --
lefkowitz@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Michael Phillip
Esser -- michael.esser@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP & Ross
Weiner -- ross.weiner@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP.


CONTAIN ENERGY: Cantu Seeks Certification of Operators Class
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit styled JUSTIN CANTU,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. CONTAIN ENERGY SERVICES, LLC F/K/A DELTAIC UPSTREAM
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, REZA TALABI, MARK ADAMSON, JOHN ADAMSON, and
KYLE D. ROWLETT, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-00422 (S.D.
Tex., July 2, 2016), ask the Court to conditionally certify a
class of:

     "All Helpers and Operators Who Worked for Contain Energy
      Services, LLC f/k/a DELTAIC Upstream Technologies, LLC,
      Reza Talabi, Mark Adamson, John Adamson, and Kyle D.
      Rowlett, At Any Time During the Past Three Years and
      Received a Salary Plus a Job Bonus/Day Rate (Putative Class
      Members)."

The Plaintiffs further request that the Court:

     (1) order that a judicially approved notice be sent to all
         Putative Class Members by mail and e-mail;

     (2) approve the form and content of Plaintiffs' proposed
         judicial notice and reminder notice;

     (3) order Defendants to produce to Plaintiffs' counsel the
         name, last known address, phone number, e-mail address
         and dates of employment for each of the Putative Class
         Members in a usable electronic format; and

     (4) authorize a 60-day notice period for the Putative Class
         Members to join this case.

The Plaintiffs brought the action lawsuit pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs owed to current and
former employees who worked for Defendants over the past three
years. The Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants' payroll practice of
paying all current and former Helpers and Operators a salary plus
a job bonus/day rate and no overtime compensation was improper
under the FLSA.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BW1E8m3k


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452 1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452 1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  austin@a2xlaw.com
                  lauren@a2xlaw.com


COSL: Oil Workers Entitled to Extra Month's Pay, Court Rules
------------------------------------------------------------
Rita Brown, writing for Energy Voice, reports that a Norwegian
district court has ruled a group of oil workers are entitled to an
extra month's pay, after they were terminated by email.

In a class action lawsuit filed by Norwegian union SAFE, 39
participants argued they were entitled to an extra pay-packet
after bosses at rig firm COSL sacked them.

On June 30 last year, COSL sent an email to 229 employees
notifying them of their dismissal. However, their official letter
didn't arrive until days later and after July 1.

The court ruled the "employer must cover the economic loss
plaintiffs incurred in that period of notice is calculated from
July 1 -- in practice one months 'extra' salary".

SAFE-lawyer Elisabeth Bjelland, who argued the case in court,
said: "The verdict is unanimous.  It involves an important,
fundamental clarification of questions that have not tried in the
judicial system previously."

Despite the unanimous ruling in Safe's favor, both parties must
cover their own costs, according to the court.


CUNA MUTUAL: Ogrizovich Seeks Approval of Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the class action lawsuit styled RONALD ALLEN
OGRIZOVICH and DONNA LYNN OGRIZOVICH, Husband and Wife, Brenda
RENNER, and on behalf of a group of similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. CUNA MUTUAL GROUP a/k/a CUNA
MUTUAL INSURANCE SOCIETY, its affiliates and subsidiaries,
CLEARVIEW FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, and GNC COMMUNITY FEDERAL CREDIT
UNION, the Defendants, Case No. 2:09-cv-00371-DSC (W.D. Penn.,
July 2, 2016), asks the court to grant an amended motion for
preliminary approval of Class Settlement and Certification of
Class for Settlement Purposes.

The Proposed Settlement will pay to each class members a refund of
any amount of over-charged interest or $100.00, whichever is
greater, resulting from Defendants CMFG's late payment of credit
disability payments to GNC, resulting in interest charges added to
the putative Plaintiffs outstanding loan balances.

Both Plaintiff and Defendants believe that Settlement Agreement is
fair, adequate, and reasonable for the class and that the
requirements for final approval will be met.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth R. Behrend, Esq.
          355 Fifth Avenue, 12th Floor
          Pittsburg, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 391 2515
          E-mail: Behrendlawyers@aol.com


DEL CITY WIRE: Bones Kart Shop Seeks Stay of Proceedings
--------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the class action lawsuit styled BONES KART SHOP,
L.L.C, a Connecticut limited liability company, individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
the Plaintiff, v. DEL CITY WIRE CO., INC. and JOHN DOES 1-5, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01110 (D. Conn., July 2, 2016), moves
the Court for an order:

     (A) taking motion under submission and deferring further
         activity on it until after the discovery cutoff date to
         be set in the Court's upcoming scheduling order, or

     (B) granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
          BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
          85 Miles Avenue
          White Plaines, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 358 5345
          Facsimile: (212) 571 0284
          E-mail: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368 1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368 1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com


DMNO LLC: Black Seeks Certification of Class
--------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit styled JAMES BLACK,
ASHLEY NEWTON, MARK GANDY, ERIN LAWRENCE, JEFFREY BLAIR, DAVID
PIERCE-FEITH, AUSTIN LANE, PATRICE JONES, ZACHARY ADAMS, ASARIA
CRITTENDEN, ELIZABETH KUZMOVICH, SHANNON MICSWAIN, LARRY j. JUNT,
JR., and CARLOS AYESTAS, Individually and on behalf of similarly
situated employees, the Plaintiffs, v. DMNO, LLC, DORON MOSHE
REBI-CHIA, ITAI BEN ELI and ITAMAR LEVY, the Defendants, Case No.
2:16-cv-02708-SM-KWR (E.D. La., July 2, 2016), move for
conditional class certification and judicial notice to potential
opt-in plaintiffs.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=r47ikEgL

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laura L. Catlett, Esq.
          LAURA L. CATLETT, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 1414
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 521 7958
          Facsimile: (866) 587 6697
          E-mail: LauraLCatlettlaw@gmail.com

               - and -

          Megan Jacqmin, Esq.
          Megan Jacqmin, Attorney at Law
          301 N. Columbia Street
          Covington LA 70433
          Telephone: (504) 655 5066
          Facsimile: (504) 335 0646
          E-mail: Megan.Jacqmin@gmail.com


DOMETIC GROUP: Clarifies Media Statements on Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Dometic Group on July 12 disclosed that in view of the statements
Hagens Berman has made regarding an alleged new class action
complaint that has been filed against Dometic in the US, the
company makes the following clarification.

The class action complaint referred to by Hagens Berman, which was
filed on July 8, 2016, is not a new complaint but rather an
amended complaint; it was filed by the same law firm in the same
court.  The amended complaint adds two additional plaintiffs, who
jointly own an RV, to the original five plaintiffs for a total of
seven plaintiffs.  Dometic filed a motion to dismiss the original
complaint on June 17 and will file another motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  Amended complaints are common and this one was
not unexpected.

Another common part of the legal process is that competing law
firms can file similar complaints.  Another law firm filed a
similar lawsuit against Dometic in the Southern District of
Florida.  This complaint currently includes seven individual
plaintiffs, none of whom claims to have experienced any manifested
defect related to a Dometic product.

Dometic remains firm in its position that the allegations are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.

This information is information that Dometic Group AB (publ) is
obliged to make public pursuant to the EU Market Abuse Regulation.
The information was submitted for publication, through the agency
of the contact person set out above, at 8.15 CET on July 12, 2016.

                      About Dometic Group

Dometic claims to be a global market leader in branded solutions
for mobile living in the areas of Climate, Hygiene & Sanitation
and Food & Beverage.  Dometic operates in the Americas, EMEA and
Asia Pacific, providing products for use in recreational vehicles,
trucks and premium cars, pleasure and workboats, and for a variety
of other uses.  It operates 22 manufacturing/assembly sites in
nine countries, sell its products in approximately 100 countries
and manufacture approximately 85% of products sold in-house.  It
has a global distribution and dealer network in place to serve the
aftermarket.  Dometic employs approximately 6,500 people
worldwide, had net sales of SEK11.5 billion in 2015 and is
headquartered in Solna, Sweden.


DRESSER-RAND GROUP: Agrees to Pay $100K to Plaintiffs' Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------------
On September 24, 2014 and October 24, 2014, two stockholders of
Dresser-Rand Group, Inc. ("DRC") filed purported class action
lawsuits, which have since been consolidated into one class
action, in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Court") against
DRC's Board of Directors and CEO, alleging breaches of fiduciary
duty. DRC, Siemens Energy, Inc. ("Siemens"), and Siemens' wholly-
owned subsidiary, Dynamo Acquisition Corporation ("Merger Sub"),
were also named as defendants for allegedly aiding and abetting
the other defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties.  The claims
relate to DRC's Board of Directors' approval of the merger
agreement dated September 21, 2014, between DRC and Siemens, which
was alleged to offer unfair and inadequate consideration for DRC
stock.  The proposed class action, among other things, sought to
prevent the merger, cause the public disclosure of certain
information, and monetary damages.

On November 17, 2014, DRC filed with the SEC a Form 8-K that
included certain supplemental disclosures that were negotiated
with the plaintiffs and were provided in connection with, and
solely as a result of, a proposed settlement among the parties to
the litigation.  These supplemental disclosures pertained to DRC's
financial projections, background leading to the merger, and
alternatives to the merger that were considered by DRC's Board of
Directors, including information with respect to the timing of
discussions regarding the combined company's board representation
and employment of DRC management.

Plaintiffs' counsel in the stockholder action subsequently
expressed their intention to petition the Court for fees and
reimbursement of expenses for obtaining the additional disclosures
made by DRC prior to the stockholder vote on the merger.  On April
18, 2016, the Court entered an order dismissing the stockholder
action with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs and without
prejudice as to all other members of the putative class.  Pursuant
to the order, the Court retained jurisdiction solely for the
purpose of determining the plaintiffs' application for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.

After the action was dismissed, DRC agreed to pay fees and
expenses in the amount of $100,000 to counsel for plaintiffs.  The
Court has not considered or approved in any way the amount of this
payment of fees and expenses.  Counsel for the stockholder
plaintiffs include Shane Rowley of Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, who can
be reached at (212) 363-7500, and Peter Safirstein of Morgan &
Morgan, P.C. who can be reached at (212) 564-1637.  Counsel for
the DRC defendants include William Savitt -- WDSavitt@wlrk.com --
of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, who can be reached at (212)
403-1000.  Counsel for the Siemens defendants include
Blair Connelly -- blair.connelly@lw.com -- of Latham & Watkins
LLP, who can be reached at (212) 906-1200.


DYNAMEX INC: Seeks Decertification of FLSA Collective Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the class action lawsuit styled JUAN SARAVIA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. DYNAMEX, INC., DYNAMEX FLEET SERVICES, INC., DYNAMEX
OPERATIONS EAST, INC. and DYNAMEX OPERATIONS WEST, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-921 (E.D. Wisc.), move the Court to
decertify Plaintiff's collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Dynamex provides transportation services to customers ranging from
local companies to Fortune 500 corporations in the United States
and Canada.

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Robert G. Hulteng, Esq.
          Aurelio Perez, Esq.
          Lauren E. Meyerholz, Esq.
          Perry K. Miska, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433 1940
          Facsimile: (415) 399 8490
          E-mail: rhulteng@littler.com
                  aperez@littler.com
                  lmeyerholz@littler.com
                  pmiska@littler.com


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Has Until August 28 to Respond to "Stamer" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Elaine E. Bucklo entered an order in the class action
lawsuit styled David Stamer, the Plaintiff, v. Dynamic Recovery
Solutions, LLC Case No. 1:16-cv-05578 (N.D. Ill.), granting
Defendant's unopposed motion for 14-day enlargement of time until
August 28, 2016, to file a response to Plaintiff's complaint.

According to a docket entry made by the Court Clerk on July 14,
2016, the scheduling conference is reset from July 28, 2016 to
August 11, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. Hearing on plaintiff's motion to
certify class noticed for July 28, 2016 is reset to August 11,
2016 at 9:30 a.m.

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


EL POLLO LOCO: Faces Securities Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on July 12
disclosed that a class action complaint was filed against El Pollo
Loco Holdings, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Southern Division.  The complaint is
brought on behalf of all purchasers of El Pollo Loco securities
between May 15, 2015 and August 13, 2015, for alleged violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by El Pollo Loco's officers
and directors.  El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., through its
subsidiary, El Pollo Loco, Inc., develops, franchises, licenses,
and operates quick-service restaurants under the El Pollo Loco
name in the United States.

View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
www.robbinsarroyo.com/shareholders-rights-blog/el-pollo-loco-
holdings-inc-july-2016

El Pollo Loco Accused of Issuing Misleading Sales Growth Guidance

According to the complaint, El Pollo Loco officials repeatedly and
unjustifiably touted the company's sales growth in company-wide
"comparable store sales," a key metric closely watched by market
analysts and investors.  During an investor conference call on May
14, 2015, El Pollo Loco officials reported a continuation of the
company's positive sales growth trend for the first quarter of
fiscal year 2015, reporting better than expected revenue and
earnings for the quarter, driven by a 5.1% increase in comparable
store sales, and confirming guidance for the second quarter of
2015 in the 3-5% range.  However, the complaint alleges that at
the same time company officials were touting El Pollo Loco's
strong financial state, customer traffic to El Pollo Loco
restaurants had been substantially declining since the first
quarter of 2015.  This in turn hurt the company's sales in the
first half of 2015 and diminished its ability to meet its sales
growth guidance for the second quarter of 2015.

In the first quarter of 2015, El Pollo Loco abandoned its highly
popular value-priced menu, which was a key factor that drove
customer traffic to the company's restaurants.  The complaint
alleges that company officials closely tracked and monitored
comparable store sales on a real-time basis and knew, but
concealed from investors, that traffic at El Pollo Loco
restaurants was significantly declining.  In addition, within days
of the misleading statements and omissions that artificially
inflated the price of the company's stock, several top El Pollo
Loco executives suspiciously sold over six million shares of El
Pollo Loco common stock for proceeds of more than $132 million.
These company insiders allegedly knew that customer traffic was
rapidly deteriorating and that the company's 3-5% comparable sales
growth guidance was not achievable.  On August 13, 2015, the
company announced store sales growth for the second quarter of
2015 was 50% lower than the 3-5% growth that company officials had
led the market to expect.  On this news, El Pollo Loco stock fell
20% to close at $14.56 per share on August 14, 2015, the lowest
closing price since the company's initial public offering on July
14, 2014.

El Pollo Loco Shareholders Have Legal Options

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their
rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Darnell R.
Donahue at (800) 350-6003, DDonahue@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the
shareholder information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP is a nationally recognized leader in
shareholder rights law.  The firm represents individual and
institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities
class action lawsuits.


ELECTRO RENT: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, on July 12 disclosed that on
June 20, 2016, a class action was commenced on behalf of all
holders of Electro Rent Corporation ("Electro Rent" or the
"Company") common shares in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California relating to the proposed
acquisition by an affiliate of Platinum Equity, LLC ("Platinum")
(the "Proposed Transaction").

The complaint charges Electro Rent and the Board of Directors of
Electro Rent (the "Board"), with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 ("1934 Act") and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder ("Rule 14a-9").  If you are an Electro Rent common
shareholder and wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the
Court no later than 60 days from July 12, 2016.  If you wish to
discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice
or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Jason Brodsky or Evan Smith of Brodsky & Smith, LLC at (877)
LEGAL-90 or via e-mail at investorrelations@brodsky-smith.com.
For additional information you may also visit http://brodsky-
smith.com/1082-elrc-electro-rent-corporation.html. Any member of
the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.

Electro Rent rents, leases, and sells new and used electronic test
and measurement ("T&M") equipment primarily for use in the
aerospace and defense, telecommunications, electronics,
industrial, and semiconductor markets.  The Company operates
through two segments, T&M and data products. Its equipment
portfolio includes general purpose T&M instruments, personal
computers, workstations, tablets, and servers.

The complaint alleges that Electro Rent, the Board and Platinum
breached their duties, and/or aided and abetted such breaches, in
connection with their attempt to consummate the Proposed
Transaction pursuant to an unfair process and for an unfair price.
In addition, the complaint alleges Electro Rent and the Board
disseminated a false and misleading Proxy Statement on Schedule
14A (the "Proxy") in violation of Sec14(a) of the 1934 Act and
Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder in connection with the Proposed
Transaction.

On May 31, 2016, Electro Rent and Platinum entered into a
definitive agreement (the "Merger Agreement") that would culminate
in Platinum, through Merger Sub 1 and Merger Sub 2, acquiring all
of the outstanding shares of Electro Rent.  Under the terms of the
Merger Agreement, Electro Rent public stockholders would have
received $13.12 in cash for every share of Electro common stock
held, for an approximate aggregate value of $323.4 million.
Thereafter, on June 7, 2016, defendants caused the Proxy to be
filed with the SEC.  Plaintiff's complaint was filed on June 20,
2016.  On June 23, 2016, Electro Rent and Platinum entered into a
Restated Merger Agreement (the "Restated Merger Agreement").
Under the terms of the Restated Merger Agreement, Electro Rent
public stockholders will receive $15.50 in cash for every share of
Electro Rent common stock held.  On July 7, 2016, the Company
filed its Definitive Proxy with the SEC and disseminated it in
connection with a scheduled August 5, 2016 shareholder vote on the
Proposed Transaction.

The complaint alleges the Proxy contains a number of false and
misleading statements that are material to shareholders who are
expected to rely on the Proxy to determine whether to approve the
Proposed Transaction.  The Proxy omits a number of material facts
necessary to make statements made therein not false and
misleading, including the events leading to the Merger Agreement,
the analyses conducted by the Board's financial advisor, and
Electro Rent's prospective financial information.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive and equitable relief on behalf of all
Electro Rent shareholders.  The plaintiff is represented by
Brodsky & Smith, LLC, which has litigated hundreds of stockholder
class and derivative actions for violations of corporate and
fiduciary duties.

Please visit http://brodsky-smith.com/1082-elrc-electro-rent-
corporation.html for more information.


ENCOMPASS INDEMNITY: Untimely Removal Remands "D'itri" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DENNIS D'ITRI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ENCOMPASS
INDEMNITY COMPANY Defendant, Case No. 4:16CV0346 (N.D. Ohio),
District Judge Benita Y. Pearson favored Plaintiff's Motion for
Remand over Petition for Removal in an action seeking damages for
loss of the structure and contents arising from a residential fire
on Plaintiff's property. For a removal to be timely, a petition
must be filed within 30 days after receipt through service or
otherwise of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the
claim for relief.

The court stated that the 30-day clock runs from the point at
which a defendant has solid and unambiguous knowledge that the
case is removable, even if that information is solely within its
own possession.

On January 13, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint that pled both
the insurance coverage for loss contents and the prior examination
under oath and the information regarding their losses that had
been provided to Defendant almost two months earlier. Defendant
has unambiguous knowledge that the amount-in-controversy exceeds
$75,000. Therefore, the thirty-day window for removal began on
January 13, 2016 and ended February 12, 2016. Defendant filed its
petition for removal on February 15, 2016. Because Defendant's
petition for removal was untimely, the court remanded the case.

A copy of the decision dated July 1, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/onWJwcfrom Leagle.com.

Encompass Indemnity Company, Defendant, represented by David
Cooper Comstock, Jr., Bonezzi, Switzer, Polito & Hupp.


ENSIGN INC: Status Conference Continued on Aug. 15
--------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston continued the status
conference in the case STEPHEN HALE and O'BRIAN RANGEL
Individually, on Behalf of Themselves, and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. ENSIGN UNITED STATES DRILLING
(CALIFORNIA) INC. and ENSIGN UNITED STATES DRILLING, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-01042-JLT (E.D. Cal.), from July 7,
2016 to August 15, 2016, and vacated all related deadlines
pursuant to the parties' stipulation. The parties are ordered to
file a joint status report at least once a week before the status
conference.

The case involves a putative class action alleging violations of
the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and
California Labor Code.

The court-issued Scheduling Order dated April 18, 2016, indicates
that the case is set for another status conference on January 13,
2017.

A copy of the court's order dated June 30, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/az2gvkfrom Leagle.com.

Ensign United States Drilling (California) Inc., et al.,
Defendants, represented by David J Cooper -- dcooper@kleinlaw.com
-- Klein, Denatale, Goldner, Cooper, Rosenlieb & Kimball, LLP &
Olivia Vanessa Franco Chavez -- vchavez@kleinlaw.com -- Klein
DeNatale Goldner LLP.


FCA US: Plaintiff Must Be Present at Vehicle Inspection
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID FALTERMEIER, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FCA US LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 4:15-cv-00491-DGK (W.D. Mo.), Chief District Judge Greg
Kays found the possibility of engine code or bumper alteration
sufficient to qualify the inspection of vehicle as destructive,
which means Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel shall be allowed to
be present at the July 13, 2016, vehicle inspection.

The case is a putative class action arising from alleged
violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act,
particularly on the Defendant's misrepresentations during a
vehicle safety recall that have caused Plaintiff and all other
consumers who have purchased the recalled vehicles since June 4,
2013, an ascertainable financial loss.

A copy of the court's order dated July 5, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/PMWL5Gfrom Leagle.com.

FCA US LLC, Defendant, represented by Kathy Ann Wisniewski --
kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP, Scott
Harston Morgan -- smorgan@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn
LLP, Sharon B. Rosenberg, Thompson Coburn LLP & Stephen A. D'Aunoy
-- sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP.


FCA US: Grimstad et al. Seek Certification of 3 Classes
-------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs move the court for class certification in the class
action lawsuit styled LYNN GRIMSTAD, an individual, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, and MARA MANUEL, an individual,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
FCA US, LLC, a Michigan Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-
300,000 inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-00763-JVS-E
(C.D. Cal., July 2, 2016).

The Plaintiffs seek to certify a Statewide Class, a Nationwide
Class, and an Injunctive Class, to certify Plaintiffs Lynn
Grimstad, Mara Manuel, and proposed Plaintiff Jeanette Wickstrom
as Class Representatives, and to certify Victoria Orafa and A.O.E.
Law & Associates as Class Counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony O. Egbase, Esq.
          Victoria T. Orafa, Esq.
          A.O.E. LAW & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          350 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 189
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 620 7070
          Facsimile: (213) 620 1200


FEI CO: Investigates Potential Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law
firm focused on representing shareholders nationwide, is
investigating potential breach of fiduciary duty claims against
the Board of Directors of FEI Company ("FEI" or the "Company")
relating to the sale of the Company to Thermo Fisher Scientific
Inc. ("Thermo Fisher").  On May 26, 2016, the two companies
announced the signing of a definitive merger agreement pursuant to
which Thermo Fisher will acquire FEI in a merger worth
approximately $4.2 billion.  As a result of the merger,
shareholders are only anticipated to receive $107.50 per share in
cash.

Andrews & Springer's investigation focuses on the inadequate
consideration that FEI's shareholders are expected to receive.
Wall Street analysts set a $115.00 per share price target for FEI,
which is approximately $7.50 per share more than what FEI
shareholders are expected to receive.  Our firm is also exploring
whether FEI's top executives were conflicted and acted in their
own self-interest when approving the merger.  According to a
report by The Oregonian, the FEI - Thermo Fisher merger "will
trigger big pay packages for FEI's top executives, . . . . Chief
executive Don Kania will reap nearly $25 million from the deal."
The article also reported that FEI will pay their executives "250
percent of their bonuses."

If you own shares of FEI and want to receive additional
information and protect your investments free of charge, please
visit us at http://www.andrewsspringer.com/cases-
investigations/fei-company-class-action-investigation or contact
Craig J. Springer, Esq. at cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call
toll free at 1-800-423-6013.

Andrews & Springer -- http://www.andrewsspringer.com-- is a
boutique securities class action law firm representing
shareholders nationwide who are victims of securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duty or corporate misconduct.


FLINT, MI: Water Crisis Prompts Extra Lead Tests in Philadelphia
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Delaney, writing for The Huffington Post, reports that
Philadelphia announced July 8 that it will conduct new tests for
lead in the city's water, apparently in response to activists'
cries that the city wasn't doing enough to assure residents their
taps are safe.

The city's water department said it will collect samples this
summer from at least 50 homes classified as having the highest
water lead risks.  Previously, the city had not planned to do any
lead testing this year.  Like many big water systems with a
history of meeting federal standards, Philadelphia only has to
look for lead every three years.

Though the department said it's making the changes because it
received updated guidance from the state, the announcement seems
designed to ease activist pressure.

This summer, for instance, a small band of Philadelphians calling
themselves the Philly Unleaded Project plan to independently
verify the city's assurances.

"It came to our attention because of all the stuff that was
happening in Flint," Philly Unleaded's Tony Spagnoli told
HuffPost.  "That was a really big wake-up call."

Mr. Spagnoli, a 33-year-old urban planner, said he welcomes the
city's water department's newly announced testing regimen, but
he's not going to call off his independent testing effort.  He
said he and his team of volunteers hope to get some 400
Philadelphia residents to fill liter bottles from their kitchen
sinks this summer.  Then they'll send the samples to Virginia
Tech's lab for analysis by civil engineer Marc Edwards.

Why Edwards? Because last summer, Mr. Edwards oversaw a similar
independent sampling effort in Flint, Michigan, leading him to
warn residents not to drink the water because it was tainted with
lead, a brain-damaging metal used for water pipes in many American
cities.  The Michigan government pooh-poohed Edwards' warnings,
but subsequent testing of Flint kids' blood proved him right:
There was lead in the water.

Mr. Edwards is not directing the sampling effort in Philadelphia.
And just because the activists want to test the water doesn't mean
it's unsafe -- just that the city hasn't done enough to assure
them it isn't.

Flint's water became brown and funky after the state changed the
city's water source, something very unusual for a water system to
do.  It was obvious to Flint residents that their water was weird,
but the real problem was lead, which is colorless and tasteless.
The only way to detect lead in water is by sending the water to a
lab.

Federal regulations require big cities to test for lead in water
samples from people's homes.  At least half of those homes are
supposed to be connected to water mains via lead service lines, so
the sampling pool can give a picture of how bad the lead
contamination might be in water from the riskiest possible
faucets.  But despite an abundance of such homes in the
Philadelphia, fewer than half of the city's 134 samples taken in
2014 came from high-risk addresses.

The city's sampling that year showed 90 percent of homes had less
than 5 parts per billion of lead in their water, well below the 15
parts per billion threshold set by the Environmental Protection
Agency.  What Mr. Spagnoli wants to know is, what would the
numbers be if the city sampled at more sites with lead pipes? Now,
the city plans to find out the answer.

Avoiding the highest-risk homes is a tactic that actually resulted
in criminal charges in Flint.  In May, the Michigan attorney
general charged two former state officials with several crimes,
including a misdemeanor because they failed "to collect required
samples included in the Tier 1 category of serviced lines."

Both the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and
the federal Environmental Protection Agency had given their
blessing to Philadelphia's testing procedures, but in June some
Philadelphia residents filed a class-action lawsuit.  Among other
things, the suit alleges that the city's sampling methods are
"diluting its testing pool and skewing the results in such a way
as to paint a woefully inaccurate picture of the City's overall
lead contamination."  The case also complains that the city's
instructions for taking samples aren't ideal for catching the most
lead.

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, which
oversees city water systems throughout the state, recently cited
two other Pennsylvania towns for failing to collect samples from
the riskiest homes.  HuffPost asked the agency why Warwick
Township and Lititz Borough received citations for avoiding lead
pipe samples, but Philadelphia hasn't.

"There is no one-size-fits all approach to resolving violations,
and enforcement actions are taken according to the nature and
severity of the violation," spokesman Neil Shader said in an
email, noting the agency doesn't comment on possible future
enforcement actions.

Activists applauded Philadelphia's announcement about the new
testing.

"This change is very welcome, and also we must keep in mind it is
the result of painstaking work by ordinary people who have taken
it upon themselves to do oversight," said Yanna Lambrinidou, a
water expert and affiliate faculty member at Virginia Tech.

Ms. Lambrinidou is part of a group of activists and experts that
has been pushing the EPA to crack down on Philadelphia.
(Lambrinidou said she's given informal advice to Philly Unleaded,
though she and Mr. Edwards aren't overseeing Mr. Spagnoli's
testing drive.)

If Philadelphia was not complying with the Safe Drinking Water
Act, it wouldn't make the city that unusual -- the Natural
Resources Defense Council, an environmental nonprofit, reported
that more than 5,000 community water systems broke the rules last
year, and only 5.7 percent were officially sanctioned by state or
federal regulators.  Even Flint's water got a pass under the
regulation, at least until the EPA issued an emergency order in
January, almost a year after serious problems came to light.

The city of Philadelphia has insisted all year that its water is
safe to drink because it meets federal standards.  In a statement
on July 8, Water Commissioner Debra McCarty said the agency
"strives to go above and beyond for its customers every day."

But Gary Burlingame, the director of laboratory services for the
Philadelphia Water Department, told HuffPost in April that the
Flint crisis may have been a bit overblown, and that it's not
clear that drinking water can pose a serious risk of lead
exposure.

"What we don't have from Flint is a peer-reviewed published study
to look at the science of Flint," Mr. Burlingame said then.  "All
we have is what the news media's reporting and some of the policy
and management issues."

The blood lead research that forced the government to admit
Flint's water was dangerous actually had been peer-reviewed at the
time of Mr. Burlingame's statement.  In June, the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention essentially confirmed those
findings in a new paper.

"Published peer-reviewed papers help put the pieces together, so
the nation can understand and apply that understanding,"
Burlingame said in an emailed statement for this story.  "This
paper provides an important step in that understanding.  We will
carefully study this paper -- and others that we expect have yet
to be published -- involving the science behind Flint's
unfortunate events."


FLORIDA: Judge Adopts Findings in "Lopez" Suit
----------------------------------------------
District Judge Sheri Polster Chappell adopted the Report and
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mac. R. McCoy in the case,
MABEL LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. MIKE SCOTT, Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-
303-FtM-38MRM (M.D. Fla.).

The Report and Recommendation incorporates these findings: (1)
Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Class Action Allegations
is denied; (2) Defendant's Motion to Strike Notices of Consent to
Joinder is granted; (3) The Clerk shall strike the Notices of
Consent to Join; (4) Plaintiff's Motion to Excuse Missed Deadline
is granted; and (5) Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Class
Certification and to Permit Notification Be Sent to Putative Class
Members is accepted as timely filed.

A copy of the court's decision dated July 1, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/RptCP9from Leagle.com.

Mike Scott, Defendant, represented by Robert C. Shearman --
Robert.shearman@henlaw.com -- Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt,
PA & Scott A. Beatty -- scott.beatty@henlaw.com -- Henderson,
Franklin, Starnes & Holt, PA.


FLORIDA: Hillsborough County Woman Files Suit Over Tampon Tax
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Galka, writing for WJXT News4Jax, reports that things like
band-Aids, lip balms and cough drops are tax-exempt, and women
around the state are asking for the same treatment for feminine
products that they say are necessary to live healthy lives.

A Hillsborough County woman has filed a lawsuit seeking to abolish
Florida's so-called tampon tax.

"Female sanitary products, tampons, pads, stuff like that, used
almost exclusively for women, are taxed, and have been taxed, and
so we feel like that is discriminatory on its face.  It obviously
affects women disproportionately," said Dana Brooks, a Tallahassee
lawyer who is representing the plaintiff.

Three state agencies are named in the suit, as well as Walmart,
Walgreens, Target, Publix and CVS.

Barbara DeVane of the National Organization for Women supports the
lawsuit.  She said it's absurd that tampons are being taxed and
other products aren't.

"If you can exempt bunion pads, why not menstrual pads? Petroleum
jelly, wart removers and, for heaven's sake, ostrich feed,"
Ms. DeVane said.  "There are more women than ostriches in the
state of Florida."

"It's a public hygiene and safety issue that is being
disproportionately.  These costs are being taken on by women," Ms.
Brooks said.

The class-action suit is seeking money for women who have bought
the products in the past three years.

The attorney in the lawsuit said she hopes the Legislature will
act and repeal the tax.  The New York state Legislature recently
repealed a tax on feminine hygiene products, and California has a
similar lawsuit pending.


FUTURE INCOME: Faces Class Action Over Alleged TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that a Ventura consumer has filed a class-action lawsuit against a
company over its calls to her to allegedly solicit its pension
services.

Annette Grind filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on July 8 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against Future Income Payments LLC and Does
1-20 alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that starting in
July 2015, she was contacted on her mobile phone by the defendant
and was charged for those calls.  The plaintiff holds Future
Income Payments LLC and Does 1-20 responsible because the
defendant allegedly called plaintiff to solicit its services using
a pre-recorded voice without her consent and continued to call
despite her requests to stop.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks $500 in statutory
damages for each and every violation, $1,500 as treble damages for
each and every violation, and any other relief as the court deems
just.  She is represented by Todd M. Friedman and Adrian R. Bacon
of Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC in Beverly Hills.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case
number 2:16-cv-05009-RSWL-AFM


GENERAL MOTORS: Owners of Recalled Cars Can Sue for Loss of Value
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge has ruled that
owners of General Motors cars recalled for defective ignition
switches can sue the company for any loss in the cars' value.  But
the judge threw out broader loss-of-value claims from owners of GM
cars that weren't recalled.

Judge Jesse Furman in New York issued the ruling on July 15 on a
motion from General Motors to dismiss the claims.  He wrote in a
103-page opinion that the ruling "significantly curtails" the size
of the plaintiffs' potential recovery.

Seattle attorney Steve Berman says the split decision still allows
owners of at least 11 million to 12 million cars that had
defective ignition switches to sue the automaker.  But Judge
Furman's opinion said the argument that all GM cars lost value
because of the recalls was unsound.

GM spokesman Jim Cain said decision was a big win for the company
because the judge tossed out the broader claims that a series of
recalls in 2014 damaged the company's reputation and devalued all
GM cars.  Had the plaintiffs won on the reputation claim, it would
have exposed the company to many more lawsuits and could have
placed any manufacturing company with a recall at risk of
lawsuits, Mr. Cain said.

Yet to be decided are loss-of-value claims for cars involved in
other GM recalls.

In 2014, GM issued over 60 recalls covering more than 25 million
vehicles.  The embarrassing recalls included 2.6 million small
cars such as the Chevrolet Cobalt for ignition switches that could
slip out of the run position and cause cars to unexpectedly stall.
That would knock out power steering and brakes, causing crashes.
The air bags also were disabled.  The ignition switches are linked
to at least 124 deaths and 275 injuries.

Mr. Cain said other ignition switch recalls weren't as serious and
were fixed with changes to keys, so loss of value claims will be
hard to prove.

Mr. Berman, the lead attorney for economic loss plaintiffs, says
he plans to appeal the ruling on the broader loss-of-value claims.


GREGORY TURZA: Ruling May Hit Plaintiffs Attorneys' Legal Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Claire Bushey, writing for Chicago Business, reports that a
decision by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals could cut an
expected $1.4 million in attorneys fees for a class-action lawsuit
filed by accountants.

The July 8 ruling keeps to a broader trend to check compensation
for plaintiffs' attorneys by paying them based on how many clients
claim part of a class-action settlement or judgment, rather than
simply a percentage of the total pot.

The case began almost a decade ago, when Northbrook certified
public accountant Ira Holtzman filed a class-action lawsuit
against Skokie lawyer Gregory Turza for sending biweekly faxes to
advertise his services.  In 2013, Mr. Holtzman's lawyers, Anderson
& Wanca in Rolling Meadows and Bock & Hatch in Chicago, won a $4.2
million judgment for the class when a judge determined Mr. Turza
had violated the 1991 Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Lawyers for plaintiffs who file class-action lawsuits typically
work on a contingent basis, financing the case in exchange for a
third of any recovered funds.  But Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote
that Mr. Holtzman's lawyers can only be paid based on the number
of accountants who step forward to claim their portion of the
judgment -- $500 per fax, of which $167 goes to the attorneys.

"If a given recipient cannot be located, or spurns the money,
counsel are not entitled to be paid for that fax," he wrote.

Attorney James Smith declined to comment. Attorney Brian Wanca
could not be reached for comment.

Jay Edelson, a Chicago attorney who specializes in bringing class-
action lawsuits against technology companies, said the move shows
courts' increased scrutiny on how lawyers are paid in class-action
lawsuits.

"There's been a real shift over the past five years," he said.
"You have to look at what the actual claims rates are and how much
money is going to the class, and that's how class counsel ought to
be paid."

Mr. Holtzman's law firms still will collect $1.4 million in fees
if every eligible member of the class collects on his or her
claim.  To find class members, plaintiffs and defendants will hire
one of several companies specializing in claims administration,
such as Kurtzman Carson Consultants in
El Segundo, Calif., or Epiq Systems in Kansas City.


GRUBHUB: Food Delivery Drivers File Class Action in Chicago
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County record, reports that a
group of app-dispatched food delivery drivers have served Chicago-
based GrubHub with a class action, saying the company has wrongly
classified them as contractors, when they should qualify as
employees under the law.

Six people who have worked for GrubHub took aim June 28 in Chicago
federal court against the web-based food delivery coordinator,
arguing their classification as independent contractors violated
state and federal labor and wage laws.

Named plaintiffs included Thomas Souran and Kelly Reardon, of
Chicago; Roy Wilkie, of Portland, Ore.; Carmen Gonzalez, of
Glenolden, Pa.; Louis Ramzy, of Brooklyn, N.Y.; and Adam Smith, of
Bridgeport, Conn. Collectively, the plaintiffs worked as GrubHub
drivers from November 2014 to the present, primarily in 2015.  All
the drivers alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
while individual drivers also alleged violation of their home
state minimum wage and hour laws.

A separate class action alleging employee misclassification is
pending in federal court in California; anyone covered in that
complaint would be excluded from the class in the Chicago action.
GrubHub drivers from any state other than California would be
allowed to opt in to the Chicago complaint, the lawsuit said.

In their lawsuit, the Chicago plaintiffs contended "GrubHub
directs drivers' work in detail, instructing drivers where to
report for their shifts, how to dress and where to go to pick up
or await deliveries.  Drivers are required to follow requirements
imposed on them by GrubHub regarding handling of the food and
timeliness of the deliveries.  GrubHub retains the right to
terminate the drivers at will."

Further, "the driver's services are fully integrated into
GrubHub's business, and without the drivers, GrubHub's business
would not exist."

According to the complaint, GrubHub drivers work on scheduled
shifts in blocks of time.  They must stay within an assigned area
and remain ready to take assignments.  Drivers earn a flat fee for
each delivery plus tips.  The complaint acknowledged that,
"GrubHub at times pays minimum wages."

The drivers said they typically get two to four jobs per hour, and
that such assignments can take from 30 to 90 minutes.  Because
they can be fired for failing to accept a percentage of
assignments, drivers "must accept as many" as possible.  And
because they must stay close enough to their car to anticipate new
assignments and tight deadlines, "drivers are working throughout
their entire shifts and this time is all compensable under federal
and state wage standards."

Each driver argued they were entitled to overtime pay based on an
amount of hours worked per week or day.  They also contended
GrubHub's policy of making drivers bear the expense of fuel, car
maintenance and cellphone data further drops weekly compensation
below established wage minimums.

In addition to class certification and a finding that GrubHub
violated the federal and state laws, the plaintiffs also asked the
court to award compensatory damages, including back pay, plus
liquidated damages and any statutory and regulatory damages, legal
fees and injunctive relief forcing GrubHub to comply with relevant
wage laws.

Representing the named plaintiffs, and the putative class of
additional plaintiffs were attorneys James B. Zouras and Ryan
Stephan, of Stephan Zouras, of Chicago; and Shannon Liss-Riordan
and Thomas Fowler, of Lichten & Liss-Riordan, of Boston, as well
as Matthew D. Carlson -- mcarlson@llrlaw.com -- of the Lichten
firm's San Francisco office.


GULF COAST: "Francois" Suit Seeks Certification of Florida Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit styled ESTIME FRANCOIS
and RENETTE ORDEUS, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. GULF COAST TRANSPORTATION,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-01061-SCB-TBM (M.D. Fla.,
July 2, 2016), request entry of an Order permitting under
supervision of the Court notice to all putative class members
affected by the claims in the instant action, and conditionally
certify:

     "a Florida class of current and former taxicab drivers who
      worked for Defendant during the three years prior to the
      filing of Plaintiffs' Complaint who were not paid minimum
      wage compensation for their hours worked each week."

The Defendant allegedly did not pay Plaintiffs a minimum wage for
hours worked. To avoid their obligation to pay minimum wage under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Defendants misclassified
Plaintiffs as independent contractors. However, due to the nature
of Defendants' business and the Plaintiffs' job duties, the
Plaintiffs are employees subject to the FLSA minimum wage
requirements. Thus, they were entitled to minimum wage for all
hours worked, for which Defendants are now liable.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=sRRehN3A

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          LUIS A. CABASSA, Esq.
          BRANDON J. HILL, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, Esq.
          1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224 0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229 8712
          E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  twells@wfclaw.com
                  bhill@wfclaw.com
                  jriley@wfclaw.com


HALYARD HEALTH: Aug. 29 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on July 12
disclosed that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed
against Halyard Health, Inc. ("Halyard" or the "Company") and
Kimberly-Clark Corporation ("Kimberly-Clark") on behalf of
investors who (i) purchased or otherwise acquired Kimberly-Clark
securities on or after February 25, 2013 and received Halyard
securities in connection with Kimberly-Clark's spin-off of Halyard
in October 2014 and/or (ii) purchased or otherwise acquired
Halyard securities between October 21, 2014 and April 29, 2016,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

Shareholders who purchased or acquired Halyard securities during
the Class Period may, no later than August 29, 2016, petition the
Court to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the
class.  For additional information please visit
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/halyard-health-inc#join

Investors who wish to discuss this action and their legal options
are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
(Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne O.
Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or at info@ktmc.com.

Halyard provides health and healthcare supplies and solutions
worldwide.  Prior to October 2014, Halyard was the Health Care
operating segment of Kimberly-Clark, a manufacturer of personal
care, consumer tissue, and professional products.  In October
2014, Halyard was spun out of Kimberly-Clark, with Kimberly-Clark
shareholders receiving one share of Halyard stock for every eight
shares of Kimberly-Clark stock they owned as of October 23, 2014.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period the
defendants made materially false and misleading statements about
Halyard's business, operations and compliance policies.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
Halyard's MICROCOOL surgical gowns consistently failed
effectiveness tests and failed to meet industry standards; (ii)
Kimberly-Clark and Halyard knowingly provided defective MICROCOOL
surgical gowns to U.S. workers during the Ebola crisis; and (iii)
as a result of the foregoing, the defendants' public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

According to the complaint, on May 1, 2016, 60 Minutes reported
that Kimberly-Clark and Halyard knowingly provided defective
surgical gowns to U.S. workers at the height of the Ebola crisis.
As reported, a Halyard insider claimed that although Halyard's
MICROCOOL surgical gowns were prone to leaks and did not
consistently meet the industry safety standards for the treatment
of Ebola, Kimberly-Clark and Halyard nonetheless "aggressively"
marketed the MICROCOOL gowns to hospitals during the Ebola
epidemic.

Following this news, shares of Halyard's stock declined $1.21 per
share, or 4.3%, to close on May 2, 2016 at $26.95 per share, on
heavy trading volume.

Halyard shareholders may, no later than August 29, 2016, petition
the Court to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel,
or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.  A
lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all
class members in directing the litigation.  In order to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class in the action.  Your ability to share in any recovery is not
affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead
plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check -- http://www.ktmc.com-- prosecutes
class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate
governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf
of institutional and individual investors from the United States
and around the world.  The firm represents investors, consumers
and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent
practices against the government and share in the recovery of
government dollars).  The complaint in this action was not filed
by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check.


HARBOR FREIGHT: Sued Over Fictitious Discount Price Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Salls, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that fictitious
pricing lawsuits, like the one filed recently against Harbor
Freight Tools USA by a class of customers "appear to be trending,"
according to TruthinAdvertising.org executive director Bonnie
Patten.

"As of June 2016, TINA.org is tracking 61 federal class-action
lawsuits involving fraudulent discount pricing claims involving 43
different retailers," Ms. Patten told Legal Newsline.  "Of these
cases, 25 were filed in 2015; and in the first six months of 2016,
nearly the same number of cases (24) have been filed."

The class action suit filed against Harbor Freight on May 20 by
Ted Shimono and other similarly situated plaintiffs in U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California alleges that
the company is deceiving its customers by advertising sale prices
that are based on fictitious regular prices for the items in
question.  The lawsuit alleges that Harbor Freight is, as a
result, selling low-quality products at artificially inflated
prices.

According to the lawsuit, Harbor Freight advertised tools,
equipment, accessories and other products through a "deceptive and
misleading pricing campaign" at the point of purchase and through
mailed and distributed flyers, catalogs, circulars, in-store
displays, web pages, emailed offers and print advertisements.

"In many of (Harbor Freight's) retail outlets, the fictitious
discount price scheme is prominently displayed throughout the
store, advertising supposed deep discounts on essentially every
single item of inventory sold in the store," the lawsuit said.

The plaintiffs also said there is no comparable price for many of
the products sold by Harbor Freight, which sells name-brand and
house-brand merchandise, other than prices the company itself set.

The lawsuit claims Harbor Freight's advertising practices
constitute deceit by suppression of facts and violate the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the state's Unfair
Competition Law and its False Advertising Law.

Harbor Freight did not respond to requests for comment on the
lawsuit.

While the majority of cases that TINA.org is presently tracking
are pending or on appeal, Ms. Patten said many of these pending
class actions are facing motions to dismiss.

"Based on current TINA.org statistics from similar fictitious
pricing cases, it appears likely that the biggest challenge for
plaintiffs in the Harbor Freight Tools USA case will be defeating
a motion to dismiss, which inevitably will be filed by the
defendant," Ms. Patten said.

Ms. Patten said fictitious pricing exploits consumers' desire to
obtain a bargain, and means that consumers may pay more for a good
or service than they may have if they continued to seek a lower
price on the same merchandise.  Ms. Patten said the court does not
always agree, however.

"Many deceptive pricing complaints are successfully challenged by
retailers as not providing the factual specificity necessary to
state a claim, including detailing the consumers' economic harm,"
Ms. Patten said.

As an example, Ms. Patten cited a recent case against Kohl's
Department Stores, which is currently on appeal, in which a
Massachusetts federal court granted the company's motion to
dismiss because "(the) fact that plaintiff may have been
manipulated into purchasing items because she believed she was
getting a bargain does not necessarily mean she suffered economic
harm."


HARBOUR RESTAURANT: Sutherland Seeks Certification of Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff moves the Court for an Order certifying collective
action and authorizing notice to all class members pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, in the class action lawsuit captioned
JEREMIAH SUTHERLAND, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. HARBOUR RESTAURANT PARTNERS, LLC,
d/b/a Makoto, a foreign limited liability company, STARR
RESTAURANT ORGANIZATION, LP, a foreign limited partnership, STARR
RESTAURANT ORGANIZATION GP, LLC, a foreign limited liability
company, and STEPHEN STARR, an individual, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-21400-MGC (S.D. Fla., July 2, 2016).

The Plaintiff defined the Class as:

     "All persons who worked for Defendants as servers during the
      three years preceding this lawsuit, were paid as tipped
      employees below the Florida minimum wage and were forced to
      share or kick-back a portion of their tips to non-tipped
      employees and were not properly compensated for all hours
      worked."

The Defendants employed servers to perform duties including the
sale and ordering of guest food and beverage orders, the serving
of the food and beverages ordered, the opening of bottled wine for
guests, and other duties as needed. Each of these servers was paid
a reduced minimum wage plus tips. The Defendants forced each of
them to share their tips with nonservice bartenders. The
Defendants suffered or permitted each of them to work without
being compensated for their work.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=04AvhPqz

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert W. Brock II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN
          17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358 6800
          Facsimile: (305) 358 6808
          E-mail: robert@kuvinlaw.com
                  legal@kuvinlaw.com


HILLSTONE RESTAURANT: Court Granted Settlement in "Bradescu" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MAIA BRADESCU, STEVEN LUMINELLI, and VANESSA TAMAYO,
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES
1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. SACV 13-1289-GW(RZx), (C.D.
Calif.), District Judge George H. Wu granted final approval to the
parties' Class Action Settlement and the Class Counsel's Motion
for Attorney's Fees and Costs and the Class Representatives'
Incentive Payments.

The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of action, the
Class Representatives, Defendant Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc.,
and all members of the California Settlement Class and the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Settlement Class, which are defined as
follows:

     -- California Settlement Class: All current and former non-
exempt employees of Hillstone who performed work in California in
any Covered Positions (Covered Positions means any non-culinary
position, including, but not limited to, Bartender, Service Bar,
Bar Check, Service Bartender, Night Service Bar, Server, Greeter,
Service Assistant, Night Checkout, Cocktail, Restaurant Other,
Rover, Flying Chicken, Cart Driver, Cleaning R & M, Hourly
Manager, and/or Dining Room Key Employee), between April 5, 2011
through February 23, 2016.

     -- FLSA Settlement Class: All current and former non-exempt
employees of Hillstone employed throughout the United States
(excluding California) who worked in any Covered Positions
(Covered Positions means any non-culinary position, including, but
not limited to, Bartender, Service Bar, Bar Check, Service
Bartender, Night Service Bar, Server, Greeter, Service Assistant,
Night Checkout, Cocktail, Restaurant Other, Rover, Flying Chicken,
Cart Driver, Cleaning R & M, Hourly Manager, and/or Dining Room
Key Employee), between August 22, 2010 through February 23, 2016.

Class Counsel is awarded $233,100 for attorney's fees, and the
amount of $38,911.31 for costs. The Court also approves the
Incentive Payments to Class Representative Bradescu in the amount
of $5,000, to Class Representative Tamayo in the amount of $2,000,
and to Class Representative Luminelli in the amount of $2,000, to
reimburse the Class Representatives for their valuable services in
initiating and maintaining this litigation and the benefits
conferred onto the Settlement Class and Defendant's current and
future employees as a result of the Action.

The Court approves the payment of settlement administration costs
in the amount of $39,000 to ILYM Group, Inc., the Claims
Administrator, for services rendered in the case.

A copy of the court's Final Approval Order and Judgment dated July
8, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/cKOH4Bfrom Leagle.com.

Hillstone Restaurant Group Inc, Defendant, represented by Greg S.
Labate -- glabate@shepparmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and
Hampton LLP, Matthew Martin Sonne -- msonne@sheppardmullin.com --
Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP & Lisa Maria Harris --
lmharris@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton
LLP.


HOGAN TRANSPORTS: Fairfax Seeks Certification of Collective Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Don Fairfax in the class action lawsuit styled DON FAIRFAX,
et. al., Plaintiffs, v. HOGAN TRANSPORTS, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00680-GCS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), asks the Court to
grant conditional certification of a collective class, expedited
discovery, and issuance of notice.

The collective class consists of all of Defendant's current and
former Fleet Managers during the three years before this Complaint
was filed up to the present.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rMU3IHnI

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven C. Babin, Jr., Esq.
          Lance Chapin, Esq.
          CHAPIN LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          580 South High Street, Suite 330
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 221 9100
          Facsimile: (614) 221 9272
          E-mail: sbabin@chapinlegal.com


HOME DEPOT: Aug. 4 Hearing on Bid to Transfer Venue of "Henry"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL HENRY, Plaintiff, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC,
Defendant, Case No. 14-cv-04858-JST (N.D. Calif.), District Judge
Jon S. Tigar extended parties' submission of modified proposed
forms of notice and notice plans on September 9, 2016 due to the
pending motion to transfer venue of the action set for trial on
August 4, 2016.

A deferred submission of notice and notice plan promotes
efficiency and eliminate the risk of conflicting decisions.

The Court adopted the following Additional deadlines from the
parties' May 26, 2016 Joint Case Management Statement:

     -- Event Deadline 30 days after Deadline for defendant to
provide mailing addresses and email approval of class addresses
for putative class members to the administrator notice 45 days
after Deadline for class notice to be mailed to class members
approval of class notice 60 days after mailing Deadline for class
members to opt out of class notice Dispositive motion filing date
January 13, 2017 Discovery cut-off March 1, 2017 Pretrial
statement April 4, 2017 April 14, 2017 at Pretrial conference 2:00
p.m. May 8, 2017 at 8:30 Trial a.m. Length of trial (in days)
Eight

Trial dates set by the Court are regarded as firm disfavoring any
further requests for continuance.

A copy of the Court's decision dated July 5, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/VJBUizfrom Leagle.com.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc, Defendant, represented by Donna Marie
Mezias -- dmezias@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
LLP, Joel M. Cohn -- jcohn@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer
& Feld LLP, pro hac vice & Liz Kathryn Bertko --
lbertko@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP.


HOME DEPOT: Oct. 27 Case Management Conference Set in "Coffen"
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered that a Case Management
Conference shall be held on October 27, 2016 in the case ELLEN
COFFEN, Plaintiff, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A. INC., Defendant, Case No.
16-cv-03302-PJH (N.D. Calif.). A copy of the court's July 8, 2016
order is available at http://goo.gl/j0wVQUfrom Leagle.com.

As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), lead counsel shall meet and
confer prior to the Case Management Conference with respect to
those subjects set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 16). Not less than
seven days before the conference, counsel shall file a joint case
management statement addressing each of the items listed in the
"Standing Order For All Judges of the Northern District --
Contents of Joint Case Management statement," which is attached in
the order and can also be found on the court's website. A proposed
order is not necessary. Following the conference, the court will
enter its own Case Management and Pretrial Order. If any party is
proceeding without counsel, separate statements may be filed by
each party.

Home Depot U.S.A. Inc., Defendant, represented by Edmund T. Wang
-- ewang@kslaw.com -- King Spalding LLP.


INTERSTATE-RIM: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles employment law lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik on July 12 disclosed that it filed a class action
Complaint alleging that Interstate-RIM Management Company, LLC
failed to pay their California hourly employees the correct amount
of overtime wages and allegedly failed to provide their Golden
State workers with meal and rest periods in accordance with the
California Labor Code.  The Interstate Management Company lawsuit,
Case No. BC624979 is currently pending in the Los Angeles County
Superior Court for the State of California.

The class action lawsuit claims that Interstate Management paid
their non-exempt employees non-discretionary incentive pay based
on their performance for the company.  The Complaint further
alleges that as a matter of law the incentive pay received by
Interstate Management Company's employees should have been
included in the employees' hourly rates for the purposes of paying
them the correct overtime pay.  The class action lawsuit further
alleges that other non-exempt employees working for the company
were also not correctly paid all their overtime wages.

The Complaint also seeks penalties relating to alleged missed meal
breaks because allegedly Interstate did not have a policy to
provide their California employees thirty (30) minute
uninterrupted meal breaks prior to their fifth (5th) hour of work.

If you think your company is violating the California Labor Code
and would like to know if you qualify to make a claim, please
contact an experienced California labor lawyer on July 12 by
calling (800) 568-8020.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is an employment law firm with
offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los
Angeles, Riverside and Chicago that dedicates its practice to
helping employees, investors and consumers fight back against
unfair business practices, including violations of the California
Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act.


J.P. MORGAN: 9th Cir. Affirms Ruling in "Schramm" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed the
district court's entry of judgment in favor of JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A. in the appellate case, BARBARA L. SCHRAMM, an
individual; STEVEN L. WEINSTEIN, an individual, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., a banking corporation; CHASE HOME
FINANCE, LLC, a limited liability company, Defendants-Appellees,
No. 14-56284 (9th Cir.)

The Ninth Circuit held that Plaintiff Schramm waived her argument,
in proving that Chase's mortgage disclosures were unlawful, as it
was never clearly made before the district court. The Court
further opined that even if the argument was not waived, the
Federal Reserve Board's Staff Interpretation controls only when
the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) or Regulation Z are ambiguous,
which Schramm does not argue in the case.

A copy of the Ninth Circuit's decision dated July 12, 2016 is
available at http://goo.gl/wcqLccfrom Leagle.com.


JAKARTA WATER: Bukit Duri Class Action Postponed for Third Time
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Jakarta Post reports that a class action lawsuit brought by
residents of Bukit Duri in South Jakarta was postponed for a third
time on July 12 after the defendants failed to attend.

The defendants include Jakarta Governor Basuki "Ahok" Tjahaja
Purnama, South Jakarta Mayor Tri Kurniadi and Jakarta Water
Management Agency head Teguh Hendrawan.

The previous two hearings, on June 8 and 22, were similarly
adjourned after the defendants did not show up and the plaintiffs'
documents were deemed incomplete.

"We have decided to adjourn the hearing for one week," said
presiding judge Riyono at the Central Jakarta District Court,
adding that the hearing would be conducted on July 19.

Bukit Duri residents lawyer Vera Soemarwi said the defendants were
still undecided as to whether to accept the class action lawsuit

"The judges have asked them to decide at the next hearing," she
said.

The plaintiffs, whose houses are on the verge of being cleared to
make way for the Ciliwung River normalization project, are
represented by four local residents in the class action lawsuit.
The residents insist that the program violates the law.


JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Bronstein Probes Potential Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, is investigating potential
claims on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Juno
Therapeutics, Inc. ("Juno" or the "Company") (JUNO).  Such
investors are advised to contact Peretz Bronstein or his investor
relations analyst, Yael Hurwitz at info@bgandg.com or 212-697-
6484.

The investigation concerns whether Juno and certain of its
officers and/or directors have violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On July 7, 2016, post-market, Juno revealed during a clinical
trial for the Company's chemotherapy drug, fludarabine, three
patients had died.  Following this news, Juno stock dropped as
much as 35% in post-market trading on July 7, 2016.

If you purchased Juno shares or if you are aware of any facts
relating to this investigation, you can assist this investigation
by visiting the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/#!juno/c3onh
You can also contact Peretz Bronstein or his Investor Relations
Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC: 212-
697-6484 or via email info@bgandg.com.  Those who inquire by
e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, email and
telephone number.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Its primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of its clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.


KOSTMAYER CONSTRUCTION: Court Granted Certification of Class
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Susie Morgan entered an order in the lawsuit styled
FABIAN ESPARZA, the Plaintiff, v. KOSTMAYER CONSTRUCTION, LLC, ET
AL., the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-04644-SM-SS (E.D. La., July
2, 2016), granting Esparza's motion to conditionally certify the
case as collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Court conditionally certifies this matter as a collective
action with respect to all individuals who worked or are working
performing manual labor for Kostmayer Construction LLC during the
previous three years and who are eligible for overtime pay
pursuant to the FLSA, and who did not receive full overtime
compensation.

The Court further ordered that:

     1. Esparza file a revised notice form and a revised opt-in
        consent form in accordance with the order by July 8,
        2016.

     2. Defendants produce to Esparza a list of the names, last-
        known mailing addresses, email addresses, and dates of
        employment of all potential class members by July 15,
        2016.

     3. Class members seeking to opt in to this case will have 90
        days from the date on which the notice and consent forms
        are mailed to opt in to the lawsuit.

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


LENDINGCLUB CORPORATION: Lead Plaintiff Bid Due Aug. 15
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NICOLE WERTZ, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. RENAUD LAPLANCHE, CARRIE
DOLAN, AND LENDINGCLUB CORPORATION, Defendants, No. C 16-02670 WHA
(N.D. Cal.), District Judge William Alsup scheduled a hearing to
appoint lead plaintiff on August 15, 2016. The Court said that
lead plaintiff would be single investors with large losses and
experienced in managing litigation.

According to the court, a group of movants should narrow its
candidates to one or two single investors and file answers to the
appended questionnaire by August 1, 2016.  All opposition briefs
shall be filed and served by August 1, 2016, while any reply
briefs shall be filed and served by August 8, 2016.

Pursuant to Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), a
real investor, not a lawyer, is held in charge of any securities
class action. The PSLRA created a statutory position of
responsibility called "the lead plaintiff". Obligation of the lead
plaintiff include the following: (1) to select and propose class
counsel for court approval; (2) to assess the trial and securities
track records of the specific lawyer candidate who would perform
the actual work for the class; and (3) to evaluate competitive
proposals from various lawyers seeking the job of class counsel.

A copy of the court's July 1, 2016 decision is available at
http://goo.gl/bPJSibfrom Leagle.com.


LG: Has Prelim Deal of Suit Over Moldy Front-Loading Washers
------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Janeway, writing for ConsumerReports, reports that LG has
agreed to a preliminary settlement of a class-action lawsuit that
alleges that LG front-loading washers were prone to developing
mold, odors, or both.  About 700,000 to 800,000 washers bought in
the U.S. between 2002 and 2006 are affected, according to one of
the lawyers representing consumers.  The manufacturer denies any
wrongdoing, and the court didn't decide who's right.  Owners of
these washing machines have until October 10 to file a claim.

A similar settlement in June involved 5.6 million front-loaders
made by Whirlpool between 2001 and 2010 and sold under the brand
names Whirlpool, Kenmore, and Maytag.

LG Settlement Details

So why did LG settle? "These kinds of settlements are commonplace
-- designed to forego protracted legal proceedings," says John
Taylor, vice president of LG's public affairs and communications.
We asked Taylor if design changes that address front-loader washer
mold and odors have been made since 2006. Yes, including a magnet
that props the door open ever so slightly to allow fresh air to
circulate in the wash tub; a redesigned antimicrobial door gasket
with drain holes to help the gasket dry more quickly to keep mold
and mildew away; and a high-powered "Tub Clean" cycle that removes
detergent residue to keep odors and mildew away.  It is
recommended that consumers run this cycle every month to help keep
the washer clean and fresh. Here's what else owners need to know:

Who qualifies?
Owners of all LG front-loading washing machines bought in the U.S.
between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2006.

What are the compensation options?
If you had front-loader washer mold or mold-related odor problems
you may be compensated $35, or a $105 rebate applies if you buy an
LG front-loader within a year after the settlement receives final
approval from the court.

Why only $35?
"Each case is different, with its own strengths and weaknesses,
and its own damages model.  This is the amount agreed to by the
parties," says Jonathan Selbin, one of the lawyers representing LG
washer owners.

How do I file a claim?
Pre-qualified class members are identified in LG's database by
serial number and should receive a notice.  LG has your info if
you sent in the warranty registration card or complained to them
and received service or a replacement.  You do not have to submit
a photo of the washer's serial number or proof of purchase.  A
claim must be filed online, faxed, or postmarked no later than
October 10, 2016.  See this settlement website --
http://www.lgwashersettlement.com/-- for details.

What if I'm not in LG's database?
If you are not a pre-qualified class member, you must submit a
photo of the washer's serial number if you still own it, or proof
of purchase. See the settlement website for details or call 1-855-
856-9355 for a recorded message. You can also contact the
settlement administrator by emailing info@lgwashersettlement.com

I got rid of my LG front-loader.  Can I get the $35 refund?
Yes, if you have proof you bought it between 2002 and 2006, such
as a credit card receipt, canceled check, or proof of an extended
warranty. Or you could file for the $105 rebate if you want to buy
a new LG washer once the settlement receives final approval.

When will I receive the money?
When the court approves the settlement and there are no appeals.
The final approval hearing is on October 13 at the U.S. District
Court, District of New Jersey.

What if my machine doesn't have mold or odors but was made during
the time period covered?
You're excluded from the class and get nothing.

Unhappy with the preliminary settlement?
You can object or exclude yourself. Find the details in the
settlement FAQ section of the settlement website.


LONGWEI PETROLEUM: October 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
regarding the Longwei Petroleum Securities Litigation.

In re: LONGWEI PETROLEUM INVESTMENT HOLDING LIMITED SECURITIES
LITIGATION
This Document Relates To: All Actions
C.A. NO. 1:13-cv-00214

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO:  ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE COMMON
STOCK OF LONGWEI PETROLEUM INVESTMENT HOLDING LIMITED ("LONGWEI"),
BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 AND JANUARY 3, 2013, INCLUSIVE (THE
"CLASS PERIOD"):

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on
October 20, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. before the Honorable Richard M.
Berman at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse,
500 Pearl St., Courtroom 17B, New York, New York 10007 (the
"Fairness Hearing") for the purpose of determining: (1) whether
the proposed settlement for the sum of $1,340,000 in cash (the
"Settlement Fund"), should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the plan of allocation is
fair, reasonable and adequate; (3) whether the application of lead
counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees of up to 25% of the
Settlement Fund, reimbursement of expenses of not more than
$115,000 and awards of reasonable costs and expenses (including
lost wages) directly relating to the representation of the Class
to certain of the Class Plaintiff(s) serving on behalf of the
Class not to exceed a total of $5,000 should be approved; and (4)
whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice.  It is
estimated that the Net Settlement Fund will be approximately
$800,000.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE COMMON STOCK OF LONGWEI
BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 AND JANUARY 3, 2013, INCLUSIVE, YOUR
RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION. A
detailed Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action and Proof
of Claim and Release form can be found on the case website.
PLEASE READ AND REFER TO THE NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF
CLASS ACTION, which contains the governing terms of the proposed
settlement and serves as the definitive notice to you.  The Notice
of Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the "Settlement Notice")
contains more details about this litigation and the proposed
settlement, including what you must do to exclude yourself or "opt
out" of the settlement, object to the terms of the settlement, or
submit a proof of claim for payment pursuant to the settlement.
If you have not received a detailed Settlement Notice and a copy
of the proof of claim and release form ("Proof of Claim"), you may
obtain copies by writing to Longwei Petroleum Investment Holding
Limited Securities Litigation, c/o Heffler Claims Group, P.O. Box
58504, Philadelphia, PA 19102-8504 or by downloading from
www.longweipetroleumsecuriteslitigation.com

If you are a class member, in order to share in the distribution
of the Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim
postmarked no later than October 5, 2016, establishing that you
are to recover.

You are excluded from the class if (i) you are a defendant in the
Action; (ii) you are a member of any of the defendants' immediate
family; (iii) you are an entity in which any defendant has a
controlling interest; (iv) a director or officer of Longwei; (iv)
you are an affiliate, legal representative, heirs, predecessors,
successors and assigns of an excluded party; or (v) you request
exclusion from the Class.

If you desire to be excluded from the class, you must submit a
request for exclusion postmarked by October 6, 2016, in the manner
and form explained in the detailed Settlement Notice referred to
above.  Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will be
bound by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you
make a claim.

Any objection(s) to the Settlement must be mailed on or before
October 6, 2016 to FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP, lead counsel for class
plaintiffs and the class at the following address: Stuart J.
Guber, FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP, 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 600,
Jenkintown, Pennsylvania 19046.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK'S OFFICE
REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about this
settlement, you may contact lead counsel, FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP for
class plaintiffs and the class at the address listed above. You
can also call lead counsel, FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP at (215) 277-
5770.


LUGGAGE SERVICES: Court Slashes Atty Fee Award in "Talton" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALONZO TALTON, Plaintiff, v. LUGGAGE SERVICES AND
LOGISTICS, LLC, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 14-cv-02505-YGR (N.D.
Calif.), District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted in part
Plaintiff's Motion for Approval of Attorney's Fees, Costs, and
Enhancement Award in the submitted motion for Class Settlement.

Upon Court's review, the requested award of attorneys' fees in the
amount of 25% of the common fund created by the settlement is
reduced to 20%, which entitles the Class Counsel the amount of
only $194,000.00.

The requested costs and expenses of $13,613.01 is approved and the
Class Representative's Incentive Award of $7,500.00 is also
granted.

A copy of the Court's July 14, 2016 decision is available at
http://goo.gl/dHJPsCfrom Leagle.com.

Luggage Services and Logistics, LLC, et al., Defendants,
represented by Sue Jacobs Stott -- sstott@perkinscoie.com --
Perkins Coie LLP, Maureen K. Bogue --
maureen@pacificemploymentlaw.com -- Pacific Employment Law LLP &
Robb Drew McFadden -- RMcFadden@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie
LLP.


LYFT INC: Dec. 1 Final Approval Hearing on Cotter Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PATRICK COTTER, ALEJANDRA MACIEL, and JEFFREY
KNUDTSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. LYFT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:13-cv-
04065-VC (N.D. Cal.), District Judge Vince Chhabria granted the
preliminary approval of the Class Action Settlement Agreement
after finding it sufficiently fair, reasonable, and adequate to
allow dissemination of notice of the Settlement to the Settlement
Class and to hold a Fairness Hearing.

The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on the fairness,
adequacy, and reasonableness of the Settlement Agreement on
December 1, 2016 at 10:00 AM CST or at such other date and time
later set by Court Order.

In no later than 14 days before the hearing, Plaintiffs shall file
a Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and a
Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Class Representative
Service Awards.

The following deadlines are established by the Preliminary
Approval Order: (1) Mailed Notice Date: within 60 days of this
Preliminary Approval Order; (2) Opt-Out Deadline: 60 days after
the Mailed Notice Date; (3) Objection Deadline: 60 days after the
Mailed Notice Date; (4) Claims Submission Date: December 1, 2016;
and (5) Fairness Hearing: December 1, 2016 at 10:00 a.m.

A copy of the court's order dated July 1, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/hdg1UCfrom Leagle.com.

Lyft, Inc., Defendant, represented by Zachary W. Shine --
zachary.shine@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Alexander Barnes Dryer -- adryer@kvn.com --
Keker and Van Nest LLP, Brian Davis Berry --
brian.berry@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak
& Stewart, P.C., Michelle Sabrina Ybarra -- mybarra@kvn.com --
Keker & Van Nest LLP, R. James Slaughter -- rslaughter@kvn.com --
Keker & Van Nest LLP, Rachael Elizabeth Meny -- rem@kvn.com --
Keker & Van Nest LLP, Simona Alessandra Agnolucci --
sagnolucci@kvn.com -- Keker & Van Nest LLP & Thomas Michael
McInerney -- tmm@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash
Smoak & Stewart, P.C..


MAKERBOT: Minnesota Court Dismisses Class Action
------------------------------------------------
3DPrinting Industry reports a class action lawsuit over the
MakerBot debacle has been dismissed.  The case centered on the
fifth generation printer and now a Minnesota court has decided
that the company did not wilfully mislead customers and investors
after all.

There were obvious issues with the extruder in the MakerBot
Replicator and they have been well documented.  The court inferred
that the company had not behaved impeccably, but there was no
evidence of serious malpractice.  It will take some time for the
dust to clear, though, and new CEO Jonathan Jaglom has a big job
on his hands.

This company was the industry darling MakerBot was the darling of
the industry at one point and investors wanted a piece of the
action.  At its peak the New York-based company had more than 500
employees, having started with 60 in 2009. It was a totem for the
industry.

There were bold predictions for world domination and everything
looked good when Stratasys bought the company for $400 million in
2013.  But MakerBot ran into quality control issues with the
"Smart Extruder", the maker community turned on the company for
profiting from open source work, its reputation suffered and last
year the company laid off a number of its staff on two separate
occasions.

This year parent company Stratasys outsourced the manufacturing
and MakerBot is now a shadow of its former self.

Can MakerBot come back?
Of course it can come back, the question is if it will.  The
company is still going, Stratasys is one of the biggest names in
3D printing and there is always potential in such a young industry
and an even younger business for the company to turn around.

A number of investors, though, felt they hadn't been given the
full facts and launched a class action lawsuit.  There was even
talk of Securities Fraud, as the investors claimed they had been
oversold on the printer's potential and indeed the state of the
company's health.

Stratasys did predict 25% growth in 2013, which was more than
reasonable considering the growth in the industry and the growing
public acceptance of 3D printing.  It couldn't account for the
problems with the new printer, though, and the impact they would
have on the company.

Non-actionable puffery?
This was dismissed out of hand by the judge.  The court described
those statements as "non-actionable puffery".  So the investors
might feel aggrieved that the shares that were valued at $120 in
September 2014 to $30 just a year later, but the courts have dealt
with the case and it's over.

The judge did not grant leave to appeal, so this case is done.
What does that mean for MakerBot? Well it still faces a mountain
to climb and the new CEO will have to work wonders to keep the
company going, let alone going forward.

Other manufacturers have stolen a march, MakerBot's market share
has dropped and now it must convince a sceptical maker community
of the company's intentions and its viability.  Good will is thin
on the ground in the industry and that might be the biggest hurdle
facing the company right now.

The only way to overcome this is to make outstanding products.


MARIO BADESCU: Appellate Court Upholds Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Kelly, writing for Northern California Record, reports that
a recent state appellate court decision upholding the notification
plan for a 2014 class-action settlement shows that judges have
wide discretion when it comes to notifying class members of a
settlement agreement, according to a Vanderbilt law professor who
studies class-action lawsuits.

A court of appeals ruled in June that publishing the terms of the
class-action settlement in the case Choi v. Mario Badescu Skin
Care Inc. one time in Parade magazine, which had a circulation of
approximately 30 million and was included with more than 600
newspapers nationwide, was legally valid.

There are numerous ways that the court can notify class members
about a settlement agreement, according to Brian Fitzpatrick, a
law professor at Vanderbilt University's school of law.

"If the parties are able to get addresses for the class members,
then sending everyone a letter to notify them is typically
considered the gold standard for notice," Mr. Fitzpatrick told the
Northern California Record.  "The questions really arise when you
don't have the addresses for everyone, and what kind of notice
might you do instead of that.  Or, questions arise if you do have
the addresses, but in light of the expense of sending out letters
to everyone, sometimes the parties ask the court to do a different
type of notice."

Newspapers are just one of many other means of getting the word
out about class-action suits, Mr. Fitzpatrick said.

"So the different types of notices that you might have to resort
to if you don't have addresses, or you might ask to do because of
the expense of first-class mail are things like emails --
sometimes you can get the emails of class members -- or some kind
of advertising," he said.  "This is where the question of 'Well,
can we put an advertisement in the newspaper, which newspaper,
what about magazines, which magazines, what about internet
advertising, television advertising,' and oftentimes the parties
hire experts in communicating with people to advise them and the
court as what alternatives methods should be used to reach a
certain percentage of the class population."

Several class members appealed the settlement, claiming, among
other things, that the court should have ordered multiple
publications under California law.  The appeals court held that
the appellant's reasoning invoked the wrong section of the law,
and that courts have wide latitude in deciding what notification
is best.

Mr. Fitzpatrick said that follows the general principle in class-
action settlements.

"The rule is that you have to send the best notice that is
practicable under the circumstances," he said.  "So when the
circumstances vary, what is practicable varies, as well.
Typically, if you have mailing addresses, the courts typically
make you send a letter, even if it's expensive. You're not going
to have all the mailing addresses, probably.  There are going to
be class members who have moved, or whose data has been lost, but
as many addresses as you have, the courts generally make you send
a letter no matter how expensive it is.  But there's no minimum
threshold that's set in stone about how many class members you
have to have addresses for, or if you don't have addresses, or in
addition to addresses, how many class members you think you're
going to reach through email or advertising."

It would be impossible to reach every class member, he said, and
at some point the courts decide that enough members will be
reached.

"Substantially over half seems to satisfy the courts," he said.
"If an expert thinks 70 percent of the class will see the notice,
then that tends to satisfy the courts.  It's a question of cost
versus effectiveness.  The courts try to balance those things.
That's what the best notice practicable means.  It doesn't mean we
put an ad in every magazine, just what's reasonable.  There's a
lot of discretion in the courts."


MICHAELS STORES: Anderson Claims Time-Barred, 9th Cir. Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth
Circuit, reversed the memorandum disposition previously filed on
May 19, 2016, and ruled that L. Anderson's claims are time barred
pursuant to the statute of limitation regardless of tolling in the
case captioned, L. ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHAELS
STORES INC, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Appellant, No. 14-
56726 (9th Cir.)

The court held that equitable tolling and equitable estoppel also
do not help Anderson. She forfeited both contentions by not
arguing them fully before the district court.

The case only addresses Anderson's claims, apart from the 24 other
claimants, because only her claims are appealed before the court.

A copy of the Ninth Circuit's reversed ruling dated July 15, 2016
is available at http://goo.gl/cvMW9efrom Leagle.com.


MIDWEST POULTRY: Judge Okays $8.4MM Egg Antitrust Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a combined $8.4 million settlement between five defendants and
direct purchasers and suppliers in national egg antitrust
litigation has been approved by a federal judge.

While the litigation is ongoing against other defendants, U.S.
District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania OK'd the accord between the direct purchasers --
consisting of grocery stores, restaurants and commercial food
manufacturers -- and egg producers.

Defendant Midwest Poultry Services agreed to pay $2.5 million;
National Food Corp. agreed to pay $1 million; United Egg Producers
and United States Egg Marketers agreed to jointly pay $500,000;
NuCal Foods agreed to pay $1.425 million; and Hillendale farms
agreed to pay $3 million, according to Judge Pratter's opinion.

In addition to the payments and agreeing to cooperate in the
ongoing litigation, the five defendants will be released from any
and all claims from the direct purchasers.

The direct purchasers' attorney, Mindee Reuben, declined to
comment. Jane Levine, who represented United Egg Producers and
United States Egg Marketers, praised Judge Pratter for her
thoroughness in overseeing the settlement.

The class, which Judge Pratter certified in September, claimed the
nation's major egg producers were involved in a conspiracy to
control and limit the supply of eggs in an effort to increase
prices, allegedly through short-term production restriction, such
as slaughtering hens early, a pretextual animal welfare program
and a "calculated" series of exports of eggs at below-market
prices.

Earlier in the case, Judge Pratter had denied certification to the
indirect purchaser plaintiffs -- those who purchased eggs produced
by the defendants but sold elsewhere -- because their proposed
class members were not easily categorized, had not enough in
common and were not manageable.

As for the direct purchasers, Judge Pratter held in a September
ruling that the plaintiffs had demonstrated there was commonality
between the different proposed class members.

"The court concludes that common issues predominate with respect
to whether the alleged conspiracy had an impact on the members of
the shell eggs subclass," Judge Pratter had said.

"Plaintiffs can use common evidence to demonstrate that (a)
defendants made efforts to reduce the supply of eggs and thereby
raise the price of eggs; (b) the egg market was structured so that
the alleged conspiracy to restrict the supply of eggs, if
successful, would have caused all or virtually all direct
purchaser plaintiffs to pay higher prices than they would have
absent the conspiracy; and (c) the conspiracy was successful in
raising prices."

Those factors showed the plaintiffs were affected by the
defendants' alleged anti-competitive behavior, Judge Pratter said.

The plaintiffs also argued the lack of substitutes for eggs and
the high demand played a part in the defendants' alleged
conspiracy, Judge Pratter said.

"Because of the lack of close substitutes for eggs, class members
could not have systematically avoided the effects of a lower
supply of eggs by obtaining a substitute for eggs, but would
instead have had to pay the increased prices of eggs," Judge
Pratter said.


MISTRAS GROUP: Settlement Approval Hearing Moved to Aug. 18
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EDGAR VICERAL and DAVID KRUEGER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MISTRAS
GROUP, INC.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:15-
cv-02198-EMC (N.D. Calif.), District Judge Edward M. Chen granted
parties' stipulation to reset the hearing date of the extended
Plaintiffs' Motion For Preliminary Approval of A Collective and
Class Action Settlement to August 18, 2016.

The Parties' stipulation and agreement to continue the deadline
for Plaintiffs to file their Motion for Preliminary Approval of a
Class and Collective Action Settlement from July 5, 2016 to July
22, 2016 prompts the resetting of its hearing date to August 18
from August 4, 2016.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/EnT2qyfrom Leagle.com.

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


MONSTER ENERGY: Court Partly Reverses Marketing Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reports that the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals on July 8 partly reversed a lower-court
order dismissing the case, allowing plaintiffs to proceed with
claims that certain statements on Monster Energy drinks' labels -
for instance, that the beverages contained the "ideal combo of the
right ingredients" -- violated California consumer-protection
laws.


MYLAN PHARMA: Lawyers Quizzed by Appellate Panel in Provigil Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for Law.com, reports that attorneys in
reverse payment antitrust litigation over the sleep disorder drug
Provigil faced questions from a federal appellate panel on
July 12 on how small a class action can be.

In arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, lawyers for Mylan Pharmaceuticals and Ranbaxy
Pharmaceuticals took issue with a 2015 order from U.S. District
Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
that certified a direct purchaser class of drug wholesalers.

A $512 million settlement was reached in the case in April between
the plaintiffs and Cephalon Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. and Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Generic drugmakers Mylan and Ranbaxy were not part of that
settlement, however, and remain in the litigation.

The case challenges reverse-payment settlements, paid out in 2005
and 2006 by Cephalon to each of the generic manufacturers in
exchange for the companies delaying release of a generic version
of Provigil, a medication used to treat sleep disorders.  Judge
Goldberg found the agreements to be anticompetitive.

On July 12, Third Circuit Judges Kent A. Jordan, Marjorie Rendell
and D. Brooks Smith hammered the question of whether a class
action of only 22 plaintiffs could be considered a class action.

J. Douglas Baldridge, counsel for Ranbaxy, estimated that the case
was the smallest Hatch-Waxman action he could recall.

Mr. Baldridge argued that a joinder of the plaintiffs, rather than
a full-fledged class action, would have sufficed.  But practical
distinctions between the two litigation tools were murky, Mr.
Baldridge admitted.  "It's hard to draw clear lines," he told the
court.

Judge Rendell asked Mr. Baldridge how the plaintiffs could be
joined, since they span 13 states and Puerto Rico.

When Mr. Baldridge said he didn't know, Judge Rendell queried
whether the court could not overturn Judge Goldberg's ruling on
that basis.

Judge Goldberg's decision to certify was based more on a desire to
move the case along to trial, Mr. Baldridge argued, than whether a
class action was the most practical way to handle the case.

Mylan's counsel, Rowan Wilson, focused on defendants' contention
that Judge Goldberg contravened the U.S. Supreme Court case of
Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, in which the high court held that
"questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over
any questions affecting only individual members."

The argument returned to numerosity when plaintiffs attorney Bruce
E. Gerstein took the podium.

Mr. Gerstein defended Judge Goldberg's ruling, arguing that
judicial efficiency is an important aspect of class certification.

Judge Jordan said that judicial efficiency alone was not enough.

For example, he said, "We have 10 people here, what a pain in the
neck, let's have a class action.  There has to be more than that."

He also noted that 96 percent of the damages claimed in the case
are from three absent class members, McKesson Corp., Cardinal
Health Inc. and AmerisourceBergen Corp.  Judge Jordan also
suggested that coordinating individual suits as multidistrict
litigation might be appropriate.

Mr. Gerstein allowed that an MDL is helpful in terms of discovery
but insisted that the Provigil litigation has already advanced
past that point.

Judge Rendell asked why a joinder would be impracticable.
Mr. Gerstein replied that reversing Judge Goldberg would prejudice
the parties by delaying the litigation and splitting up the cases
into multiple trials.

"It'll be a mess," Judge Rendell acknowledged.


NAPLES TRANSPORTATION: "Pfeuti" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hermann Pfeuti and Alfred Erzak in the class action lawsuit styled
HERMANN PFEUTI and ALFRED ERZAK, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. NAPLES
TRANSPORTATION & TOURS, LLC, RANDALL R. SMITH and TAMIR RANKOW,
the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00364-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla.), ask the
Court to conditionally certifying a class:

     "of current and former non-exempt Chauffeurs who worked for
      Defendants at NT&T between May 16, 2013 and the present."

The Plaintiffs further request an order:

     1. directing Defendants to produce, in an electronic
        readable format, to undersigned counsel within 14 days of
        the order granting this motion, a list containing the
        names, the last known addresses, phone numbers and e-mail
        addresses of putative class members who worked for
        Defendants between May 16, 2013 and the present;

     2. authorizing their counsel to send notice, in the
        form to all individuals whose names appear on the list
        produced by Defendants' counsel by first-class mail and
        e-mail;

     3. providing all individuals whose names appear on the list
        produced by Defendants' counsel with 60 days from the
        date the notices are initially mailed to file a consent
        to become opt-in Plaintiff; and

     4. any other relief that is just and appropriate.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


NEW BRUNSWICK: Court Hears Retired Civil Servants' Pension Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jacques Poitras, writing for CBC News, reports that the New
Brunswick government is in court fighting to stop 13,000 retired
civil servants from banding together in a single lawsuit over the
province's new shared-risk pension system.

Toronto lawyer Ari Kaplan is asking Justice Judy Clendening to let
him represent the retirees as a group, which he says will allow
the case to move ahead more efficiently.

The retirees allege the shift to the shared-risk system by the
previous Progressive Conservative government violated the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms, because it put at risk the money they had
paid into the provincial pension fund over the years.

'These were not gifts'

"These were not gifts," Mr. Kaplan argued on July 12.  "This was
their own money."

Mr. Kaplan told Ms. Clendening that it makes sense to allow a
group lawsuit because it will be more efficient and "this case
affects people."

"It affects two per cent of the people in your province," he said.
"This is a defined group of people, and the people we're looking
to represent are vulnerable. They are elderly, and they are
dying."

The shared-risk system doesn't guarantee a set amount of pension
benefits the way the previous system did.  That means the province
doesn't have to make up the difference in years when the pension
fund's investments lose money in the market.

The retirees argue that exposes their money to greater risk,
though the province's model shows losses would only happen during
a catastrophic financial collapse.

The system also allows the pension fund to "catch up" and erase
those losses during years of of market growth.

Negotiations failed

The retirees threatened a lawsuit when the reforms were passed,
but the new Liberal government elected in 2014 offered to
negotiate with them instead.

But the Liberals refused to undo the reforms and instead offered a
compromise in April 2015: a guarantee that retirees would get 75
per cent of cost-of-living increases every year for five years,
and no reduction of benefits by more than 10 per cent for the next
20 years.

The retirees rejected that offer and filed their lawsuit last
August, but the court must first approve that 13,000 people can
sue the province as a group.

Steven Hutchison, a private litigator, represents the province.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees and the Professional
Institute of the Public Service of Canada are also suing over how
the shared-risk system affects some current provincial employees.


NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: "Lohr" Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Tamara Lohr, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Nissan North America, Inc.
and Nissan Motor Co Ltd, Case No. 16-00002-12467-4-SEA, was
removed from the Superior Court of Washington, County of King to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
(Seattle). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-
01023-RSM to the proceeding.

The case asserts product-liability claims.

The Defendants design, develop, manufacture, and market Nissan and
Infiniti vehicles in the United States

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      A. Janay Ferguson, Esq.
      Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
      TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
      936 North 34th Street, Ste 300
      Seattle, WA 98103-8869
      Telephone: (206) 816-6603
      Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
      E-mail: jferguson@terrellmarshall.com
              bterrell@terrellmarshall.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Heather A. Hedeen, Esq.
      SHOOK HARDY & BACON
      701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6800
      Seattle, WA 98104
      Telephone: (206) 344-7606
      E-mail: hhedeen@shb.com


NUCAL FOODS: Direct Purchasers' Settlement Wins Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: PROCESSED EGG PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
No. 08-md-2002 (E.D. Pa.), District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter
granted Final Approval of the Class Action Settlements between the
direct purchaser plaintiffs and defendants NuCal Foods,
Incorporated, Hillandale Farms of Pennsylvania, Incorporated, and
Hillandale-Gettysburg, L.P.

The court held that the Settlement Class satisfies the applicable
prerequisites for class action treatment under Rules 23(a) and (b)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Settlement
Agreements are sufficiently fair, reasonable and adequate. Notice
of the Settlement Agreements to the Settlement Class has been
given in an adequate and sufficient manner.

For settlement purposes, Members of the Settlement Class include
all persons and entities that purchased Shell Eggs and Egg
Products in the United States directly from any Producer,
including any Defendant, during the Class Period from January 1,
2000 through the date on which the Court enters an order
preliminarily approving the Agreement and certifying a Class for
Settlement purposes.

Settlement Class is divided into two Sub-classes as follows:
Shell Egg Subclass refers to all individuals and entities that
purchased Shell Eggs in the United States directly from any
Producer, including any Defendant, during the Class Period from
January 1, 2000 through the date on which the Court enters an
order preliminarily approving the Agreement and certifying a Class
for Settlement purposes; and, Egg Products Subclass refers to all
individuals and entities that purchased Egg Products produced from
Shell Eggs in the United States directly from any Producer,
including any Defendant, during the Class Period from January 1,
2000 through the date on which the Court enters an order
preliminarily approving the Agreement and certifying a Class for
Settlement purposes.

The court added that the Eastern District of Pennsylvania shall
retain jurisdiction over the implementation, enforcement, and
performance of the Settlement Agreements, and shall have exclusive
jurisdiction over any suit, action, motion, proceeding, or dispute
arising out of or relating to the Settlement Agreements or the
applicability of the Settlement Agreements that cannot be resolved
by negotiation and agreement by Plaintiffs and NuCal, Hillandale
PA, or Hillandale-Gettysburg.

A copy of the court's order dated June 30, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/SilCELfrom Leagle.com.

In re PROCESSED EGG PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, represented by
JAN P. LEVINE -- levinej@pepperlaw.com --PEPPER HAMILTON LLP.

SANDRA A. JESKIE, Special Master, represented by SANDRA A. JESKIE
-- Jeskie@duanemorris.com -- DUANE, MORRIS LLP.


OCWEN LOAN: Farrin Seeks Certification of Class
-----------------------------------------------
Mr. Henry L. Farrin in the class action lawsuit styled HENRY L.
FARRIN, JR, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-00145-JL (D.N.H., July 2, 2016), asks
the Court to certify a class.  He has filed a memorandum in
support of the motion.

The proposed amended class definition consists:

     "Any person in the state of New Hampshire who obtained a
      discharge of their debt to through a bankruptcy proceeding
      and after the discharge, the Defendant pulled or obtained a
      consumer report about that person within the 5 year period
      preceding the filing of this complaint."

The class excludes any person who falls within the definition if
the person is (i) an employee or independent contractor of the
Defendant; (ii) a relative of an employee or independent.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, when it pulled credit reports and FICO scores on
Mr. Farrin and putative class members, despite the fact that Ocwen
had no statutory "permissible purpose" to do so. Specifically,
Ocwen obtained credit information and credit scores for him and
others from a consumer reporting agency after any credit
obligation was discharged through bankruptcy proceedings.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=W8PXcMv0

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roger B. Phillips, Esq.
          PHILLIPS LAW OFFICE, PLLC
          104 Pleasant Street
          Concord, NH 03301
          Telephone: (603) 225 2767

               - and -

          Peter A. Holland, Esq.
          THE HOLLAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          P.O. Box 6268
          Annapolis, MD 21401
          Telephone: 410 280 6133
          Facsimile: 410 280 8650
          E-mail: peter@hollandlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Scott C. Borison, Esq.
          LEGG LAW FIRM, LLP
          1900 S. Norfolk Rd. Suite 350
          San Mateo CA 94403
          Telephone: (301) 620 1016
          Facsimile: (301) 620 1018
          E-mail: Borison@legglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John-Mark Turner, Esq.
          SHEEHAN PHINNEY BASS + GREEN, P.A.
          1000 Elm Street, P.O. Box 3701
          Manchester, NH 03101
          Telephone: (603) 627 8150
          E-mail: jturner@sheehan.com

               - and -

          John C. Lynch, Esq.
          Alan D. Wingfield, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
          222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 2000
          Virginia Beach, VA 23462
          Telephone: (757) 687 7765
          Facsimile: (757) 687 1504
          E-mail: john.lynch@troutmansanders.com
                  alan.wingfield@troutmansanders.com


OHIO ADULT PAROLE: "Sabo" Suit Bid for Class Cert. Granted
----------------------------------------------------------
Larry Sabo and all other similarly situated Ohio Parole Eligible
inmates in the class action lawsuit styled Larry Sabo et al., the
Petioner, v. Warden Tibbals et. al., and Sara Andrews, Deputy
Director Ohio Adult Parole Authority 770 West Broad St., Columbus
Ohio 43222, Defendant-Respondents et. al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00536-
ALM-NMK (S.D. Ohio), ask the Court to grant them class
certification.

The class is defined as:

     "Approximately 3,200 plus prison inmates in Ohio which are
      serving indefinite terms under the old sentencing
      laws/parole laws and whose convictions were either entered
      by Plea/Plea Bargain Agreement (Contracts) or conviction at
      trial."

The Petitioners further request appointment Counsel in the action.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Cp0poEIz


OREGON: Timber Industry Pays Linn County's Legal Fees
-----------------------------------------------------
Cassandra Profita, writing for OPB, reports that court documents
show the timber industry is footing the bill for Linn County's
$1.4 billion lawsuit over logging in Oregon state forests.

The county is suing the state on the grounds it has failed to
maximize revenue from state-owned forestland.

The lawsuit claims the state is contractually required to allow
more logging on state forestland to ensure funding for counties
that deeded the land over to the state more than 70 years ago.

In a class action suit, Linn County is seeking $1.4 billion in
damages for 15 counties and dozens of local taxing districts that
the county argues should have gotten more revenue from timber
harvest on more than 700,000 acres of state forestland.

Court filings show the Oregon Forest Industries Council, Hampton
Tree Farm, Stimson Lumber Company and the Sustainable Forest Fund
have paid nearly $100,000 to cover Linn County's legal fees in the
case and that the group agreed to pay up to $125,000.

Several environmental groups including the Wild Salmon Center have
intervened in the case and filed a motion for the court to dismiss
it.  They argue the state is required to balance timber harvest
with other forest values such as fish and wildlife habitat, clean
water and recreation.

Bob Van Dyk, a policy director for the Wild Salmon Center, said
the fact that timber companies are paying the county's legal fees
suggests they're using the county to push their own agenda.

"This latest disclosure shows this case is really about timber
companies trying to force the state to clear-cut public forests to
supply private timber mills," he said.  "Basically, the timber
companies decided they weren't getting their way so they're paying
the bills for a county to try to force more harvest out on the
forest."

John DiLorenzo, an attorney for Linn County on the case, said
funds from the timber industry are "a drop in the bucket" compared
to the county's overall legal costs.

In a class action suit, he said, it's normal for outside parties
to help finance litigation.  He said in this case the timber
companies have an interest in the public services provided by the
counties where they operate mills.

"The timber companies happen to have operations where the county
governments are hardly able to function anymore," he said.  "They
don't have any money.  A lot of those mills are in areas that are
suffering because they have no police protection, no sheriff's
department, nothing.  Our claim for damages, assuming we prevail,
would basically give those local governments a lot more money so
they could provide services to the communities where these timber
companies have operations."

Mr. DiLorenzo said the lawsuit isn't asking the state to change
its forest management policy to allow more logging.  Rather, it's
calling for the state to pay the counties and taxing districts to
make up for a breach of contract, according to Mr. DiLorenzo.

The Linn County Board of Commissioners have argued timber revenue
from state forest lands supports a wide array of public services
including education and public safety.

In a statement earlier this year, the board said the state
breached its contract with the counties in 1998 when it adopted a
new rule that de-emphasized timber revenue in favor of other
objectives such as salmon and wildlife habitat protection.  That
reduced the revenue counties get from timber harvest by $35
million a year, they said.

"This breach of contract has had devastating effects on local
communities that have seen both poverty and unemployment rates
skyrocket in the last two decades as a result of the current
practices," they said.

The case had its first hearing in Oregon Circuit Court on
July 11.  The next court date is Aug. 18.


PANALPINA WORLD: November 4 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
AirCargo Asia-Pacific reports that US law firms have released
claim details for individuals or companies letting them know they
may be entitled to cash payments from freight forwarder class
action settlements.

A full list of all defendants is available at the settlement
website: www.FreightForwardCase.com

The case involves a lawsuit claiming that certain freight
forwarding companies secretly agreed to prices for their freight
forwarding services worldwide, including on routes in the US and
between the US and China, Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan, India,
Germany, the UK and other parts of Europe.  The settling
defendants deny wrongdoing.

A Class Member is included in one or more of the settlements if
they: (1) Directly purchased freight forwarding services; (2) from
any of the defendants, their subsidiaries, or affiliates; (3) from
01 January 2001 through  04 January 2011 ; (4) in the US, or
outside the US for shipments within, to, or from the US.

Purchasers need to submit a Claim Form, on line or by mail, by 03
April 2017 to get a payment from the settlements.  If purchasers
have already submitted a Claim Form for the first or second round
of settlements, they do not need to file a new claim.  They will
automatically be paid from this round of settlements.

Purchasers who do nothing will not get a payment and give up the
right to sue.

Purchasers who want to keep the right to sue DHL or Hellmann must
exclude themselves by September 20, 2016.

Purchasers who stay in the settlements can object to them by
September 20, 2016.

The Court will hold a hearing November 4, 2016, to consider
whether to approve: (1) the settlements, (2) a request for
attorneys' fees up to 33 per cent of the Settlement Fund, plus
interest, and reimbursement for litigation expenses; and (3) a
request for Class Representative service awards of no more than
US$75,000 each.

More information regarding the Settlements and Class Member rights
is at www.FreightForwardCase.com

The case is Precision Associates, Inc. v Panalpina World
Transport, No. 1:08-cv-00042-BMC-PK


PERFUMANIA HOLDINGS: Bid on Class Certification Premature, Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FAMILY MEDICINE PHARMACY, LLC, Plaintiff, v.
PERFUMANIA HOLDINGS, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-0563-
WS-C (S.D. Ala.), Chief District Judge William H. Steele denied
Plaintiff's Preliminary Motion for Class Certification and Motion
to Consider Class Certification Upon Completion of Reasonable
Discovery for failing to satisfy the burden of establishing the
prerequisites of Rule 23, Fed.R.Civ.P..

The Court emphasized that the party seeking class certification
has the burden of proof, rather than merely a burden of pleading.
This further means that plaintiff must affirmatively demonstrate
his compliance with Rule 23 by proving that the requirements are
in fact satisfied.

Plantiff Family Medicine essentially conceded the insufficiency of
its proof by filing a follow-up Motion on March 30, 2016
requesting the Court to consider its preliminary Motion for Class
Certification upon completion of reasonable discovery. Thus, the
court held Plaintiff's Rule 23 Motion as premature, unnecessary,
and it imposes significant costs on court personnel and the
litigants.

The court authorized Family Medicine to renew its Rule 23 Motion
at an appropriate time upon an appropriate factual and legal
showing.

A copy of the decision dated July 5, 2016, is available at
http://goo.gl/WnJullfrom Leagle.com

Quality King Fragrance, Inc., Defendant, represented by Clyde
Whitaker Steineker, Andre K. Cizmarik -- AKCizmarik@mintz.com --
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popep, P.C., Anthony Joseph
Viola -- AJViola@mintz.com -- Mintz Levin Cohen Ferris Glovsky &
Popeo PC & Kevin M. McGinty -- KMcGinty@mintz.com -- Mintz, Levin,
Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popep, P.C..

Quality Fragrance Group, Defendant, represented by Fred M. Haston,
III -- thaston@bradleyarant.com -- Bradley Arant Boult Cummings,
LLP & Clyde Whitaker Steineker.


PRECISION CASTPARTS: Southeast Portland Residents File Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aimee Green, writing for The Oregonian, reports that four
Southeast Portland residents who say their homes have been
smothered with heavy metals and other pollution by a nearby
Precision Castparts manufacturing plant are asking a judge to
order the parts maker to stop polluting.

In a suit, the residents also are asking a Multnomah County
Circuit judge to force Precision Castparts to clean up millions of
pounds of nickel, chromium, arsenic and other toxic pollutants
that they say have settled upon their neighborhoods and increased
their chances of cancer and other health problems -- and even put
children at risk of lower IQs.

The suit seeks class-action status, for as many as 5,000 neighbors
within a "plume of contamination" northeast of the plant at 4600
S.E. Harney Dr., the suit states.

The suit also asks that Precision Castparts pay for their blood or
urine to be tested for excessive pollutants.  The lawsuit says the
residents' home values have declined, but it doesn't seek a dollar
amount in damages.

The suit was filed by Kelley Foster, Juan Prat-Sanchez, Kirk
Gayton and Debra Taevs -- all whom live within one block to one
mile from the factory.

The suit is similar to a lawsuit filed in May by another pair of
residents, Brian and Rodica Resendez, who live less than two-
thirds of a mile from the factory.

The suit also is similar to one filed by residents of another
neighborhood -- near the Bullseye Glass manufacturer north of them
in Southeast Portland.  That lawsuit, filed in March, asked
Bullseye Glass to stop emitting three heavy metals into their
neighborhood and pay to clean up their properties.  That dispute
is still pending.

A Precision spokesperson declined to comment on either lawsuit
filed against it, citing the pending litigation.

The company also has yet to respond to either suit in court
papers.  The Fortune 500 company was founded in Oregon in 1953,
and makes parts for the aerospace and defense machinery, as well
as for industrial gas turbines.

Precision Castparts is among only three Oregon companies -- which
includes Nike and Lithia Motors -- on the Fortune 500 list.

Although the suit said the pollution has been going on for years,
the problem came to light after the U.S. Forest Service began
collecting moss samples in the Portland area to study them for
pollution, the suit states. State environmental regulators made
the results public in February, to the astonishment of residents.

"The revelations about South Portland's pollution from (Precision
Castparts) has repeatedly been front page news in Portland and
around the nation since that time," the suit states.

The suit states that because plaintiffs have come into contact
with the pollutants by breathing them in but also by touching
their surroundings, they have stopped walking their neighborhoods
or gardening like they once did, and now travel outside the area
to recreate.

The lawsuit was filed by Seattle attorney Daniel Mensher, Santa
Barbara, California, attorney Matthew Preusch and Portland
attorney Karl Anuta.


PRIME WHEEL: Faces "Lemus" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Cristobal Lemus, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated v. Prime Wheel Corporation and Does 1-50, inclusive, Case
No. BC625648 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 30, 2016), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Prime Wheel Corporation manufactures and distributes aftermarket
and original equipment aluminum wheels.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Farzad Rastegar, Esq.
      RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, APC
      22760 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 200
      Torrance, CA 90505
      Telephone: (310) 961-9600
      Facsimile: (310) 961-9094
      E-mail: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com


QUICKSIUS LLC: Bid to Stay Proceedings in "Dougherty" Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AMANDA DOUGHERTY, Plaintiff, v. QUICKSIUS, LLC,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 15-6432 (E.D. Pa.), District Judge
Joel H. Slomsky denied Defendant's Motion to Stay Proceedings or,
in the Alternative, to Dismiss Count II of Plaintiff's Complaint
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

The Court's decision was made in consideration of the First
Amended Class Action Complaint, Defendant's Motion to Stay
Proceedings or, in the Alternative, to Dismiss Count II of
Plaintiff's Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), Plaintiff's Response in Opposition, Defendant's Reply,
and the arguments made at a hearing on the Motion on May 3, 2016.

The Defendant is ordered to file an answer to the Amended Class
Action Complaint within 14 days from the entry of the Order dated
July 14, 2016.

A copy of this court's July 14, 2016 decision is available at
http://goo.gl/rKCxLmfrom Leagle.com.

QUICKSIUS, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by SPENCER R. SHORT --
sshort@stradley.com -- STRADLEY RONON, pro hac vice & WILLIAM T.
MANDIA -- wmandia@stradley.com -- STRADLEY, RONON, STEVENS &
YOUNG.


REALTY REFERRAL: Faces "Pileggi" Class Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Realty Referral
Services, Inc. and SRMOF II 2012-1 Trust, U.S. Bank Trust National
Association, not in its individual capacity but solely as trustee
and Green River Capital, Inc.

The case is captioned Patricia A. Pileggi, H/W, as administrator
for estate of George J. Pileggi, And All Persons Similarly
Situated v. Realty Referral Services, Inc. and SRMOF II 2012-1
Trust, U.S. Bank Trust National Association, not in its individual
capacity but solely as trustee and Green River Capital, Inc., Case
No. 2:16-cv-03631-JD (E.D. Penn., June 30, 2016).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stuart A. Eisenberg, Esq.
      MCCULLOUGH EISENBERG LLC
      65 W Street Rd Suite A204
      Warminster, PA 18974-3229
      Telephone: (215) 957-6411
      Facsimile: (215) 957-9140
      E-mail: mlawoffice@aol.com

RED ROBIN: Faces "Rogers" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Rogers, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated v. Red Robin International, Inc. and Red Robin Gourmet
Burgers, Inc., Case No. 511180/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 30,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate restaurants in Nashua, New
Hampshire; Carle Place, New York; Paramus, New Jersey; and Bronx,
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
      Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
      28 Liberty Street, 25th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 300-0375


REINALT-THOMAS CORP: Settlement in "McDaniel" Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JERAME McDANIEL, Plaintiff, v. THE REINALT-THOMAS
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, No. CV 12-01466 TJH (PJWx), (C.D.
Cal.), District Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. granted final approval
of the Parties' Class Action Settlement and for Attorneys' Fees,
Costs, and Enhancement Award.

For purposes of class settlement, all current and former employees
of Defendants who worked in the position of Tire or Service
Technician in a store in California from July 2, 2008, through May
31, 2014 are classified as Class Members.

Class Counsels are awarded $500,000.00 for attorneys' fees, 25% of
the $2,000,000.00 Maximum Settlement Amount, and awards costs of
$20,112.25 is to be allocated as follows: $19,266.39 to Schneider
Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, and $845.86 to The Edgar Law
Firm. The approved enhancement awards for the Class
Representative, Jerame McDaniel, is $4,000.00.

$20,000.00 of the Maximum Settlement Amount shall be allocated to
the Plaintiff's PAGA claim. $15,000.00 of that allocation shall be
paid to the California Labor Workforce and Development Agency
("LWDA"), and the remaining $5,000.00 shall be disbursed to the
class as part of the Net Settlement Fund.

Payment of $56,775 to Heffler Claims Group, the Settlement
Administrator, is approved.

The court added that further orders and proceedings in the case
are stayed and the court retains the jurisdiction to enforce the
terms of the Settlement.

A copy of the court's order dated June 30, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/COSNOnfrom Leagle.com.

The Reinalt-Thomas Corporation, et al., Defendants, represented by
Carolina Bravo-Karimi -- cbravo-karimi@wilsonturnerkosmo.com
-- Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Lois M Kosch --
lkosch@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Meryl C
Maneker -- mmaneker@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner Kosmo
LLP & Robin A Wofford -- rwofford@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson
Turner Kosmo LLP.


SAINT JOHN, NB: Hearing Set in Sexual Abuse Suit vs. Police
-----------------------------------------------------------
CTV Atlantic reports that a hearing that will decide whether a
class-action lawsuit will be filed against the City of Saint John
and its police force was before the court on July 11.

The lawsuit is being brought forward by the alleged victims of
Kenneth Estabrooks, who was a former member of the Saint John
Police Force and was convicted of molesting four young people
between 1957 and 1982.

"It's the opportunity for both sides to present their evidence, so
the court can determine whether or not these claims can be heard
as a group, can be heard as a class action," said lawyer John
McKiggan.

When the allegations of abuse first surfaced, Mr. Estabrooks
resigned from the police department but was quietly moved to City
Works.

There are suggestions that Mr. Estabrooks may have abused more
than 250 children dating back to the 1950s.  He died in 2005.

"There's potentially more than 100 victims of abuse out there,"
said Mr. McKiggan.  "These are vulnerable people. They were
children when this happened and now they have, as a result of the
abuse, become even more vulnerable."

Bobby Hayes is one of those alleged victims and is the
representative plaintiff for the proposed class-action lawsuit.

"The damages continue to go with the people that are living and
carrying this burden until someone is held accountable," said
Mr. Hayes.

Three days have been set aside for the hearing.  But Mr. McKiggan
expected things woupd wrap by the end of the day on July 12.

"It's unlikely we'll receive a decision off the bench," he said.
"Typically the courts will take time to review all the evidence
and provide a written decision."

Mr. McKiggan is confident the lawsuit will be certified, which Mr.
Hayes says could bring some relief to him and other alleged
victims.


SAINT JOHN, NB: Judge Reserves Judgment on Abuse Suit vs. Police
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Jones, writing for CBC News, reports that a proposed
lawsuit against the City of Saint John for its role in failing to
detect that a former employee was a serial child sexual predator
while on the job is awaiting a ruling whether it can proceed as a
class action.

Justice William Grant reserved judgment on July 12 following two
days of arguments about whether victims of the late Ken
Estabrooks, a former Saint John police officer and municipal works
employee, have enough in common to pursue a single case against
the city as a group.

Toronto class action lawyer Kirk Baert, acting on behalf of
victims, told Grant there is no practical way for the lawsuit to
proceed unless it is first certified as a class action.

"There is no other feasible method that would provide access to
justice and deterrence," said Mr. Baert.

Works 30 years for city

Mr. Estabrooks was employed by the city between 1953 and 1983.  He
worked first as a police officer until 1975 when he was
transferred out of the force to work at a city garage.

Years after his retirement.  Mr. Estabrooks was investigated and
charged for decades of sexual abuse against five boys and one
girl, including while he was on the job as a police officer.  In
1998 he was convicted on four of those charges but a subsequent
investigation launched by the city suggested he may have had more
than 150 victims.

Mr. Estabrooks died in 2005 but a group led by Robert Hayes began
developing a lawsuit against the city in 2013.

Robert Hayes affidavit

Mr. Hayes says he was first sexually assaulted by Mr. Estabrooks
in 1970 as a 10-year-old and many times after that during the
following three or four years.  Mr. Hayes says Mr. Estabrooks
would take him to an isolated part of Saint John's Tin Can Beach
for the assaults and claims he witnessed it happening to others.

"During the same time frame I witnessed Mr. Estabrooks raping
seven or eight other children on Tin Can Beach," Mr. Hayes states
in an affidavit filed in the case.

"He was a big man. Because he was a policeman he carried a gun.
All of the kids I knew in the south end were afraid of
Estabrooks."

Mr. Hayes said he was sexually assaulted again by Mr. Estabrooks
as a young man when the two were both employed by the city works
department.

City's inaction at issue

A key allegation against the city is that it took no action
against Mr. Estabrooks even after he admitted assaulting two boys
who complained to police in 1975. No charges were laid but that's
the year Mr. Estabrooks was transferred out of the police
department.

"This is the classic what did they know and when did they know
it," Mr. Baert told Grant about the victims' case.

"The allegation is that there is a serial predator allowed to
operate for decades because of the negligence and bungling of the
defendant."

Although the lawsuit originally named the Saint John Police
Department and the Saint John Police Commission as co-defendants,
those two were dropped on July 12 and the case is being pursued
exclusively against the city.

The police commission was not created until after Mr. Estabrooks
left the force while the police department is not considered to be
an independent legal entity.

City says all victims differ

Michael Brenton, who is acting for the city and its insurer,
argued that there are too many differences among Mr. Estabrooks's
victims for them to sue as a single group.  Each victim faced a
unique situation and suffered individual damages that cannot be
combined into one action, he told Grant.

"When did it happen?  Where did it happen? How long did it happen?
Was he a police officer?  Was he a city works employee," said Mr.
Brenton.

"There's going to have to be expert evidence for everyone of these
plaintiffs, for each one of them."

Mr. Brenton said it may even turn out that some victims in the
group suffered little and could wrongly be compensated unless
cases are heard individually.

"Some of these people might not even have a compensable claim,"
said Mr. Brenton.  "You can't get compensation for hurt feelings."


SAKUMA BROTHERS: Settlement in "Demetrio" Suit Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANA LOPEZ DEMETRIO and FRANCISCO EUGENIO PAZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. SAKUMA BROTHERS FARMS, INC., Defendant, No. 2:13-
cv-01918-MJP (W.D. Wash.), District Judge Marsha J. Pechman
granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement. The fairness hearing on final approval of the
settlement was held before the Court on July 8, 2016.

Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
the Court has certified the following Settlement Class: "All
migrant and seasonal employees of Sakuma who performed piece-rate
fruit harvest work for Sakuma in Washington in 2014 or 2015."

The terms of the Settlement Agreement provides that Defendant
shall issue payment to each of the Qualified Class Members who
performed piecework for Defendant in 2014 in an amount equal to:

     (1) his or her unpaid rest break wages for the 2014 season,
calculated at the worker's regular hourly rate (determined based
on the average hourly rate each week from piecework) or minimum
wage, whichever is higher, plus

     (2) prejudgment interest on the full amount of rest break
wages owing to each Qualified Class Member who performed piecework
in 2014 at 12% per year (from the time wages were due after each
pay period until the date of this Order).

In the event that any Qualified Class Members fail to cash any
award checks within one year of distribution, Sakuma shall
disburse such funds to the non-profit organization Catholic
Community Services in Skagit County, with a request that any such
funds be earmarked for farm worker assistance. The work of
Catholic Community Services in Skagit County benefits low-income
immigrant workers who may require legal assistance, and their work
therefore serves the objectives of the underlying statutes and the
interests of the silent class members.

The Court awards $235,000 in attorneys' fees, $4,951.89 in
litigation expenses, and $11,747.47 in settlement notice and
administration fees and costs to Class Counsel

The Court retains jurisdiction over the claims against Defendant
for purposes of addressing: (1) any disputes arising from the
Settlement Agreement; (2) settlement administration matters; and
(3) such post-judgment matters as may be appropriate under the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A copy of the court's Final Approval Order dated July 8, 2016 is
available at http://goo.gl/oAC20efrom Leagle.com.

Sakuma Brothers Farms Inc, Defendant, represented by Adam S.
Belzberg -- adam.belzberg@stoel.com -- STOEL RIVES.


SIRIUS XM: Class Action Trial Scheduled for November 2016
---------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
and Gradstein & Marzano, P.C. regarding the Lawsuit between Flo &
Eddie, Inc. and Sirius XM Radio, Inc.

If You Are Owners Of Sound Recordings Fixed Prior To February 15,
1972 Which Have Been Performed, Distributed, Reproduced, Or
Otherwise Exploited By Sirius XM In California Without A License
Or Authorization From August 21, 2009 To August 24, 2016, A Class
Action May Affect Your Rights.

What is this case about?

On August 1, 2013, Plaintiff Flo & Eddie, Inc. ("Flo & Eddie")
filed a lawsuit against Defendant Sirius XM Radio, Inc. on behalf
of itself and a putative class of owners of sound recordings fixed
prior to February 15, 1972 ("pre-1972 recordings"), alleging that
Sirius XM, without a license or authorization, was performing,
distributing, and reproducing, those pre-1972 recordings in
California as part of its satellite and internet radio services
(the "Lawsuit").  The lawsuit is known as Flo & Eddie, Inc. v.
Sirius XM Radio, Inc., Case No. CV13-05693, and is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.  Trial
is set for November 2016.

Am I in the Class?

You qualify as a member of the Class if you are an owner of pre-
1972 recordings which have been performed, distributed,
reproduced, or otherwise exploited by Sirius XM in California
without a license or authorization to do so from August 21, 2009
to August 24, 2016.  As a class member, your legal rights are
affected, and you have a choice to make.

Has the Court made any determinations in this Lawsuit?

The Court has already found Sirius XM liable for its public
performance of pre-1972 recordings in California in favor of Flo &
Eddie.  Sirius XM continues to assert the availability of certain
defenses and the unavailability of certain damages theories.

What are my Options?

You have to decide now whether to stay in the Class or ask to be
excluded.

If you do nothing, you are staying in the Class.  As a member of
the Class, you will keep the possibility of getting money or
benefits that may come from a trial or a settlement.  But, you
will give up any rights to sue Sirius XM separately over the legal
claims asserted in this Lawsuit.  You will be legally bound by the
judgment in this Lawsuit, whether favorable or not.
If you ask to be excluded, and money or benefits are later awarded
to the Class as a result of this Lawsuit, you won't share in
those.  But, you keep any rights to sue Sirius XM separately about
the same legal claims in this Lawsuit.  If you retain an
individual attorney, you may need to pay for that attorney.  To
exclude yourself from the Class, you must send a written request
that includes an Exclusion Request Form that is received no later
than August 30, 2016.  For more information on how to exclude
yourself, and to obtain the Exclusion Request Form, visit
www.pre1972soundrecordings.com.
Where can I get Additional Information?

This is only a summary. For more information about the Lawsuit,
visit www.pre1972soundrecordings.com

PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE TO THE COURT FOR INFORMATION OR
ADVICE.


SONOMA, CA: Court Wants Joint Status Report in Retirees' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SONOMA COUNTY ASS'N OF RETIRED EMPLOYEES, Plaintiff,
v. SONOMA COUNTY, Defendant, No. C 09-4432-CW (N.D. Calif.),
District Judge Claudia Wilken directed parties to submit a joint
status report or a motion for preliminary approval within one week
from the Order of the Court dated July 8, 2016. A copy of the
Court's Order is available at http://goo.gl/STHj78from Leagle.com

The Court scheduled a Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement hearing for August 2, and the parties indicated that
they planned to file their motion for preliminary approval by June
28. By then, the Court has not received further updates from the
parties.

Sonoma County, Defendant, represented by Raymond Francis Lynch --
rlynch@hansonbridgett.com -- Hanson Bridgett Marcus Vlahos & Rudy
LLP, Batya Floryn Forsyth -- bforsyth@hansonbridgett.com --
Attorney at Law, Matthew Joseph Peck, Hanson Bridgett LLP, Robert
Blum -- Rblum@hansonbridgett.com -- Hanson Bridgett Marcus Vlahos
& Rudy LLP & Stephen B. Peck, Esq. -- speck@hansonbridgett.com --
Hanson Bridgett LLP.


SPALDING NEVERFLAT: Faces Class Action Over False Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Crist, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a class
action lawsuit alleging the Spalding Neverflat basketball does not
perform as advertised is cited by a national civil justice reform
organization as an example of the abuse it is fighting to change.

Jaish Markos of Dutchess County filed a suit in U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against Russell Brands
LLC, maker of the Spalding Neverflat basketball.  The complaint
alleges the company made false claims about its product in
marketing and labeling that claimed the basketball will stay
inflated for 12 months.

Mr. Markos claims his Neverflat basketball did not stay inflated
for the guaranteed amount of time.

The American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) believes many class
action suits are concocted by aggressive lawyers who target
specific industries with deep pockets.

"That's how you get a class action suit against Subway alleging
its foot-long sandwich isn't quite (12 inches)," Darren McKinney,
ATRA spokesman, told Legal Newsline.

There are many judges in America "all too willing" to hear class
action cases like the Subway lawsuit rather than dismiss them, Mr.
McKinney said.

"There are some no-nonsense judges who will grant summary judgment
for defendants in such meritless lawsuits, but they tend to be in
the minority," Mr. McKinney said.  "But many judges come from the
ranks of plaintiff attorneys, and they never met a lawsuit they
didn't like."

Mr. McKinney believes today's consumer protection laws invite so-
called "no-injury" class actions.

"It's a rare judge that will say 'get it out of here' when an
unfounded lawsuit comes to their courtroom," he claims.

Once a class action suit is filed, a judge must rule that the
class is certifiable in order for the case to proceed as a class
action.  Most defendants will settle out of court, with no
admission of guilt, because the settlement costs less than a
trial.

"Sellers of goods and services pass on all litigation costs to
their customers, so these so-called consumer protection lawsuits
really end up hurting most consumers while trial lawyers get
rich," Mr. McKinney said.


SPOTIFY: NMPA Members Join Royalties Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Christman, writing for Billboard, reports that the $30 million
settlement negotiated between Spotify and the National Music
Publishers' Assn. (NMPA) over unpaid publishing royalties, a
dispute which instigated two class action lawsuits against the
company (since combined) has landed participation from NMPA
members who comprise 96% of the trade group's market share.

The window for music publishers to decide whether they wanted to
partake in the deal or join the class action lawsuit against
Spotify, or for publishers to initiate their own legal
proceedings, closed June 30.

David Lowery Legal Team Files Motion Addressing Spotify's
Forthcoming Publishing Settlement

"The vast majority of our members have opted into our settlement,"
NMPA president and CEO David Israelite tells Billboard, saying the
agreement has "one of our highest opt-in rates ever."  The NMPA
has successfully sued or settled with various entities to the tune
of $546 million through its history, the organization revealed at
its annual meeting held in June.

Spotify will issue a list of sound recordings that it couldn't
match and thus owes mechanical royalties for, which they have
estimated to be $25 million.  Publishers will be allowed to
analyze that list to claim songs and plays from it ahead of
receiving their allotted share of the settlement.  If any funds
are left over after that process they will be liquidated and
distributed by publisher's market share, as calculated by Spotify.
Meanwhile, a $5 million bonus pool will be distributed by U.S.
market share, as calculated by NMPA.  The NMPA is in the process
of hiring an administrator to oversee the payout process and to
help clear conflicting claims.  Israelite reports that the NMPA is
entertaining bids from four rights administration entities.

Critics of the settlement between the NMPA and Spotify charge that
the three majors all took part in the settlement because it
minimizes Spotify's financial obligations to most publishers.  If
NMPA publishers had gone the class action route or if they had
initiated their own legal payments, then a substantial Spotify
payout could hurt the company financially, and likewise impair the
value of equity stakes in the company that are potentially, and
probably, worth hundreds of millions.

Israelite says that participants in the settlement "have a real
desire to see streaming work," because it is the future of the
business.  They didn't want to penalize Spotify financially and
possibly derail the service on its way to helping to grow the
streaming business -- and along with it the wider recording
industry, which is increasingly reliant on streaming revenues.

Israelite contends that Spotify is paying a significant penalty
and, more importantly, will be "taking on the duties to clean up"
processing publisher reports and payouts.

While there is a 96 percent participation rate among NMPA members,
bitterness remains directed toward Spotify and other streaming
services.  Some publishers and songwriters claim that these
services started their businesses irresponsibly, failing to ensure
they had systems in place for properly licensing from and paying
out to music publishers.

Some of the songwriters and publishers affiliated with the class
action lawsuit claim Spotify and other services knowingly
infringed on their copyrights in order to get their businesses off
the ground.  Moreover, they charge that Spotify and some other
services are poised to raise billions of dollars through initial
public offerings, largely on the backs of publishers.

Those publishers foresee penalties of up to $150,000 per
infringement, or settlements that will yield a much larger penalty
than the $5 million claimed in the NMPA deal with Spotify.


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Settles Durata Class Action for $39 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Reilly, writing for St. Paul Business Journal, reports that
St. Jude Medical Inc. has reached a settlement with shareholders
who claimed the Minnesota med-tech company misled them over
potential risks with cables used in its implantable devices.

Reuters has a report on the deal reached, in which Little Canada-
based St. Jude will pay $39.25 million to the class-action
plaintiffs.

The settlement resolves claims that St. Jude improperly downplayed
potential complications of its Durata lead. The Durata was
intended to replace the Riata, which St. Jude recalled over safety
issues, and was coated with a material called Optim.

But a 2012 FDA report questioned whether St. Jude properly tested
the Durata.  St. Jude shares dived after the report was released,
wiping out $1.3 billion in market value.

St. Jude earlier this year agreed to be bought by Illinois-based
Abbott Laboratories.


STERICYCLE INC: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP ("BLB&G") on July 12
disclosed that on July 11, 2016, it filed a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of its clients St. Lucie County Fire
District Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund ("St. Lucie") and
Boynton Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund ("Boynton Beach") against
Stericycle, Inc. ("Stericycle"), its directors, certain of its
senior executives, and underwriters of its public securities
offering (collectively, "Defendants").  The action, which is
captioned St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension
Trust Fund, et al. v. Stericycle, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-7145
(N.D. Ill.) asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"), 15 U.S.C. Secs.
77k, 77l and 77o, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. Secs. 78j(b)
and 78t(a), and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R.
Sec. 240.10b-5, on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Stericycle common stock and/or depository shares between
February 7, 2013 and April 28, 2016, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Stericycle and
certain Defendants violated provisions of the Securities Act and
the Exchange Act by issuing false and misleading press releases,
financial statements, filings with the SEC, and statements during
investor conference calls.

Stericycle is an international waste management and disposal
company that specializes in the collection and disposal of
regulated and specialized waste.  Throughout the Class Period,
Stericycle engaged in a systematic scheme whereby it routinely and
systematically raised the rates it charged its smaller customers
in violation of the contracts it had with those customers.  By
doing so, Stericycle artificially inflated its revenues and
growth.  Defendants did not disclose this practice and, as a
result, Stericycle routinely misrepresented its performance and
earnings.

On October 22, 2015, Stericycle disclosed disappointing growth
rates and revenues during the third quarter of 2015 and lowered
its guidance going forward.  These disclosures caused Stericycle's
stock to decline by over 19%.  On April 28, 2016, Stericycle
disclosed that its results for the first quarter of 2016 were
below its guidance and analysts' expectations, and lowered its
2016 guidance going forward.  These disclosures caused
Stericycle's stock to decline by over 21.5%.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the Class, you must
file a motion with the Court no later than September 12, 2016,
which is the first business day on which the District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois is open that is 60 days after
the July 12, 2016 publication of this notice.  Any member of the
proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain a member of the proposed class.

St. Lucie and Boynton Beach are represented by BLB&G, a firm of
over 100 attorneys with offices in New York, California,
Louisiana, and Illinois.  If you wish to discuss this Action or
have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact Avi Josefson of BLB&G at 212-554-1493,
or via e-mail at avi@blbglaw.com

Foundedin 1983, BLB&G -- http://www.blbglaw.com-- specializes in
securities fraud, corporate governance, shareholders' rights,
employment discrimination, and civil rights litigation, among
other practice areas, BLB&G prosecutes class and private actions
on behalf of institutional and individual clients worldwide.


SUNTRUST: Ga. High Court Revives Overdraft Fee Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Katheryn Hayes Tucker, writing for Daily Report, reports that the
Georgia Supreme Court has revived a class action lawsuit
challenging SunTrust Bank's debit card overdraft fees, siding with
consumers over the bank's claims that allowing the suit would
undermine the validity of contracts in the state.

Writing for the unanimous court in a closely-watched case, former
Chief Justice Robert Benham ruled that the bank's customer
arbitration agreement isn't enough to defeat the class action,
which could be worth tens of millions of dollars.  The opinion --
released with a batch of others on July 8 as the court neared its
two-term deadline for decisions -- reverses the Georgia Court of
Appeals and the trial judge, and returns the lawsuit to the lower
court for a fresh look at class certification.

The lawsuit challenges the bank's overdraft fees as excessive,
alleging that SunTrust charged $36 when customers overdrew their
account, even by small amounts.  The suit claims the fees amount
to interest rates as high as 1,000 percent and violate the state's
banking and finance laws.

Named plaintiff Jeff Bickerstaff Jr. filed the lawsuit in
July 2010, alleging that SunTrust's overdraft fees for small
amounts of money violated Georgia's usury laws.  Mr. Bickerstaff
alleged that approximately 400,000 Georgians had been overcharged
in the same way and were "well suited for class treatment."

A Fulton County judge declined to certify the class, a decision
upheld in March 2015 by the Georgia Court of Appeals.  Last year,
Bickerstaff died, setting off an unsuccessful bid from SunTrust to
have the Supreme Court case thrown out.

The case has drawn attention from legal scholars, arguing in
support of the class, as well as banking and business interests on
the other side.  In briefs and during oral arguments in January,
attorneys told the justices their ruling could either kill class
action or contract law in the state.

Michael Terry, an appellate lawyer with litigation boutique
Bondurant Mixson & Elmore who argued for the plaintiffs, praised
Justice Benham's opinion on July 11.  "We appreciate the Supreme
Court's careful and scholarly decision and are pleased the class
is this one step closer to resolution of their claims," Mr. Terry
said.  SunTrust's lead lawyer, William Withrow Jr. --
william.withrow@troutmansanders.com -- of Troutman Sanders, could
not be reached on July 11.

In the Supreme Court opinion, Justice Benham wrote that a federal
court's ruling in an unrelated action -- finding SunTrust's
customer arbitration clause "unconsionable" -- affected the 2010
overdraft fee class action.  Following that other ruling, SunTrust
amended its agreement to permit customers to reject arbitration
with written notification.

In the overdraft fee action, SunTrust argued that Mr. Bickerstaff
failed to provide the required opt-out notice.  But Mr. Terry, Mr.
Bickerstaff's lawyer, argued that Bickerstaff's lawsuit was
sufficient to serve as an opt-out notice.

Justice Benham agreed.  The high court also sided with plaintiffs
on the question of whether other banking customers could join the
class action, ruling that the 2010 lawsuit delayed the deadline
for their opting out of arbitration.

"The determinative issue is whether the filing of Bickerstaff's
complaint, thereby signaling his rejection of the arbitration
agreement, tolled the time in which the putative class members
were required to notify SunTrust of their intent to reject
arbitration," Justice Benham wrote.  "The answer is yes."

The case is Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank, No. S15G1295.


SUTTER HEALTH: 9th Cir. Sends "Sidibe" Suit Back to Trial Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth
Circuit, reversed the district court's judgment and remand for
further proceedings the Plaintiffs third amended antitrust class
action complaint under the Sherman Act, in the case, DJENEBA
SIDIBE; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SUTTER HEALTH,
Defendant-Appellee, No. 14-16234 (9th Cir.).

The panel consists of Circuit Judges Barry G. Silverman and
Jacqueline Nguyen, and the Hon. Michael M. Anello, District Judge
for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California, sitting by designation.

The Court pointed out that the district court, employing its
judicial experience and common sense, was not bound to conclude
that plaintiffs' geographic market allegations were untenable on
their face.

The Court cannot say that Plaintiffs' geographic market
allegations were inherently implausible. The third amended
complaint sufficiently alleged facts implicating the defendants.

The validity of the relevant market is typically a factual element
rather than a legal element, and inquiry into the commercial
realities faced by consumers is more appropriately addressed at
summary judgment or trial.

A copy of the Court's reversed decision dated July 15, 2016 is
available at http://goo.gl/3WLbJjfrom Leagle.com.


SWIFT: Employee Drivers' Class Action Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that an Arizona court ruling says a
lawsuit accusing a Phoenix-based nationwide trucking company of
breaking faith with employee drivers over mileage-based pay can
proceed as a class-action case.

The state Court of Appeals' ruling on July 12 overturns a trial
judge's 2015 ruling rescinding a previous approval of class-action
status in the decade-old case pending in Maricopa County Superior
Court.

Class-action status for the suit filed by one trucker driver would
allow it to proceed on behalf of 80,000 employee drivers
nationwide.

Swift wanted to have drivers' claims considered individually, but
the Court of Appeals said class-action status is warranted because
the company allegedly didn't tell drivers that it chose a payment
method that wasn't as accurate as other methods.

A Swift spokesman did not immediately return a call for comment.


TALMER BANK: Livonia Pension System Sues Over Merger
----------------------------------------------------
JC Reindl, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that a $1.1-
billion deal to merge Troy-based Talmer Bank into Midland-based
Chemical Bank and create the largest bank headquartered in
Michigan was set to be decided by shareholders, some of whom claim
the deal would shortchange Talmer's shareholders and enrich bank
insiders.

Executives of Talmer and Chemical banks call the pending deal a
"merger of equals" and a win-win for shareholders at both banks.
They say it would create a preeminent Michigan bank with greater
geographic reach, efficiency, and over time, a higher stock value.
The resulting new Chemical Bank would be 45% owned by today's
Talmer shareholders and be headquartered in Midland.   The Talmer
Bank name would fade away.

Some Talmer shareholders have filed lawsuits aimed at stopping the
deal, contending it undervalues Talmer to the detriment of regular
shareholders yet still showers millions on some bank executives
and board members.

At the deal's center is a transaction in which Chemical would buy
Talmer for the equivalent of $1.1 billion in stock and cash,
valued at $15.64 per share.  Talmer shareholders would get 0.4725
share of Chemical stock and $1.61 in cash for each Talmer share
they own.

The next step in the deal process is when Talmer shareholders have
a special meeting scheduled for July 14 at the Somerset Inn in
Troy to finish voting to approve or reject the Talmer-Chemical
merger proposal.  Chemical shareholders have a similar meeting
July 19 at the Midland Country Club.

If shareholders vote to approve the deal, it could be finalized in
August pending regulatory approval.  All 81 Talmer Bank branches
that stay open would become Chemical Bank branches by mid-
November.  Chemical currently has 175 branches

One of the lead shareholder lawsuits against the merger deal was
filed in June by the City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System
and seeks class-action status.  Most of the other lawsuits have
since been consolidated or dropped.

The pension system claims that the deal is bad for Talmer
shareholders and resulted from a "hopelessly flawed process" that
was engineered by bank insiders to ensure a sale of Talmer to
Chemical -- and no one else -- with terms that are preferential to
bank insiders and not general shareholders.

Talmer executives strongly dispute the lawsuit's allegations and
say the deal is good for all shareholders.

In an interview, Talmer Chairman and CEO David Provost said he is
puzzled by many of the claims in the Livonia pension system's
lawsuit, not least their motivation for going to court.

"The insiders of Talmer are on the same side as the shareholders,"
he said.

"It is very perplexing to me why our own neighbor would take legal
action," Mr. Provost said, adding that he thinks most other
shareholders are happy with the deal.  "I could understand if it
was a scoundrel from outside the state trying to do something --
but our own neighbor."

Messages left by the Free Press for the retirement system were not
returned and the system's lawyer in the case, David Shea of
Southfield-based Shea Aiello, declined comment for this article.

Talmer is the title sponsor of the annual Detroit Free Press
marathon.  The bank recently signed a new three-year contract that
will keep the Talmer name on the marathon this fall before
switching to the Chemical Bank name in 2017.

Questions about deal

Some Talmer shareholders have been raising questions about the
merger deal since it was announced Jan. 26.

An analyst with Deutsche Bank, a Talmer shareholder at the time,
said during the announcement's conference call that Deutsche was
disappointed because it appeared that Talmer's board and
executives did not look around to seek better offers.  And Talmer
appeared to be selling itself  for a distressed price, despite
reporting good earnings, he said.

"Your fiduciary duty is to the existing shareholders, not to the
future company and combined entity," the Deutsche analyst, Rich
Glass, said in the call.  "I haven't heard any explanation why the
institutional shareholders and all the shareholders on the Talmer
side shouldn't vote this deal down."

Then as now, Talmer executives have responded to complaints about
the price by saying the deal represents a merger -- not an
acquisition, which typically involves buyers paying more for
companies than they're actually worth.

"In a merger of equals there is very seldom a premium,"
Mr. Provost told the Free Press.  "If we were to buy them we might
have to pay a premium.  And if they were to buy us, they might
have to pay us a premium.  But when you do a merger of equals,
both companies win."

Still, Mr. Provost acknowledged that the current Chemical Bank
would be the dominant party in the deal, owning 55% of the new
Chemical Bank if the merger goes through. "You can never get it
exactly 50/50," he said.

Lawsuits galore

Merger and acquisition deals commonly attract shareholder lawsuits
like the Livonia pension system's claim.

Plaintiff attorneys across the U.S. filed shareholder lawsuits for
more than 90% of all proposed M&A deals valued at more than $100
million since 2011, with an average of about four lawsuits per
deal, according to a report published last year by Cornerstone
Research.  Multiple law firms issue news releases seeking
potential plaintiffs within days of nearly any deal's
announcement.

The same Cornerstone report found that the lawsuits were resolved
before deal closing 75% of the time, with the vast majority
settled.  Nearly 80% of the settlements in 2014 required the
companies to disclose additional information; just six settlements
that year required payments to shareholders. Only one case went to
trial, resulting in a $76-million damages award.

Eric Zacks, an assistant professor at Wayne State University Law
School, said the Livonia pension system's lawsuit is typical
because it emphasizes an allegedly flawed process that produced a
purportedly bad deal.  It's generally not enough to simply claim
that a deal should have made shareholders richer, he said.

"If they can get them on a flawed process . . . that's when boards
can find themselves in trouble," Mr. Zacks said.  "So if you are
getting a sweetheart deal as an insider that no one else is
getting, then that can be problematic."

The pension system does claim a flawed process in its lawsuit, and
alleges the poisoned process was based on a desire by Talmer's
executives and board members to strike a deal that could cash out
their illiquid Talmer shares.

It says Talmer hired a conflicted financial adviser for the deal,
New York-based Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, which was to pitch Talmer
as a merger candidate to Chemical, even though the firm was an
adviser to Chemical on another deal.

And the suit doubles down on the earlier Deutsche Bank analyst's
contention that Talmer's board didn't properly shop for a better
deal than what Chemical offered.  It notes how the value of the
transaction for Talmer shareholders -- $15.64 per share -- was
below what Talmer's stock closed the day before the deal's
Jan. 26 announcement ($16) and had traded for in December ($18+).
The stock closed July 11 at $19.34.

The Talmer-Chemical merger -- once completed -- would give cash-
out stock options of $5.6 million for Provost and $4.2 million for
Talmer's board Chairman Gary Torgow, as well as $1.1 million each
for the bank's chief financial officer and president, according to
the deal's prospectus.

The documents also note that Provost and Mr. Torgow have
voluntarily waived their rights to each receive $1.2 million in
cash under the deal, known as change-in-control payments, which
they would otherwise get based on their Talmer employment
contracts.

"We were so committed to this deal that we gave up the change of
control that we were entitled to, for the benefit of the deal,"
Provost said.  "We actually thought that show of support for the
deal would stop some of these frivolous lawsuits."

Asked about claims that Talmer failed to shop itself for better
offers, Provost said that "after looking at all alternatives, our
board thought a negotiated settlement would give us the best
results."

The Talmer CEO also said the bank sees no conflicts of interest
regarding the New York-based financial adviser that had done work
for both Talmer and Chemical.  He said there are only a few firms
that do such work in the banking industry, and it is hard to
completely avoid one of them.

The Livonia pension system's lawsuit also names Chemical Bank as
well as all 12 members of Talmer's board of directors, including
former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm.  A spokesperson for
Granholm said she has no comment and Chemical Bank did not return
a message for this report.

If shareholders approve the merger deal, the board of the new
Chemical Bank holding company would have 12 directors: seven from
the current Chemical, five from Talmer.  Mr. Torgow would be the
board's chairman and Provost its vice chairman.

Messrs. Provost and Torgow also would each get new two-year
employment contracts with $1-million annual salaries, $600 monthly
car allowances and memberships to country clubs of their choice.

The merger itself is estimated to produce $52 million in annual
cost-savings opportunities for the new bank. More than half of
that savings would come from back-office operations, such as
combining computer systems and hiring just one auditor instead of
two.  Five to seven bank branches would close -- current Talmer as
well as Chemical branches -- generally in areas where the banks
have redundancies or overlapping markets.

Mr. Provost was confident that Talmer shareholders will vote for
the deal.  The early tallies from proxy voting indicated approval,
he said.


TEXAS: Loses Bid to Boot Special Masters in Foster Care Reform
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: GREG ABBOTT, in his official capacity as
Governor of the State of Texas; CHRIS TRAYLOR, in his official
capacity as Executive Commissioner of the Health and Human
Services Commission of the State of Texas formerly known as Kyle
Janek; JOHN J. SPECIA, JR., in his official capacity as
Commissioner of the Department of Family and Protective Services
of the State of Texas, Petitioners, No. 16-40482 (5th Cir.), a
three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth
Circuit, affirmed the district court's rulings to deny the State's
motion to revoke the appointment of the special masters and to
decline the State's motion to certify an order for interlocutory
appeal.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(a)(1)(C) permits a court to
appoint a master to address pretrial and post-trial matters that
cannot be effectively and timely addressed by an available
district judge or magistrate judge of the district.

An aggrieved party, in the case, may seek review of an order of
reference by an interlocutory appeal or a writ of mandamus. The
court found that the Appellants, in filing a writ of mandamus,
have failed to demonstrate that they have a clear and indisputable
entitlement to relief of the proceedings.

A copy of the Ninth Circuit's decision dated July 7, 2016 is
available at http://goo.gl/Yg0ICUfrom Leagle.com.

                           *     *     *

Craig Malisow, writing for Houston Press, reports that the U.S.
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied state officials' motion
to quash the appointment of special masters who are overseeing
measures to overhaul the state's beleaguered foster care system.

Governor Greg Abbott and officials from the Department of Family
and Protective Services filed the appeal earlier this year, after
U.S. District Court Judge Janis Jack issued a blistering finding
that 12,000 foster children's constitutional rights had been
violated.  Judge Jack ordered the appointment of two special
masters to oversee changes mandated by Jack, including the setting
of practical case loads for workers on the front line. The ruling
was the result of a landmark class-action suit filed in 2011 by
the New York-based advocacy group Children's Rights.

The Fifth Circuit's ruling came more than three months after the
special masters had already been appointed.  They are Kevin Ryan,
a child welfare advocate who was involved in foster care reforms
in three other states; and Duke University law professor
Francis McGovern, who is the president of the Academy of Court-
Appointed Masters.

Paul Yetter, the Houston attorney who led the litigation on behalf
of Chidren's Rights, told the Houston Press he expects the masters
to issue their recommendations by September.

"This is a huge step forward for our state's children,"
Mr. Yetter said.  "The [Fifth Circuit] has cleared the way for
Judge Jack to come up with the right remedies and start the state
down the road of true reform."

Mr. Yetter said that "DFPS has been commendably cooperative,"
saying they want to see real change.

"On the other hand, the state's lawyers have been relentless in
opposing any sort of remedies," Mr. Yetter added.

Mr. Abbott's argument that appointing two special masters at the
state's expense was cost-prohibitive was just the latest in the
state's five-year battle to maintain the status quo in the foster
care system, where Judge Jack found that "rape, abuse,
psychotropic medication, and instability are the norm."


TROTT & TROTT: "Wilson" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
---------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Earl D. Wilson in the class action lawsuit styled EARL D.
WILSON, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated,
the Plaintiff, v. TROTT & TROTT, P.C., aka TROTT LAW, P.C., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-10335-DML-APP (E.D. Mich.), asks the
Court to certify a class:

     "all Michigan Mortgagors and Consumers whose names and
      defaulted mortgage debt and private information along with
      the fact Trott was collecting on that debt was communicated
      and publicized in public places and communicated to third
      parties in violation of the FDCPA."

The Plaintiff filed this class action complaint against the
Defendant for publicizing private, mortgage debt information to
the general public in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1WxSPgJS

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian P. Parker, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN P. PARKER
          222 S Shepherd St. PO Box 81
          Ironton, MO 63650-1326
          Telephone: (573) 546 2333


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Over Logan Airport Fee Nixed
------------------------------------------------------------
Bob McGovern, writing for Boston Herald, reports that a potential
class action lawsuit that accused ride-sharing giant Uber of
charging riders an unfair fee for airport trips has been tossed by
a federal judge who said passengers signed away their right to
sue.

"The process through which the plaintiffs established their
accounts put them on reasonable notice that their affirmative act
of signing up also bound them to Uber's Agreement," U.S. District
Court Judge Douglas Woodlock wrote in his decision.  "Whether or
not plaintiffs had actual notice of the terms of the Agreement,
all that matters is that plaintiffs had reasonable notice of the
terms."

The suit, which was filed in Suffolk Superior Court in 2014 but
was later moved to federal court, accuses Uber of applying an
$8.75 "Massport surcharge" to all airport rides -- a "fictitious"
fee, according to attorneys representing the passengers.

Judge Woodlock ruled that the controversy has to be heard in front
of an arbitrator because the riders accepted Uber's terms of use,
which compels arbitration and says that riders waive "the right to
a trial by jury or to participate as a plaintiff or class user in
any purported class action" case.

"We have to discuss with our clients to determine whether they
think an appeal is called for here," said John Roddy, who
represents the potential class of passengers.  "We think this is
the kind of issue that should be dealt with by the First Circuit
Court of Appeals, but it's up to our clients."

Uber said the decision "affirmed the validity and enforceability
of Uber's Terms of Service, including the arbitration provision."

Online agreements that deny users the right to sue and compel
arbitration have stirred up controversy, and Judge Woodlock
acknowledged that they are the "subject of current scholarly
disapproval and skeptical investigative journalism."


UNION BANK: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Ross" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosalind Ross, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Union Bank, N.A., and Does 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. BC625438 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 30, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay wages to their
California nonexempt employees for time spent responding to alarm
calls off-the-c1ock; their failure to issue accurate itemized wage
statements; and their failure to pay all wages due to their
California nonexempt employees upon separation of employment.

Union Bank, N.A. is a National Bank Association doing business in
California by operating numerous locations throughout the state.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Malik, Esq.
      MICHAEL MALIK, ESQ, APC
      1180 South Beverly Drive., Suite 90035
      Los Angeles, CA 90035
      Telephone: (310) 203-0016
      Facsimile: (310) 499-5210
      E-mail: mm@maliklawfirm.com


UNITED STATES: Former Prosecutor Sues Obama for Inciting Race War
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tori Richards, writing for Daily Caller, reports that a former
federal prosecutor has sued President Obama, the founders of Black
Lives Matter, Al Sharpton, Nation of Islam leader
Louis Farrakhan, and former US Attorney General Eric Holder for
inciting a race war that led to the fatal Dallas police shootings.

The federal class action lawsuit, filed on July 9 in Dallas,
accuses the defendants of aiding and abetting murder, terrorist
promotion of gang activity and civil rights violations of law
enforcement officers.  It seeks damages of more than $2 billion.

"These (defendants) have incited violence and in fact have a
direct link to what happened in Dallas," said Larry Klayman, who
worked in the Department of Justice during the Reagan
administration and later founded the conservative advocacy groups
Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch.  "I hope that law enforcement in
Dallas and around the nation will join our class action, it's a
peaceful legal means to fight this.  We've had it.  People are
finally starting to speak out."

The case has been assigned to Judge Sam A. Lindsay, a Clinton
appointee who is also African American.

None of the defendants responded for comment except for DOJ
spokesperson Nicole Navas, who said, "The Justice Department
declines to comment on the pending litigation.  Thank you."

"The defendants . . . have publicly incited people to violence
with the fiction that police officers and other law enforcement
are intentionally and systematically targeting and hunting blacks
and other minorities to kill them for no reason other than racism
or sport," the complaint said.

Defendants have called for a civil war targeting police officers
of all races "for immediate violence and severe bodily injury or
death in response to that non-existent and fictitious threat
. . . Defendants are encouraging disaffected blacks and black
Muslims to ignore, disrespect and assault law enforcement
officials, and commit violence and lethal force," the complaint
said.

On July 7, former US Army reservist Micah Johnson shot a dozen
Dallas police officers, killing five, during a rally to protest
the police killings of two black men the previous week.

"The suspect said he was upset about Black Lives Matter," Dallas
police Chief David Brown later told reporters.  "He said he was
upset about the recent shootings . . . he wanted to kill white
people, especially white officers."

But while the defendants -- spearheaded by President Obama --
blame police and non-minorities for fanning tensions that lead to
violence, statistics show that murder rate has steadily been
increasing across America during President Obama's tenure, the
complaint said.  Much of this crime involves black-on-black
violence in communities that are primarily black.

The 52-page complaint chronicles detailed accusations against each
defendant including:

President Obama and Mr. Holder met many times with Mr. Sharpton,
president of the National Action Network, and leaders of Black
Lives Matter over plans to change government policies regarding
police officers.  President Obama made the statement, "There's a
long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos of
being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately" and the pair
"incited and inflamed violent crowds into committing arson,
looting, destruction of property and assaults on police officers
based on the idea that the nation's police officers are
intentionally and systematically targeting, hunting and killing
blacks" without admitting that most police are responding to
incidents from 911 calls, regardless of race.

Mr. Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam.  He called for
active duty black military members to come home and lead a
national insurrection against society. In 2014, he spoke to a
crowd of 2,000 calling for revenge in Ferguson, Missouri for the
police shooting of Michael Brown.  A year later he told a Florida
church to "stalk them and kill them" pertaining to Jews and
Caucasians as a "400-year-old enemy."

Black Lives Matter leaders Rashad Turner, Opal Tometi, Patrisse
Cullors, Alicia Garza and DeRay McKesson inflamed racial tensions
after Ferguson to the point that Texas sheriff's deputy Darren
Goforth was murdered at a gas station by a black man in 2015.
Several days later, BLM led a march in St. Paul, chanting "Pigs in
a blanket, fry 'em like bacon."  The defendants have appeared on
radio asking for followers to "turn the tide and kill white people
and cops to send a message."

In the past few years, numerous police officers have been injured
or killed by minorities who spurred on by the defendants'
rhetoric, the complaint argued.  Since the Dallas killings, other
officers have suffered injuries such as broken teeth and a broken
vertebrae while working protests that have sprung up nationwide.

DeRay McKesson told USA Today that criticism of BLM is dishonest
and a way for non-minorities to avoid a discussion over police
brutality and racism.

"We should not have to protest," he said.  "We're in the street
because police have killed people.  We would love to go home, but
we can't go home.  We are unwilling to go home."

Mr. McKesson was arrested with 100 others during a march in Baton
Rouge for blocking public thoroughfares.

While on a European trip, President Obama urged the public to
avoid judging the BLM movement by the actions of a few.

"There are always folks who will say things that are stupid," he
said.  "I don't think you can hold well-meaning activists . . .
responsible for everything uttered at a protest site."


UNIVERSAL PICTURES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charlie Fitzgerald, III, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Universal Pictures, Inc., Case No. 6:16-cv-
01193-CEM-DAB (M.D. Fla., June 30, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of using an artificial and prerecorded voice
to deliver a message without prior express consent of the called
party.

Universal Pictures, Inc. provides motion picture production,
distribution, and applied services through its sound stages, back-
lot locations, and broadcast studios.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
      NORMAND LAW, PLLC
      62 W. Colonial St., Suite 209
      Orlando, FL 32814
      Telephone: (407) 603-6031
      E-mail: ed@ednormand.com


VHU EXPRESS: Benjamin's Bid for Conditional Cert. Partly Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Edwin G. Torres in the class action lawsuit captioned
ELEUTERIO A. BENJAMIN, LUIS ALONSO, and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. VHU EXPRESS, INC., LISA D. BYTHEWOOD,
and CRAIG BYTHEWOOD, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-20642-JLK
(S.D. Fla.), entered an order:

     1. granting Plaintiffs' motion to dispense with Settlement
        Conference;

     2. denying without prejudice Plaintiffs' motion for
        additional sanctions; and

     3. granting in part Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
        certification as follows:

        "All persons who are currently, or who were, employed
         from February 23, 2015 to the present in the position of
         driver, delivery driver, local delivery driver, or other
         similarly titled position, either directly by Defendants
         or through any of their subsidiaries or affiliated
         companies, in Florida."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=N6kVwIzM


VIGILANT CANINE: Bid for Default Judgment in "McGuire" Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALASTAIR McGUIRE, et al., Plaintiff, v. VIGILANT
CANINE SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants, No. 2:16-
cv-0206 TLN CKD PS (E.D. Calif.), Magistrate Judge Carolyn K.
Delaney denied without prejudice Plaintiff's application for entry
of default judgment by the Clerk of Court.

The Court held that motion for entry of default judgment must be
accompanied by memorandum of points and authorities, supporting
evidence, and proof of service demonstrating that the moving
papers have been served on defendants both at the California
address of the defendant business as well as at the address where
service of summons was effectuated.

Upon review, the court found that the executed return of summons
does not demonstrate personal service on the registered agent for
service of process for the defendant limited liability partnership
at the address listed on the California Secretary of State
website.

A copy of the Court's decision dated July 5, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/2rzfAofrom Leagle.com.


VISIONWORKS INC: Bid to Seal Docs in "Graiser" Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELLIOTT GRAISER, Plaintiff, v. VISIONWORKS OF
AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:15-CV-2306 (N.D. Ohio),
District Judge James S. Gwin denied Defendant's motion to maintain
its filing under seal concerning its "Buy One Get One Free"
glasses which allegedly violates the Ohio's Consumer Sale Practice
Act.

The Court emphasized that the party filing documents under seal
must show that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious
injury.

Defendant has not identified the standards in justifying the non-
disclosure of filed document as it did not allege that the sales
data is entitled to protection as a trade secret, which would be
enough to overcome the presumption of access.

A copy of the Court's decision dated July 5, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/hFHyJyfrom Leagle.com.

Visionworks of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by David H.
Wallace -- dwallace@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius & Hollister,
Michael J. Zbiegien, Jr. -- mzbiegien@taftlaw.com -- Taft,
Stettinius & Hollister & Ronald D. Holman, II --
rholman@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius & Hollister.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Employees Attempted to Cover Up Emissions Cheating
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Klepper, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
New York, Massachusetts and Maryland are suing Volkswagen and its
affiliates Audi and Porsche over diesel emissions cheating,
accusing the German automakers of defrauding customers, misleading
regulators and then seeking to cover up the deception.

The lawsuits, announced on July 19, allege that numerous employees
and executives at Volkswagen knew that diesel vehicles had been
equipped with software allowing them to cheat emissions testing,
and that after regulators began investigating several employees
tried to cover it up by eliminating data about the software.

"The allegations against Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche reveal a
culture of deeply-rooted corporate arrogance, combined with a
conscious disregard for the rule of law or the protection of
public health and the environment," said New York Attorney General
Eric Schneiderman.  "These suits should serve as a siren in every
corporate board room, that if any company engages in this type of
calculated and systematic illegality, we will bring the full force
of the law -- and seek the stiffest possible sanctions -- to
protect our citizens."

In a statement, Volkswagen said it is already in talks with
authorities regarding "a comprehensive national resolution of all
remaining environmental issues arising from the diesel matter."
The company also noted that it has agreed to buy back or modify
affected vehicles, create a $2.7 billion environmental trust and
invest $2 billion on infrastructure for zero-emission vehicles.

"The allegations in complaints filed by certain states [Tues]day
are essentially not new and we have been addressing them in our
discussions with U.S. federal and state authorities," the company
said.  "It is regrettable that some states have decided to sue for
environmental claims now, notwithstanding their prior support of
this ongoing federal-state collaborative process."

The legal action seeks "substantial penalties" that would be based
on a calculation of the duration of the alleged violations.

While news of the rigged emissions tests first erupted a year ago,
the new legal action makes several new allegations -- most notably
about the involvement of Volkswagen engineers and executives.  The
suit alleges that Volkswagen submitted false emissions data to
regulators and sought to eliminate evidence when an investigation
began.

"This 'clean diesel' was nothing more than a dirty cover up," said
Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey.  ". . . Volkswagen
acted as if it was above the law."

Volkswagen also issued "sham" recall notices to some car owners
and dealers in an effort to "turn down" the software, according to
the New York lawsuit.  Instead, some owners were told the recalls
were needed for upgrades and "optimize" emissions.

At one point, when California regulators announced plans for
emissions tests that threatened to expose the devices, the
company's top engineer emailed colleagues seeking help, according
to the lawsuit, writing.  "Come up with the story please!"

Additionally, just before the scandal broke, in August 2015, eight
employees in the engineering department "promptly deleted or
removed incriminating data about the devices from the company's
record" after being advised of the likelihood of legal action by a
senior company attorney, according to the lawsuit.

The suit also claims that former Volkswagen CEO Martin Winterkorn
and a top executive at Audi knew of the devices by spring 2014.
The two leaders, the suit alleges, "had ample notice of the
existence of unlawful illegal devices and did nothing to prevent
both Audi and Volkswagen from repeatedly deceiving regulators, and
the American public, for another 17 months."

Mr. Schneiderman and Ms. Healey detailed the case at a July 20
news conference in New York City.  The two Democrats are the top
law enforcement officials in their respective states, and each
state will file its own lawsuit.

Last month, the German automaker agreed to spend up to $15.3
billion to settle consumer and government lawsuits over the
emissions cheating, first disclosed in 2015.

Mr. Schneiderman and Ms. Healey say that settlement did not
resolve claims regarding violating state environmental laws and
did not cover all the affected vehicles.

Maryland officials announced their lawsuit separately.

"Their disregard for the health of our citizens and their
disregard for our environment must be punished," Maryland Attorney
General Brian Frosh said in a statement.

Some 25,000 affected vehicles were sold in New York state and
15,000 in Massachusetts, according to the lawsuits.  As of
October, about 13,000 such vehicles were registered in Maryland,
officials said. An estimated 600,000 were sold across the country.

The prosecutors say consumers who purchased one of the vehicles
believed they were buying a "green diesel" car, even though the
vehicles illegally emitted pollutants linked to respiratory
disease, elevated ozone levels and smog.


WESTLAKE Services: Settlement in "Duchene" Suit Approved
--------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Mark R. Hornak approves the Settlement Agreement in the
class action lawsuit styled Pierce Duchene, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Westlake
Services, LLC d/b/a Westlake Financial Services, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:13-cv-01577-MRH (W.D. Pa.), including the plans for
implementation and distribution of the settlement relief.

For purposes of the Settlement and Final Approval Order and
Judgment, the Court certifies the following Settlement Class:

     "All persons to whom Westlake, its agents and/or its
      independent contractors between January 11, 2012, and
      November 7, 2013 placed a telephone call using an automatic
      telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded
      voice to the person's cellular telephone in connection with
      the confirmation of a loan applicant's references."

The Court finds that the Settlement is, in all respects, fair,
reasonable and adequate to the Class Members, within the authority
of the parties and the result of extensive arm's-length
negotiations.

The Court grants Class Counsel's request for an award of
reasonable Attorney's Fees and Costs in the amount of
$3,333,333.33 and Class Counsel's application for an Incentive
Award for Pierce Duchene in the amount of $10,000.00. These
amounts are to be paid out of the Settlement Fund, in accordance
with the Settlement Agreement.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Thdy83XY


* Israel Court Set to Decide on Gas Monopoly Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Ya'acov Zalel, writing for Natural Gas Europe, reports that an
Israeli District Court will decide in the next few days whether to
approve a class action against the Israeli gas monopoly.  The
class action was submitted by two advocates, Gillad Barnea and
Yitzhak Yaari, who are demanding that the gas monopoly repays
NIS2.5bn ($640mn) for every year of gas supply to electricity
customers because of exorbitant pricing of natural gas.

The class action was submitted in 2014.  The plaintiffs argued
that the partners exploited their monopolistic position to sell
gas at two or three times the fair price and in doing so have
broken the anti-trust law.

Solicitors to the energy companies said that if the class action
will be approved it would violate the natural gas framework, the
document regulating the terms on which producers may do business.

In the last few weeks, the Attorney General has become involved in
the litigation, siding with the gas monopoly and the government.
It is not clear why the government's legal adviser has chosen to
enter the fray just now, two years after the class action was
submitted.

According to the official, "a sharp decrease in gas price as is
demanded in the class action might cause a heavy damage to the
development capability of the new gas reservoirs and would
eliminate new competitors from entering [the Israeli gas sector)
and in doing so pulling the rug from under the framework."


* Lawsuits Over 401(k) Plans on the Rise
----------------------------------------
According to Yahoo! Finance's Manikandan Raman, reports that
lawsuits against 401(k) plans going bad are on the rise, and they
aren't just filed against big retirement plans any more.  These
lawsuits are centered on the bad investments, high costs and
"revenue sharing," according to a report on Bloomberg.

Law firm Nichols Kaster calls the 401(k) "one of the most
expensive plans in America" in its proposed class action suit
against Fujitsu Technology and Business of America Inc. over a
$1.3 billion retirement plan.

One Of The Newest Cases
In a lawsuit filed in a San Jose federal court, the attorneys
alleged a large amount of fiduciary breaches connected to
"excessive fees, record keeping, and the components of the
company's target-date funds."

Bloomberg said the law firm compared Fujitsu plan fees with
roughly 650 other plans of comparable asset size.  "Among 401(k)'s
with that much money, the average plan has annual costs that
amount to 0.33 percent of assets, according to the complaint; it
estimates that Fujitsu's costs were 0.88 and 0.90 percent for 2013
and 2014," Bloomberg read.

The law firm said this "would have led to at least $7 million in
excess fees that could have been socked away in employee nest
eggs, the complaint stated."

Furthermore, the report said, "Fujitsu America, which provides
technology and business support to affiliated companies, has yet
to answer the complaint or make an appearance in the case, and a
company spokesman declined to comment."

'Just The Beginning'
Bloomberg, citing Wagner Law Group, said lawsuits like this one
"are just the beginning" and come on the back of high-profile
suits filed and won by Jerome Schlichter, of the St. Louis law
firm Schlichter Bogard & Denton.

"It started with Schlichter doing cases against very large
corporations in America," Wagner told Bloomberg.  "And now it's
going to start to be a free-for-all."

"With more attorneys seeing an opportunity, smaller plans are
starting to feel the heat.  After launching four 401(k) lawsuits
alleging breach of fiduciary duty late last year, Minneapolis-
based Nichols Kaster has filed four more in 2016, most recently
against Fujitsu and American Century's $600 million plan,"
Bloomberg said.

Meanwhile, the report said 2016 has already seen a 401(k) plan be
hit with a lawsuit, despite holding less than $10 million in
assets, "a development that garnered the attention of many players
in the small plan universe."

                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Pipefitter Sues 20+ Companies
-----------------------------------------------------
Bobbie D. Hayes and Sandra Jean Hayes sued more than 20 companies
in a state court in Delaware alleging that Mr. Hayes was
wrongfully exposed to asbestos fibers during his employment with
the following former employers:

   a. Standard Auto Parts, in Barnsdall, OK, as a Stocker,
Laborer, and Rivet Liner, from approximately 1964 to 1965;

   b. Barnsdall Lumber Company, in Barnsdall, OK, as a Delivery
Man, Maintenance Man, and Laborer, from approximately 1965 to
1968;

   c. Texaco Service Stateion, in Tulsa, OK, as a Maintenance Man,
Laborer, and Gas Clerk, from approximately 1968 to 1969;

   d. Dickson Goodman Lumber Company in Oklahoma, as a Laborer,
and running the plaint warehouse, from approximately 1969 to 1970;

   e. Baker Petrolite, in Barnsdall, OK, as a Pipefitter, Welder,
Insulator, Electrician, Laborer, and Yardman, from approximately
1970 to 1980;

   f. Phillips 66, in Barnsdall, OK, as a Mechanical Drafter, from
approximately 1980 to 1986;

   g. S.T.C. Service technology Corp., in Barnsdall, OK, as a
Mechanical Drafter, from approximately 1986 to 1996; and

   h. Hayes Field Service, in Barnsdall, OK, as a Mechanical
Drafter, from approximately 1996 to present.

The lawsuit further alleges that as a result of the Defendants'
wrongful conduct, Mr. Hayes suffers from an asbestos-related
disease, including, but not limited to, mesothelioma.

The Plaintiffs ask the court to enter judgment against the
Defendants and to award: compensatory damages in an amount to be
proven at trial, but believed to exceed $100,000; and punitive
damages in an amount sufficient to punish the Defendants for their
misconduct and to deter similarly situated parties from committing
like acts of misconduct in the future.

The case is BOBBIE D. HAYES, and SANDRA JEAN HAYES, his wife,
Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, individually and
as wholly-owned subsidiary of AMPCO-PITTSBURGH CORPORATION,
individually and as successor in interest to BUFFALO PUMPS;
AURORA PUMP COMPANY; AUTOZONE, INC.; BLACKMER PUMP COMPANY;
BORGWARNER MORSE TEC LLC; BW/IP INC., as successor to BYRON
JACKSON PUMPS; CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC.; CRANE CO.; CROSBY VALVE LLC;
FEDERAL-MOGUL ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY TRUST, as a successor to
FELT PRODUCTS MFG. CO.; FORD MOTOR COMPANY; GENUINE PARTS COMPANY,
trading as NAPA AUTO PARTS; GOULDS PUMPS, INCORPORATED; GRINNELL
LLC; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., f/k/a ALLIED SIGNAL, INC., as
successor in interest to THE BENDIX CORPORATION; IMO INDUSTRIES,
INC.; ITT CORPORATION; MCCORD CORPORATION; NELES-JAMESBURY, INC.;
PFIZER, INC.; PNEUMO ABEX LLC, individually and as successor in
interest to PNEUMO ABEX CORPORATION; THE GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER
COMPANY; THE PEP BOYS -- MANNY, MOE & JACK; UNION CARBIDE
CORPORATION; VIKING PUMP, INC., Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     A. Dale Bowers, Esq.
     Kenneth L. Wan, Esq.
     William J. P. Mulgrew, III, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF A. DALE BOWERS, P.A.
     203 North Maryland Avenue
     Wilmington, DE 19804
     Tel: (302) 691-3786
     Fax: (302) 691-3790
     Email: dale@bowerslegal.com

Of counsel for the Plaintiffs:

     Neidra Wilson, Esq.
     WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
     200 Lake Drive East, Suite 205
     Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
     Tel: (856) 755-1115
     Fax: (856) 755-1995


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Texas Couple Sues USX Corp. Over Mesothelioma
--------------------------------------------------------------
Louis Crandall, who was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in
April 2016, sued USX Corporation and several other companies,
alleging that at various periods of time during his employment, he
was exposed to and did inhale asbestos dust and asbestos fibers.

According to the lawsuit, which was filed in the Court of Common
Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, the defendants were
engaged in the business of mining and/or milling and/or
manufacturing and/or fabricating and/or supplying and/or selling
and/or specifying and/or installing asbestos-containing prodcts to
which he was exposed.

Mr. Crandall, together with his wife, who are both residents of
Texas, assert damages for, among other things, past and future
hospital and medical expenses incidental to the plaintiff's
illness and for loss of earnings and future earning power.

The case is LOUIS CRANDALL and ROSE MAREE STROUD CRANDALL HIS
WIFE, Plaintiff(s), v. USX CORPORATION; BEAZER EAST, INC. F/K/A
KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.; CBS CORPORATION, f/k/a Viacom, Inc.
(successor-by-merger to CBS Corporation, successor-by-merger to
Westinghouse Electric Corporation); CRANE CO.; GENERAL ELECTRIC
COMPANY; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., successor-in-interest to
Allied-Signal, Inc., successor by merger to Allied Corporation,
f/k/a Allied Chemical Corporation, and Allied Chemical & Dye
Corporation; ATLAS INDUSTRIES, INC.; And POWER PIPING COMPANY,
Defendants.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff:

     Kathryn A. Pryor, Esq.
     Chad R. Cotten, Esq.
     BARON & BUDD P.C.
     3201 Oak Lawn Ave, Suite 1100
     Dallas, TX 75219
     Tel: 214-521-3605
     Fax: 214-520-1181
     Email: kpryor@baronbudd.com
            ccotten@baronbudd.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Plumber Sues Dozens Over Lung Cancer
------------------------------------------------------------
David Garcia, and Charla Garcia, his wife, sued several companies
alleging that Mr. Garcia, during the course of his employment, was
wrongfully exposed to and inhaled asbestos-containing materials
resulting to him suffering from an asbestos-related disease,
including, but not limited to, lung cancer.

Mr. Garcia said he was employed by the following:

   a. Green Stump Plumbing, in Phoenix, AZ, and Glendale, AZ, as a
Plumber and Pipefitter, from approximately 1970 to 1980;

   b. Bechtel, in Tonopah, AZ, as a Pipefitter, from approximately
1980 to 1986; and

   c. K & S Plumbing, in Phoenix, AZ, and Glendale, AZ, as a
Plumber and Pipefitter, from approximately 1986 to 1995.

The Plaintiffs asked the Court to enter judgment against the
Defendants and to award: compensatory damages in an amount to be
proven at trial, but believed to exceed $100,000; and punitive
damages in an amount sufficient to punish the Defendants for their
misconduct and to deter similarly situated parties from committing
like acts of misconduct in the future.

The case is DAVID GARCIA, and CHARLA GARCIA, his wife, Plaintiffs,
v. A.O. SMITH CORPORATION; AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION,
individually and as wholly-owned subsidiary of AMPCO-PITTSBURGH
CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to BUFFALO
PUMPS; AURORA PUMP COMPANY; BW/IP INC., as successor to BYRON
JACKSON PUMPS; CBS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, f/k/a
VIACOM, INC., successor by merger to CBS CORPORATION, a
Pennsylvania Corporation, f/k/a WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION,
as successor in interest to THE BRYANT ELECTRIC COMPANY;
CERTAINTEED CORPORATION; CRANE CO.; FLOWSERVE U.S., INC.,
individually and solely as successor to DURCO, DURIRON, ANCHOR
DARLING, SUPERIOR GROUP, EDWARD VOGT, VOGT VALVES, NORDSTROM
VALVES, EDWARD VALVE, INC., and ROCKWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY;
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC; GOULDS PUMPS,
INCORPORATED; GRINNELL LLC; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., f/k/a
ALLIED SIGNAL, INC., as successor in interest to THE BENDIX
CORPORATION; IMO INDUSTRIES, INC.; ITT CORPORATION; KAISER GYPSUM
COMPANY, INC.; KOHLER COMPANY; PEERLESS INDUSTRIES, INC.;
PNEUMO ABEX LLC, individually and as successor in interest to
PNEUMO ABEX CORPORATION; THE FAIRBANKS COMPANY; THE MARLEY-WYLAIN
COMPANY, d/b/a WEIL-MCLAIN, individually and as successor in
interest to THE WEIL-MCLAIN COMPANY; WARREN PUMPS LLC, Defendants,
C.A. No. ______ (Del. Sup.).

The Plaintiffs' counsel:

     A. Dale Bowers, Esq.
     Kenneth L. Wan, Esq.
     William J. P. Mulgrew, III, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF A. DALE BOWERS, P.A.
     203 North Maryland Avenue
     Wilmington, DE 19804
     Tel: (302) 691-3786
     Fax: (302) 691-3790
     Email: dale@bowerslegal.com

Of counsel:

     Michael Fanelli, Esq.
     WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
     700 Broadway
     New York, NY 10003
     Tel: (212) 558-5500
     Fax: (212) 344-5461


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmate Allowed to Amend Pro Se Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Stefan R. Underhill of the United States District Court for
the District of Connecticut, issued an initial review order on
June 29, 2016, directing Edward Vines, currently incarcerated at
the Osborn Correctional Institution in Somers, Connecticut, to
file an amended complaint that complies with Rule 20 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Vines filed a case pro se under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 alleging
that the defendants violated his First, Fifth, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendment rights.  Vines names fifteen defendants:
Correctional Officers Briatico, Owen, Lapointe, Williams, Selgado,
and Castle; Counselor Supervisors Bouffard and Long; Captains
Garcia and Colon; Deputy Warden Powers; Wardens Brighthaupt and
Maldinado; Kevin D. Roy; and Commissioner Scott Semple.

Vines alleged that exposure to asbestos, mold, gnats, contaminated
water, lead paint and inadequate ventilation and heating has
caused him to suffer dizzy spells, respiratory problems, neural
problems, frequent nose bleeds, chronic dry eyes and optical
problems, nausea, and migraine pain.

The case is EDWARD VINES, Plaintiff, v. BRIATICO, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-893 (SRU)(D. Conn.).  A full-text
copy of Judge Underhill's Decision is available at
https://is.gd/EEBy1u from Leagle.com.

Edward Vines, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Vacates Money Judgment vs. Crane Co.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth
Department, in a July 8, 2016 decision unanimously vacated on the
law without costs the judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County
(Jeremiah J. Moriarty, III, J.), entered June 10, 2015.  The
judgment awarded plaintiff money damages against defendant Crane
Co.

The Court also modified the order entered July 10, 2014, on the
law by granting the postverdict motion in part, setting aside the
verdict in part, and granting a new trial on the claim that
defendant Crane Co. acted with reckless disregard for the safety
of the plaintiff's decedent Lee Holdsworth, and as modified, the
order is affirmed.

Crane Co. appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict
finding that it is 35% liable for the damages arising from
injuries sustained by Lee Holdsworth as a result of exposure to
asbestos-containing products used as component parts with the
valves that defendant produced.  Because the jury determined that
the defendant acted with reckless disregard for the safety of the
plaintiff's decedent, the defendant is jointly and severally
liable for 100% of the damages.

The Court agrees with the defendant that Supreme Court erred in
denying its request to charge the jury on the plaintiff's claim
that it acted with reckless disregard for the safety of the
plaintiff's decedent in accordance with the language set forth in
Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. (Maltese) (89 N.Y.2d 955,
956-957). Indeed, although the court used the charge set forth in
the Pattern Jury Instructions, i.e., PJI 2:275.2, that charge does
not accurately reflect the standard set by the Court of Appeals in
Maltese because the charge in the Pattern Jury Instructions in
effect reduced plaintiff's burden of proof on her claim that
defendant acted with reckless disregard for the safety of
plaintiff's decedent, the Court held.

The Court therefore vacated the judgment, and modified the order
denying the defendant's postverdict motion by granting that part
of the motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside the verdict on
plaintiff's claim that defendant acted with reckless disregard for
the safety of plaintiff's decedent and granting a new trial on
that issue.

The case is IN THE MATTER OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ASBESTOS
LITIGATION. BETH ANN PIENTA, AS SUCCESSOR EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE
OF LEE HOLDSWORTH, DECEASED, AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF
CAROL A. HOLDSWORTH, DECEASED, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. A.W.
CHESTERTON COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants, AND CRANE CO., Defendant-
Appellant. (Appeal No. 4.), 456 CA 15-01240 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A
full-text copy of the Decision is available at
https://is.gd/xroThD from Leagle.com.

In the same case, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of
New York, Fourth Department, in separate July 8, 2016 decisions,
unanimously dismissed without costs Appeal No. 1, Appeal No. 2,
and Appeal No. 3 filed by Crane Co.

A full-text copy of the Decision relating to Appeal No. 1 is
available at https://is.gd/TBnzcB from Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of the Decision relating to Appeal No. 2 is
available at https://is.gd/fGpIga from Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of the Decision relating to Appeal No. 3 is
available at https://is.gd/Lep3W6 from Leagle.com.

K & L GATES LLP, NEW YORK CITY (MICHAEL J. ROSS, Esq. --
michael.ross@klgates.com -- OF THE PENNSYLVANIA BAR, ADMITTED PRO
HAC VICE, OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

LIPSITZ & PONTERIO, LLC, BUFFALO (DENNIS P. HARLOW OF COUNSEL),
FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Time in 5 NY Suits Enlarged to 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, in separate decisions dated July 7, 2016, enlarged the
time to perfect appeal to the March 2017 Term in the following
cases:

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. TOTO, v. A.C. AND
S., INC. -- CRANE CO. (ARMSTRONG CONTRACTING & SUPPLY), Motion No.
M-2889 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is
available at https://is.gd/O5pgF0 from Leagle.com.

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION NASH, v. A.C. AND
S., INC. -- CRANE CO. -- ESTATE OF NASH, Motion No. M-2888 (N.Y.
App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
https://is.gd/Bvbaiw from Leagle.com.

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. LUCADAMO, v. A.O.
SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO. -- CRANE CO., Motion No. M-2890 (N.Y.
App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
https://is.gd/cVGqIQ from Leagle.com.

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. TORBITT, v. A.O.
SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO. -- CRANE CO., Motion No. M-2887 (N.Y.
App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
https://is.gd/3iPskJ from Leagle.com.

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. CRESCENZI, v.
AZROCK INDUSTRIES -- CRANE CO., Motion No. M-2891 (N.Y. App.
Div.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
https://is.gd/SXzb4y from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sunday House Demolition Cited for Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Derreck Cosson, writing for The Pulse, reported that the company
which demolished Pensacola's historic John Sunday House has been
cited by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for
possible violations in the way asbestos has been handled.

Maverick Demolition razed the 115-year-old house, located in The
Tanyard, a historically African-American neighborhood located just
west of downtown Pensacola. While the house was in a protected
review district, developer Charles Liberis managed to bypass the
city's historic preservation process through a legal maneuver.

FDEP officials sent a "warning letter" to Maverick after
conducting an inspection of the site and finding possible
violations.

The Sunday House demolition was not exempt from federal and state
rules which dictate how asbestos is handled, FDEP officials said,
including rules which require contractors to file advance notice
of demolitions involving asbestos. No such advance notice was
filed by Maverick before beginning the demolition on Saturday.

"Debris from the demolition was still at the site and left dry and
exposed to the outside elements without adequate emission
control," wrote FDEP inspectors.

County records show asbestos was present in both the Sunday House
and an adjoining carriage house located at 25 South Reus Street,
which was demolished at the same time. Clearly labeled packages of
Eternit asbestos cement singles were photographed amongst the
debris; those photos were later provided to FDEP investigators.

Pensacola resident Teresa Hill, who filed the complaint with FDEP
which led to the inspection, said that she's concerned about the
potential health effects of the fine white dust that was released
during the house's demolition. "The dust clouds during demolition
were quite shocking," said Hill. "I'm concerned because this was
done on one of the busiest shopping days at the organic store
fifty yards away, with a northerly wind, exposing hundreds of
shoppers."

Prolonged inhalation of asbestos fibers can cause serious and
fatal illnesses, including lung cancer, mesothelioma, and
asbestosis. Once common, the use of asbestos in building materials
and other products has been sharply limited since the 1970s.

Depending on the result of FDEP's investigation, Maverick could
face thousands of dollars in fines for both the asbestos issues
and their failure to file advance notice of the demolition.

"At this point, our first priority is to ensure that the debris at
the site is properly handled from this point on," said Brandy M.
Smith, external affairs manager for FDEP's Northwest District.
"Our compliance staff has been in communication with Maverick and
[they] have been told that a licensed asbestos consultant has been
hired to conduct a survey of the site and advise Maverick as to
proper handling of the debris. Once the department has all the
facts we will determine what if any enforcement actions are
necessary."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Citizens Concerned Over Stedham School Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
Midhurst and Petworth Observer reported that campaigners are
concerned that asbestos is still lying in rubble after former
classrooms on the St Cuthman's site were knocked down four years
ago.

And they are frustrated that the former classrooms, which still
have not been cleared away, are now needed and would have been a
better site.

Leading campaigner Stephen McGairl claimed the demolition and
other issues highlighted Durand as 'a bad manager of the site'.

They included: "external lighting, asbestos lying around for five
years, building demolished in 2011 which they now need."

"The asbestos is frankly a scandal. They have children on the
site," he told a public meeting in Stedham.

Kate Hearle said : "It is unacceptable to leave the site in that
state for this length of time. "There is a lot of asbestos waste
in there."

The situation was, she said being investigated by the health and
safety executive.

"If I was a parent and I found out a whole bunch of people knew
there had been asbestos there for several years, I would be
really, really upset."

The meeting was told the asbestos was 'relatively safe' at
present, but it could become dangerous when it was moved.

The Durand Academy has moved to give an assurance to neighbours of
the former St Cuthman's School at Stedham and parents of the
children there.

A spokesman for the academy told the Observer: "Asbestos can be
found in any building built before the year 2000, and the
Department for Education estimates that the majority of schools in
England contain some asbestos.

"If it is undamaged and managed safely, the presence of asbestos
in school buildings does not pose a significant risk.


She continued: "The asbestos at St Cuthman's is located in
derelict buildings which are fenced off.

"Neither children nor staff use these buildings.

"At Durand, the wellbeing and welfare of our pupils is our highest
priority and we have carried out additional checks, over and above
our statutory duty to assess any potential risk.

"We can assure parents and the community that there is no evidence
of asbestos being a threat to either pupils or staff."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos at Sunnyside Delays Roof Project
----------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Berkowitz, writing for Shelton Herald, reported that
Sunnyside Elementary School parents are upset to hear their
children's school will have to wait even longer for a permanent
roof repair.

The school's roof, estimated to be 20 years old, was scheduled to
be repaired when the after the 2015-16 school year, but that plan
changed when asbestos was discovered in one of the areas in need
of fixing.

Board of Ed Chairman Mark Holden said the asbestos isn't to be
considered a danger to anyone in the building as long as it
remains "encapsulated."

Sunnyside PTO member Anne Gaydos said there initially was concerns
of students having to relocate, but Holden said that will not be
necessary. She said the PTO is also frustrated they were told the
reason the project wasn't completed initially was because they
didn't have a building coordinator, but one was hired and still no
progress has been made.

Shelton Superintendent of Schools Dr. Chris Clouet said his staff
as well as architects are working to come up with the best option
for the roof project, while considering everyone's safety, going
forward.

"The project was approved by the state, the city's money was
allocated by the Board of Aldermen, project was put out to bid,"
Dr. Clouet said. "The bidder was accepted and then they said they
would like to run some tests for asbestos in the roof decking
before beginning the repairs."

Clouet clarified that when most people hear roof they visualize
what they see from the street covering a home. He said larger
buildings and schools use a more complex roof system made up of
multiple layers.

According to Clouet, one of the layers includes a substance used
back in the 1950s which contained 3 to 10% of asbestos.  The
discovery of it put the plans of working on the school's roof to a
halt.

Gaydos said she noticed was no work was being done on the school's
roof while she was with her daughter at the city's free playground
program, which is held at all of the local elementary schools
(Sunnyside, Booth Hill, Elizabeth Shelton and Mohegan).

Gaydos added that she hadn't heard of any complications with the
project until she spoke with Holden.

"I was surprised and the PTO President (Kristine Ray) was unaware
of the setback until I told her," said Gaydos.

Ray was unavailable for comment, but Gaydos said the consensus of
the school's PTO was extreme frustration.

"It's mid-July and school starts Sept. 6 so it doesn't look like
much is going to happen this summer," said Gaydos.

Mayor Mark Lauretti said that's not entirely true and there's
still a chance work could be done on the roof before the end of
summer.

"The project has unofficially been delayed but we are still
weighing all of our options," Lauretti said. "The whole building
will not get done but a portion may get done."

Lauretti said the main concern is trying to make sure the building
is watertight on a temporary basis, even if that means another
temporary patch job.

Sunnyside PTO is set to meet with Clouet Aug. 1 and will have a
better idea of options after that.

He said he is expecting additional costs, but he isn't entirely
sure because there is still an ongoing discussion with vendors
deciding on the best method to safely deal with the asbestos.

"We may not need additional patching and the patching from
previous year could be last us another year. It's a possibility,"
Clouet said.

Holden said the asbestos isn't to be considered a danger to anyone
in the building as long as it remains "encapsulated."

Gaydos said there initially was concerns of students having to
relocate, but Holden said that will not be necessary.

"People tend to get concerned when they hear 'asbestos,' but at
this point it is 'encapsulated' and is not a problem. The trick is
making sure that when the work is being done it doesn't become a
problem," said Holden. "The problem with that is that it does need
a new roof. The issue still needs to be addressed but no one knows
what the final outcome will be."

More than $700,000 allocated to the project will not be spent
until it is finished, according to Holden.

"I expect the work will still be done, but it may not happen this
summer. One of the concerns is having them work while students are
in the building, which is not a viable option," said Holden.

He added that another option for the city is to have the work done
after students are dismissed each day and on weekends, but it
would be costly for the city.

"That would drive the price of completing the project up
tremendously," said Holden. "Everything I know says there would be
no students in the building during asbestos remediation."

Another temporary patch job is not what the Board of Ed had in
mind as a solution, but Holden said its options are limited and
focused on people's safety as well as getting the job done
correctly.

"That would be rather frustrating, but at the same time we have to
go with the best option considering the circumstances at the time.
I'm kind of surprised there hadn't been asbestos factored in way
back when on this roof because you would expect on a school this
age that asbestos would be present," said Holden. "Why that wasn't
always a part of this plan is still a mystery to me. The Board of
Ed really isn't a part of capital projects like this and the city
doesn't want us to be."

Holden said he is unsure of the last time the school was checked
for asbestos, but said air quality checks are done regularly.

He added that although the news on the school's roof project isn't
what most would've hoped, new library furniture is to be installed
before the school year.

Gaydos said fortunately the prior temporary patch job held up
during last year's mild winter, but she is skeptical they will be
lucky two years in a row.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thatcher Mill Fire Causes Asbestos Concerns
------------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Duff, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that the
decades old Standard Coosa Thatcher Mills building burned to the
ground causing concern because it contained asbestos. Fire
officials were the ones to share the asbestos news with the
public.

The owner, City Property Company's President Tim Boyle, said he
was aware the building contained asbestos.

"We've done studies and that's common for industrial buildings to
have environmental issues," stated Boyle.

The fire has raised concerns among the surrounding community as
well as asbestos experts.

"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, they can drift and contaminate
a neighborhood," said asbestos expert Dr. Arthur Frank.

"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," added Dr. Frank.

"Even though air pollution investigators responded to the fire
scene, the air quality outside the plant is not being monitored,"
said a Chattanooga-Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Bureau
spokesperson.

"We look for buildings that are in depressed areas that could
benefit [and] that the area and the buildings could benefit from
redevelopment," said Boyle.

The former plant was vacant for several years until City Property
planned to renovate the mill into 160 loft-style affordable
housing apartments. The buildings that burned down in the fire
were fortunately not the ones to be remodeled.

In fact, asbestos was long considered a miracle material for its
excellent fire- and heat-resistant properties. This naturally
occurring mineral actually dates back to ancient Greece. It was
used as a building material as far back as the Roman Empire.
Eventually it was used as a fabric component in clothing and other
textiles.

Handling asbestos must be done with great care due to the toxic
properties and its classification as a known carcinogen. When in
good condition, there's usually no hazard. But when it becomes
worn or damaged, it's a great risk to the health and safety of
humans.

For example, a fire could release the asbestos fibers into the air
and anyone in the area could inhale them. Years later, this
asbestos exposure could lead to mesothelioma cancer and other
diseases.

Boyle recently discovered the mill would be receiving a $200,000
loan for hazardous supplemental funding. He plans to use the funds
to clean up the fire and still continue construction in January
2017.

The mill fire has remained under investigation for now.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calgarians w/ Asbestos Cancer Need More Choices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Nerman, writing for CBC News, reported that a Calgary
woman says doctors in the city treating patients with asbestos
cancers should be offering more treatment options, even if those
options are risky.

Carrie Cassidy says her father Lyle was given "no hope" when he
was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer that develops in the
lining of the chest and lungs and has been connected to repetitive
exposure to asbestos.

Asbestos deaths in Alberta higher than reported, says Calgary prof
National inventory of federal buildings containing asbestos
While there is no cure for the disease, Alberta Health Services
does have guidelines for treatment, which include surgery and
recruitment into clinical trials.

But when the Cassidy family asked Lyle's oncologist about those
options, they were dismissed.

"Really, anything we asked about -- he said that it wasn't
proven," Carrie Cassidy told the Calgary Eyeopener on Monday.

"He was told to go home and enjoy what time he had left."

Doctors gave him less than 2 years to live

In January 2013, Lye Cassidy's doctors gave him six to 18 months
to live and told him surgery would be "invasive and wouldn't
prolong his life," his daughter said.

"I don't like to put down our healthcare system, but they really
didn't give us any other hope ... Or tell us to get a second
opinion."

Not convinced that palliative care was her father's only option,
Carrie Cassidy dived into researching the disease and found out
about a clinical trial in Toronto.

It turned out that Lyle Cassidy was an ideal candidate for SMART,
Surgery for Mesothelioma After Radiation Therapy, headed by Dr.
Marc de Perrot at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre.

In March, 2016 Lyle Cassidy was well enough to go on vacation to
Palm Springs with his wife Gayle. Calgary doctors had told him he
probably wouldn't live past the summer of 2015.

7 months in hospital

The treatment Lyle Cassidy received in Toronto was no walk in the
park.

In fact Calgary respirologist Dr. Alain Tremblay said most doctors
don't recommend it because it's "extremely invasive" and so
"horrendous."

First, Lyle Cassidy had his lungs zapped with radiation, then had
the surgery -- which involved removing the lining of his lungs and
cutting into his heart and diaphragm.

"We knew him going out there was a huge risk," said Carrie
Cassidy.

"Like we knew he might not make it through the surgery. But his
thoughts were 'I would rather go trying to fight this than letting
it just take me.'"

Lyle Cassidy had plenty of complications after the surgery,
including a hole in his heart, and was in hospital for seven
months.

Prolonged life

Even though Lyle Cassidy's surgery proved very risky, his daughter
says her dad has no regrets.

"Probably through those seven months he thought -- 'What did it
do?' But now he would tell you 'Thank God we went to Toronto,'
because you know, he wouldn't be here," said Cassidy, who is now
the secretary of the Canadian Mesothelioma Foundation.

She believes if her family hadn't taken the initiative to sign up
for the clinical trial, her dad would have missed many important
family events such as the birth of his twin granddaughters.

And while he still needs to be on oxygen, Lyle Cassidy is working
at the  Feeder Association of Alberta and going to the gym twice a
week.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Newmarket Man Dies from Asbestos-related Illness
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Newmarket Journal reported that a Newmarket pensioner died as a
result of a condition often associated with exposure to asbestos,
an inquest has heard.

Ronald Winger, 83, was diagnosed with mesothelioma in February and
as his condition deteriorated he was admitted to St Nicholas
Hospice, Bury St Edmunds in April. The inquest at Bury St Edmunds
heard that Mr Winger died later the same month on April 23.
Assistant Suffolk Coroner Dr Daniel Sharpstone said tests
confirmed that death had been due to mesothelioma and recorded
that as his inquest conclusion.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hearing Follows Claims of Asbestos at UofL
-----------------------------------------------------------
WHAS11.com reported that the Louisville Metro Air Pollution
Control Board will hold a hearing after claims of asbestos at the
University of Louisville.

It part of an Agreed Board Order with the university which they
say may have violated the adoption of Federal Emission Standard
for Asbestos at the Natural Sciences Building on Eastern Parkway.

The hearing is scheduled to take place on July 20 at 10 a.m. in
the board room located at 701 W. Ormsby Avenue.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Delays Children's Museum Opening
----------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Hill, writing for Saskatoon Starphoenix, reported that the
opening of the new Children's Discovery Museum will be delayed
roughly five months because of large amounts of asbestos
discovered in the former Mendel Art Gallery building where the
museum will eventually reside.

A review done by the city in late 2015 found there were asbestos-
containing materials throughout the building. According to a
report heading to city council's finance committee on Monday,
specialized crews are expected to take five months to remove the
asbestos at a cost of $700,000. Because of the "high-risk" nature
of removing asbestos, no other work can be done until the toxic
material is eradicated, the report notes.

The Children's Discovery Museum had initially planned to start
renovations on the Mendel next summer with an opening date in mid-
2018. Now it likely won't see work start until late 2017 with an
opening in late 2018.

Brenda Wallace, director of environmental and corporate
initiatives for the City of Saskatoon, said it was "a genuine
surprise" to hear there was so much asbestos in the Mendel
building.

"It was even the wallboard and ceiling board, in many more places
than they expected," she said.

Dave Hunchak, president of the Children's Discovery Museum board
of directors, said he's unfazed by the delay brought about by the
necessary asbestos work.

"It gives us more time to fundraise and that's not a bad thing,"
he said.

To date, the museum has raised $5.1 million toward its $10-million
goal.

"We were hoping to be ahead of that by this point, but we're still
very happy where we're at," Hunchak said, adding he's confident
the museum will hit the $10-million mark before it opens its doors
more than two years from now.

The Mendel is owned by the city and the city is responsible for
picking up the tab to renovate it.

In addition to removing asbestos from the building, the city is
also paying to add sprinklers, upgrade water pipes, replace the
boiler, replace the fire alarm system and make the building more
accessible by having elevators go to the lower level lobby where
there's a public washroom. The total renovation bill sits at $2.2
million.

Wallace said the city will find out in November if any of that
cost will be covered by a federal grant.

When it finally opens, the new children's museum will replace the
current facility in Market Mall. The new building, 10 times larger
than the old one, will cost roughly $1.2 million a year to operate
annually. The museum's board says these costs will be covered by
admissions revenue, donations and government grants.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Qld Parliament Asbestos Removal Cost $300K
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reported that removal in
Queensland's parliamentary annexe has cost the state $300,000, a
budget estimates hearing has been told.

Renovations on the seventh level of the 40-year-old building have
been delayed due to unexpected heavy rain that has stalled
progress because its bedding cannot dry out.

Clerk of the Parliament Neil Laurie told an estimates hearing
there were unforeseen issues with asbestos within the building's
24-tonne pool, squash court and plant boxes.

"Quite frankly, there was just asbestos everywhere we went and
turned over things," he said.

Construction has had to be halted because it was excessively
noisy, while the building of a new government tower across the
road has also interfered with the work.

"A contributing cause has been actually the establishment of 1
William Street because it's put a shadow over us and we're not
getting much sunlight on level seven," Mr Laurie said.

But the $300,000 cost of removing asbestos was similar to an
amount spent in the NSW parliament, he added.

Speaker Peter Wellington said there would always be a requirement
for further work.

"We will work within the budget that we have as best we can," he
said.

Opposition Leader Tim Nicholls, the former LNP treasurer,
acknowledged treasurers were "notoriously tight with these
things".


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Italian Court Convicts Former Olivetti Execs
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that a court in the northern Italian
city of Ivrea has convicted former Olivetti executive Carlo De
Benedetti and 12 others of manslaughter and other offenses over
workers' deaths or illnesses blamed on asbestos exposure.

The industrialist received a 5-year-2-month prison term Monday. He
will not be jailed while his appeals are heard.

The website of La Repubblica newspaper, part of an editorial group
headed by De Benedetti, carried his contention that when he ran
the Italian computer and office machines maker, Olivetti properly
protected workers' health and safety.

De Benedetti headed Olivetti from 1978-1996. He says that from the
mid-1970s, Olivetti didn't purchase talc contaminated by asbestos
fibers.

Prosecutor Laura Longo said the deaths "could have and should have
been avoided."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Number of Asbestos Claims Dropped in 2015
----------------------------------------------------------
Heidi Turner, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that a
report issued by a product liabilities consulting firm suggests
the number of asbestos lawsuits in 2015 is down slightly from
2014. But the same report notes that the number of defendants has
increased. Asbestos lawsuits have been filed by people who became
ill after their exposure to the carcinogen, alleging people were
not properly warned about the risk of serious, fatal illnesses
associated with asbestos exposure.

According to the KCIC report Asbestos Litigation: 2015 Year in
Review, there were 4,820 total asbestos claims in 2014. That
number dropped to 4,465 in 2015. But despite the drop in overall
claims, the number of defendants increased. That's because
asbestos lawsuits tend to name multiple defendants -- in some
cases, even hundreds of defendants.

KCIC notes that the average number of defendants in an asbestos
lawsuit increased from 64 in 2014 to 69 in 2015. One lawsuit went
so far as to name 361 defendants. In contrast, only 12 lawsuits
named a single defendant. Almost half the lawsuits filed named
between 51 and 150 defendants.

The report notes that the Madison County, IL, has the most
filings, with 1,123 asbestos lawsuits filed in 2015. That's well
ahead of Baltimore City, MD, which came in second with 506
lawsuits. Most lawsuits that were filed concerned mesothelioma,
followed by lung cancer.

When it comes to defendants, KCIC notes that the same defendants
tend to top the list of complaints. The top defendant company by
number of claims filed against them was named on 89 percent of the
lawsuits filed in 2015 and one of the top 10 companies was named
in 99 percent of the lawsuits.

Asbestos has been linked to the development of mesothelioma,
asbestosis, and lung cancer. Lawsuits have been filed against many
companies alleging employees, consumers, and the general public
were not properly warned about the risks associated with asbestos
exposure. Because asbestos exposure can take decades to develop
into mesothelioma, and because plaintiffs may have been exposed to
asbestos in numerous settings, determining liability can be
difficult.

One lawsuit was recently filed in St. Clair County against a
variety of defendants alleging battery, manufacturing defect, and
fraudulent misrepresentation. That lawsuit, according to the
Madison-St. Clair Record (7/7/16), alleges Fred Roth, a former
U.S. Marine, was exposed to asbestos fibers from products he
worked with. The lawsuit claims the defendants knew or should have
known about the toxic implications of ingesting or inhaling
asbestos.

The lawsuit is case number 16-L-265.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alberta Asbestos Deaths Higher Than Reported
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dan McGarvey, writing for CBC News, reported that professor at the
University of Calgary's Cumming School of Medicine believes the
number of asbestos-related workplace deaths in Alberta is much
higher than formally acknowledged.

According to a Worker's Compensation Board report,19 of 24
workplace deaths so far this year were traced back to asbestos
exposure.

"This report looked at occupational and WCB claims and we know
these are typically under-reported," said Alain Tremblay.

Tremblay said it's very difficult for workers to prove their
cancer or illness is related to asbestos exposure because so many
people from that time also smoked.

"If you look at cancer rates using government of Canada data, we
know that rates of Mesothelioma are a fair bit higher. For
example, in Alberta we see about 50 cases of Mesothelioma per
year."

Rates should decline

The vast majority of people exposed to asbestos in Alberta were
working in various trades in the 1960s and 1970s, with the disease
not showing up until 30 to 50 years after exposure.

There is good news, following the removal of asbestos from
buildings and the material being phased-out.

"We actually think that right now we are at the peak of the cases
of Mesothelioma related to asbestos so we hope that in the next
10, 20, 30 years we'll start to see the rates comedown," said
Tremblay.

Screening

The University of Calgary offers Asbestos screening programs for
people who are worried they might have been exposed in their
lives, involving CT scans.

The research study, sponsored by the Alberta Cancer Foundation and
the Western Canada Mesothelioma Foundation, is being conducted
across Alberta.

The screening scans can be performed in Calgary, Edmonton or Fort
McMurray.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removed at Hillcrest Middle School
------------------------------------------------------------
Drew Taylor, writing for The Tuscaloosa News, reported that school
officials are maintaining that students and faculty at Hillcrest
Middle School should not alarmed about the recently completed
removal of asbestos at the school.

Jeff Crocker, director of maintenance and facilities for the
Tuscaloosa County School System, said that over the summer, the
system contracted with Tri-State Abatement to remove asbestos that
was primarily found in the gymnasium area of the school.

"It was no health hazard," Crocker said. "When we had it
monitored, we decided to put it on our summer project list to have
it removed."

Crocker said some asbestos was found in the area after spring
break and the area was immediately tested for air quality. After
the amount of asbestos was determined to not be hazardous, the
system made plans to have it removed over the summer. That work
has now been completed, Crocker said.

"We started the day after the students and faculty left," he said.

Superintendent Walter Davie said that in older buildings like
Hillcrest Middle, there can be asbestos, but that most of it is
not harmful to people, as long as it is not exposed. The school
was built in the 1968.

"It was noted that in the gym area, although it wasn't a problem,
had asbestos material," Davie said. "We did air quality testing in
there and determined there was no danger to students, employees or
anyone. We were told we could wait until the summer."

In fact, Davie said people are surrounded by more asbestos than
they realize.

"A lot of the mastic in the tile you have has 2 percent level of
asbestos," he said. "Some states don't even recognize that."

In 2005, the board approved tile replacement and asbestos removal
at the school.

Davie said asbestos normally does not cause any problems until it
starts to break.

"That's when we check it and address it to have it removed," he
said.

Just under 600 students attend Hillcrest Middle School.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: John Holland Defends Perth Asbestos Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Helen Velissaris, writing for The Australian Associated Press,
reported that building giant John Holland has defended the steps
it has taken to help workers who were exposed to asbestos at
Perth's new children's hospital.

Workers were covered in a white substance after drilling into a
roof panel.

The area was not isolated for 24 hours, with tests later
confirming the dust was white asbestos called chrysotile.

"Workers were immediately offered the opportunity to have health
tests and to have clothing and other items -- including vehicles -
- tested," the company said in a media release on Saturday.

It says ongoing briefings by their industrial hygienist were
provided to the workforce and information sessions were held.

One of the workers, Matt, said he had driven home in his car
covered in dust that could have spread to a child seat and had
hugged his two-year-old daughter when he got home.

He said workers were angry that John Holland had still not
organised for medical tests or counselling or told them whether
their families should also be checked.

"We were told we needed to get X-rays and get on a register but
nobody has ... confirmed it and the boys were mostly angry because
we thought we'd have people down there making sure we're all
right," he told ABC Radio on Friday.

John Holland said follow-up "one-on-one meetings with each person
working within the contaminated area are now being conducted".

It confirmed an asbestos exposure register had been established.

Four workers asked for their vehicles to be tested but no asbestos
was found, John Holland said.

John Holland also reiterated that the panels used in the building
were supplied by Chinese company Yuanda.

It said Yuanda had provided certificates stating the 150 roof
panels did not contain asbestos.

WA building commissioner Peter Gow announced that he would conduct
an independent audit into the hospital project and Yuanda.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Roofing in Namibia Need to Be Removed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moses Amweelo, writing for The Southern Times, reported that
asbestos has been classified by the International Labour
Organization (ILO) Occupational Cancer Convention No. 139, as a
carcinogenic (cancer-causing) material.

Asbestos workers have increased chances of getting two principal
types of cancer: cancer of the lung tissue itself and
mesothelioma, a cancer of the thin membrane that surrounds the
lung and other internal organs.

These diseases do not develop immediately following exposure to
asbestos, but appear only after a number of years. To comply with
governmental requirements and minimise employee exposure, controls
are necessary wherever there is a potential for exposure to
airborne fibres.  All work and work areas will be in conformance
with the requirements of asbestos regulations made under schedule
1 (2) of Labour Act, 2007 (No. 11 of 2007, ILO Convention No. 162,
concerning safety in the use of asbestos, and its accompanying
Recommendation 172, Environment Management Act, 2007, and
Occupational Cancer Convention, 1974 (No. 139).

The asbestos removal guide or work plan must give proper removal,
transportation and disposal procedures to be used by the selected
contractor for the safe removal of all asbestos containing roofing
materials.

The contractor shall submit pre-work submittals (one copy) for
review, prior to work. The submittals shall contain, but not be
limited to, all licences; personnel information; performance;
labour; and payment bonds (if required); and environment
protection notification.  The contractor is directed to fill out
and submit the Chief Medical Officer of Occupational Health
notification for the owner based on the timetable as set forth by
the owner's schedule. The scope of the project shall also include
the removal of all observable and identified hazardous materials
regardless of quantity.

All small movable objects shall be removed from the work areas.
Large movable objects left inside each work area shall be covered
by a minimum of one layer of 4-mil polyethylene sheeting.
Replacement  (if  necessary)  will  be  conducted  by  others  or
as  directed  by  the owner's contract agreement.

The asbestos regulation 10 (4) made under schedule 1 (2) of the
Labour Act, 2007 states that no person shall smoke, eat or drink
in any asbestos area, where the concentration of regulated
asbestos fibres in the atmosphere in such area is, or is likely to
be, less than the exposure limit for asbestos.

No admittance to the premises is permitted unless escorted by an
owner's representative or approved asbestos contractor/supervisor.

Protective clothing

According to asbestos regulation 12 made under schedule 1 (2) of
Labour Act, 2007 (Act No. 11 of 2007) an employer shall, in
circumstances where it is not reasonably practical to ensure by
means of engineering controls that each employee who may be
exposed to asbestos is provided with and uses personal protective
equipment (PPE) such as: coverall and headgear, safety boots, hard
hats, goggles, gloves and respiratory protective equipment which
will reduce the concentration of regulated asbestos fibres in the
atmosphere inhaled by the employee to a level which is below the
prescribed exposure limit.

Respirators shall be selected in consultation with the Chief
Medical Officer of Occupational Health (Reg.189).

The employer shall ensure that no respiratory protective equipment
or protective clothing is reissued for use by any other person,
unless it has been thoroughly cleaned and disinfected properly
serviced in accordance with the directions of the manufacturer or
supplier and of these regulations.

Emergency planning

The contractor shall develop emergency planning procedures prior
to demolition and removal of asbestos hazardous materials
initiation.  This  plan  shall  consist  of,  but  not  be
limited  to,  emergency  exit  plans, notification procedures,
fire extinguisher locations and the provision of first aid kits.

Regulation 231 (1) states that the employer shall provide and
maintain at all times a readily accessible first aid unit or
station that contains a fist aid kit made of durable material,
marked with a green cross on white background. Both the contractor
and the owner shall agree on these procedures.

All movable objects shall be removed from the containment area.
Cleaning of contaminated items shall be performed if the items are
to be salvaged or reused. Otherwise, they shall be properly
disposed of as asbestos waste.

All non-movable objects that remain in the containment area shall
be covered with a minimum of 4-mil plastic sheeting, secured in
place.

The contractor shall ensure that asbestos waste or dust produced
in the workplace during stripping or removing asbestos roof
sheeting is cleaned away promptly each day by means of vacuum
cleaning equipment to prevent the release of asbestos dust into
the atmosphere.

The contractor will spray asbestos materials with amended water,
using airless spray equipment capable of providing a "mist"
application to reduce the release of fibres. The asbestos material
will be sprayed with water mist containing a wetting agent to
enhance penetration.

The wetting agent will be a commercial product produced
specifically as an asbestos wetting agent. A fine spry of the
amended water will be applied to reduce fibre release preceding
the removal of the asbestos material. Hazardous waste and deposits
shall be removed at intervals and by methods appropriate to the
type of hazards which they constitute. Contaminants collected
shall be disposed of without risk to the health of any person or
the environment, and according to applicable statutory provisions
and regulations, Reg. 183.

The waste transporter of hazardous substances shall ensure that
the marking, labelling and storage of hazardous substances for
safe transport, especially the labelling of the transport vehicle
and the storage of the hazardous substances during transport,
shall be in accordance with existing legislation, or in accordance
with the recommendations on the transport of hazardous substances
or dangerous goods made by the United Nations Reg. 177.

In a nutshell, the contractor must remove visible accumulations of
asbestos material and debris. If the projector monitor finds
visible accumulations of dust or bulk asbestos-containing
materials in the work-place, the contractor will repeat the
cleaning until the work area is in compliance. If present, the
janitorial cleaning chemical and chemistry supplies should be
removed prior to demolition of the buildings.  A certified
technician shall then remove the cleaning chemicals and dispose
them in terms of regulation 183 made under schedule 1 (2) of
Labour Act, 2007 (No. 11 of Labour 2007).

The findings and recommendation of this research has important
ramifications for the country's health environment; remove
asbestos roofs on all public institutions in the spirit of the
Harambee Prosperity Plan.

Dr Moses Amweelo is the former Minister of Works, Transport and
Communication. He is currently a guest lecturer at the University
of Namibia's Engineering Campus in Ongwediva.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Judge Recommends Summary Judgment Award
-------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Delaware magistrate judge
has recommended that summary judgment be awarded to nine
defendants named in an asbestos action, opining that the
plaintiffs had failed to sufficiently identify products
manufactured by the companies and that parties cannot be held
liable for products they did not manufacture or sell.

In the July 13 report and recommendation, Magistrate Judge Sherry
R. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
wrote that, in part, that the "lack of specificity in [the
plaintiff's] testimony is insufficient to show causation."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ind. Court Refuses to Transfer Suit to Ill.
------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a federal court in Indiana
has rejected an asbestos plaintiff's efforts to have the claims
transferred to Illinois, finding that there was no evidence to
establish that the neighboring state was a "clearly more
convenient forum."

In the July 13 order, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Indiana opined that the plaintiff had presented very
little argument to demonstrate that the convenience of the parties
and witnesses doesn't favor Indiana.

Plaintiff Jason Arsenault, as special administrators for the
estate of Clovis Arsenault, contended in the complaint that Clovis
suffered asbestos-related injuries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Destroyed Evidence Factors in Defense Win
----------------------------------------------------------
Greg Land, writing for Daily Report, reported that following a two
and a half week trial, a Sebring, Florida jury took about an hour
and a half to rule for the defense in an asbestos case involving a
man who died of mesothelioma in 2009, more than 40 years after he
was purportedly exposed to asbestos in a cement irrigation pipe.

Lead defense attorney Albert Parnell said the plaintiffs had
offered to settle for $4.5 million prior to trial, and had
increased that offer as the trial went on.

The 74-year-old Parnell began his law career at what would become
Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young in 1968 and has been lead trial
counsel in more than 400 asbestos and toxic tort cases in more
than 30 states. Parnell said he's being called into court more
often for asbestos cases in recent years.

"I've got another trial in Athens (Georgia)," said Parnell. "When
you've been in this area as long as I have, they usually settle.
But lately, because there are fewer defendants, more cases are
going to trial."

Parnell's team included Hawkins Parnell partner Frances Lopez;
Kevin Ashley of Peterson & Myers' Winter Haven, Florida, office;
and Jeffrey Skinner of Schiff Hardin's Washington office.

The plaintiffs were represented by Nathan Finch and T. David Hoyle
of Motley Rice's Charleston, S.C. office. A firm spokeswoman said
an appeal was being considered.

The case began when Leonard Smith III, who ran a citrus company in
Sebring, was diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma in 2009. He
filed a personal injury action 73 days later, and died the same
year at the age of 57.

Before he died, Smith provided deposition testimony pointing to
his work as a teenager digging up and cutting cement pipe on the
family's orchard over a two-week period between 1968 and 1970,
Parnell said.

In 2010, the personal representatives for Smith's estate filed
suit in Florida's Highland County Circuit Court naming 12
defendants accused of providing asbestos or manufacturing products
containing it, including CertainTeed, which the plaintiffs claimed
manufactured the asbestos cement pipe Smith had worked on as a
youth, and which was the sole defendant at trial.

Parnell said he assumed the other defendants settled and others
may have been misidentified when the suit was filed.

"There's no way to determine how Motley Rice made the decision
that they were going to focus on my client," he said.

During the trial before Judge Peter Estrada, Parnell said one key
issue involved Smith's medical history: He had been born with
Ewing's sarcoma, a type of bone cancer, and suffered more cancers
as a child, which were treated by radiation.

"When people think of mesothelioma they think of asbestos,"
Parnell said, "but therapeutic radiation, especially back then,
has been proved to be linked to it."

Another issue was the fact that the pipe that Smith claimed he had
been exposed to, which had been stored on the orchard property,
was destroyed after the property was sold in 2014.

"That was a problem for the plaintiffs, and they were admonished
for it," Parnell said.

The defense argued that CertainTeed only made asbestos cement pipe
from 1962 until the 1980s, Parnell said, while the vast majority
had been manufactured since 1929 by the Johns-Manville Company.

Other cement pipe that had been dug up and reburied elsewhere at
the time of Smith's exposure proved to be Johns-Manville pipe,
Parnell said.

According to a synopsis provided by Parnell's firm, the
plaintiffs' experts included Dr. Laura Welch, Dr. Steven Compton
and Frederick Raffa; defense experts included Dr. Denis Miller,
Allan Feingold and Kyle Dotson.

During closing statements, Parnell said the plaintiffs' lawyers
asked for Smith's proven expenses of about $2 million, plus
unspecified pain and suffering damages.

On July 7 the jury returned a defense verdict. Parnell said he did
not speak to any of the jurors afterward.

He congratulated Finch and Hoyle on their handling of a
challenging case.

"They tried a wonderful case, and I have great respect for them,"
he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Angry Over WA Asbestos Scandal
-------------------------------------------------------
Greg Roberts, writing for The Australian Associated Press,
reported that a worker exposed to asbestos at Perth's new
children's hospital says building giant John Holland has provided
no medical help as the government announced an independent
investigation into the scandal.

Workers were covered in white dust that was released after a roof
panel was drilled into.

The area was not isolated for 24 hours, with tests later
confirming the dust was white asbestos called chrysotile.

It is not the most hazardous asbestos but is banned in Australia
and when inhaled can cause deadly diseases such as lung cancer,
mesothelioma or asbestosis.

One of the workers, Matt, said he and other workers were angry
that John Holland had still not organised for medical tests or
counselling or told them whether their families should also be
checked.

He said he had driven home in his car covered in dust that could
have spread to a child seat and had hugged his two-year-old
daughter when he got home.

"We were told we needed to get x-rays and get on a register but
nobody has ... confirmed it and the boys were mostly angry because
we thought we'd have people down there making sure we're alright,"
he told ABC radio.

"We just go ahead and work with these materials assuming they are
not dangerous because we assume we're being protected by the
powers above not to let them in the country in the first place."

JH project director Lindsay Albonica said that the safety of
workers was the company's first priority.

JH has defended its role in the scandal, saying Chinese company
Yuanda, which supplied the roof panels, had provided certificates
stating the 150 roof panels did not contain asbestos.

WA Building Commissioner Peter Gow announced that he would conduct
an independent audit into the hospital project and Yuanda.

It is the second time in a week that Yuanda has been caught
providing products containing asbestos in Australia, after the
lethal material was found in gaskets at a Brisbane office tower.

There are now worries about dozens of major projects and more
small ones around Australia that Yuanda has supplied to over the
years, including Perth's unfinished new stadium.

"I am working with my colleagues at Worksafe and other authorities
to examine what building materials were brought in by the
subcontractor Yuanda, where they've been used and to make sure
wherever they have been used that those buildings too are safe and
suitable to use," Mr Gow told reporters.

"At this point I don't think anyone could say they are free (from
asbestos) until we've had a good look and carried out
investigations to make sure sites are safe."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Korea Strengthens Asbestos Regulations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Duff, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that South
Korea has revised its Asbestos Safety Management Act (ASMA), which
will take effect on August 15, to update and strengthen its
regulations for renovations and demolitions of buildings that
contain asbestos. The government did this in an effort to minimize
health risks from exposure to the dangerous chemical.

Currently, a safety supervisor is chosen by the landlord to go
through six hours of education, keep track of the status of
asbestos in the building, and ensure proper safety measures are
taken to seal, remove, and dispose of asbestos.

With the new regulations, any owner of a building with asbestos
must have at least one safety supervisor at any construction site.
Any site that's 2,000 or more square meters is required to have
more than one expert.

In comparison, the U.S. continues to lag in passing asbestos
mandates. A number of regulations and laws at both the federal and
state levels are in place -- such as the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) set of standards known as the Asbestos National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). However,
asbestos is still not completely banned here in the States.

American state laws also govern the manufacture, use, and
distribution of asbestos, or the ability of victims to file claims
against asbestos companies and trust funds. While these laws vary
from state to state, most of them follow NESHAP guidelines as a
minimum level of protection for renovations and demolitions.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), worn out
asbestos can cause lung cancer and mesothelioma. Due to the
mineral's friable nature, disturbing asbestos during renovations
and demolitions creates an even greater threat, especially if the
asbestos fibers become airborne.

"Exposure to fine particles of worn-out asbestos materials or
during reconstruction can lead to health risks such as respiratory
or lung disease. That is why it is very important to make sure
dismantling or removal of asbestos is done in sealed areas," said
Lee Seung-bok, Professor of Architectural Engineering at Yonsei
University in Seoul, South Korea.

In 2009, 482 residents of Hongseong County in South Chungcheong
Province developed asbestos-related sicknesses, causing Korea to
completely ban the manufacturing, import, and use of construction
materials containing over 0.1% asbestos. Many asbestos mines were
located in that area.

Although the ASMA began in 2011, many buildings still contain
asbestos across Korea because asbestos was widely used prior to
the 1970s for slate roofs, interior materials, soundproof walls,
and insulators.

In Seoul, 3,456 buildings contain asbestos. 78% of its school
buildings, 50 of its public facilities (subway stations,
libraries, hospitals, supermarkets, hotels, and department
stores), and 35% of its senior centers and day care centers were
made with asbestos materials.

"Like other developed countries which have used a large amount of
asbestos in the past, using asbestos has not been a big deal,"
said Seung-bok.

"Although there has been no rapid increase in asbestos-related
illnesses here so far, such illnesses are expected to increase due
to a large amount of asbestos used in the past four decades and
the long latency period," said Choi Ye-yong, Head of the Asian
Citizen's Center for Environment and Health.

At least 2,184 South Korean victims have suffered damages from
asbestos exposure since 2011.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Judge Sentences Developer in Asbestos Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Freedman, writing for Great Lakes Echo, reported that a
federal judge in Rochester, New York, has fined a developer
$15,000 and sentenced him to probation and community service for
violating federal asbestos work standards.

U.S. District Judge Frank Gerasi imposed the sentence on
Anastasios "Taso" Kolokouris of Avon, New York, who pleaded guilty
to a Clean Air Act crime.

According to the U.S. Attorney's office in Buffalo, the state
Labor Department's Asbestos Control Bureau received a complaint in
December 2011 that people, including a 16-year-old boy, were
working in and around a Dumpster near a loading dock without
adequate protective equipment at a warehouse co-owned by
Kolokouris. Asbestos exposure can cause asbestosis, mesothelioma
and cancers of the lung, esophagus, stomach, colon and other
organs, according to medical research.

Kolokouris was vice president of John K and Associates, which
owned the warehouse.

The warehouse, built in 1930, is next to homes and had a school
bus stop "directly outside its main gate," the U.S. Attorney's
office said in a press statement .

Investigators found more than 90 bags of dry, friable -- meaning
easily crumbled -- asbestos in the loading dock area, as well as
evidence of illegal abatement activities. Samples of the material
found there tested positive for high levels of asbestos, the
statement said.

A state inspector found no asbestos warning signs posted there
although they're required.

Workers told investigators that they had done odds jobs for
Kolokouris at other locations and that he promised to pay them in
cash "to remove asbestos from the Dumpster outside the warehouse
because the container company would not remove the Dumpster while
it was full of asbestos. None of the workers were certified or
trained to work with asbestos," the statement said.

U.S. Attorney William Hochul said Kolokouris did it "simply to
save money."

His sentence included 150 hours of community service, "if
possible, related to some form of environmental service" the plea
agreement said, as well as payment of $250 in wages owed to the
workers.

Defense lawyer David Rothenberg said his client will also pay
restitution.

"The amount of restitution has not yet been fixed. However, based
on communications with the government, I expect that it will be a
modest number," he said.

Rothenberg declined to comment on other aspects of the case.

Barbara Brown, the public information officer for the U.S.
Attorney's office, said she could not comment on whether the
actual removal of the asbestos from the warehouse had been done
legally by a licensed contractor.

As for the four years between the indictment and the guilty plea,
Brown said, "The defense filed multiple motions in the case which
took some time to litigate."

In addition to the state Labor Department, the Environmental
Protection Agency, state Department of Environmental Conservation
and Rochester city police took part in the investigation.

The Clean Air Act violation carries a potential maximum sentence
of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Southampton Man Dies of Asbestos, Smoking
----------------------------------------------------------
Southern Daily Echo reported that a Hampshire man died as a result
of asbestos exposure and smoking, an inquest heard.

David Buggy died at Countess Mountbatten House in West End on
April 9 of bronchopneumonia following a battle with lung cancer.

Winchester Coroner's Court heard how the 76-year-old from Field
Close, Bassett, Southampton, came into contact with asbestos when
he worked as an apprentice coppersmith at Thornycroft in
Southampton from 1955 to 1960.

The inquest heard how Mr Buggy fitted pipes which were lagged with
asbestos on ships and he was regularly covered in the deadly
substance.

The inquest also heard he was also regular smoker for 60 years.

Mr Buggy was also exposed to asbestos when he worked at Petters
Limited in Hamble from 1962 to 1987 and when he worked at British
Rail in Eastleigh from 1988 to 1995.

Senior coroner Grahame Short concluded the death was due to
asbestos exposure and smoking.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Qld Gov't Call for Release of Asbestos File
------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Paull, writing for The Australian Associated Press,
reported that Queensland's Industrial Relations Minister Grace
Grace is demanding the release of a secret asbestos report after
the potentially deadly material was recently found at a Brisbane
construction site.

She has written to Border Protection Minister Peter Dutton, urging
him to make public an independent review of Australia's asbestos
border control management, which was completed in March but kept
confidential.

The development comes after asbestos was found in imported
products used during the construction of the state government's
controversial new executive building in William St.

"Matters of critical public health and safety such as this should
not be the subject of secret, confidential reports," Ms Grace
wrote.

"The public has the right to know what measures the federal
government intends to take to tighten current controls and ensure
the 2003 ban on the importation of this deadly substance is 100
per cent effective."

Ms Grace called for the report's immediate release and for all of
its recommendations to be adopted.

"It is incumbent on the federal government to take an absolute
zero tolerance approach to this issue and stop the importation of
asbestos once and for all," she said.

A spokeswoman for Mr Dutton said he was yet to receive the letter.

"The fact that Minister Grace would play politics on such a
serious issue is a poor reflection of her," she said.

Workplace Health and Safety Queensland is investigating how
asbestos-laden gasket material imported from China was able to
make its way to the Brisbane work site.

A report into the incident is being completed by state
bureaucrats.

The controversial 46-storey skyscraper, which will replace the
tired George St executive building, was commissioned by the former
Newman Government.

Treasurer Curtis Pitt last year labelled the tower the "biggest
financial debacle in Queensland's history".


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Teacher Exposed to Asbestos in Classroom
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ros Wynne Jones, writing for Mirror, reported that as Sue Stephens
lay dying from cancer caused by exposure to asbestos, she was also
fretting about others.

A primary school teacher for 30 years, Sue was exposed to the
deadly fibres in the classroom. But her family said it was typical
of her compassion that she should think about her pupils first.

"Mum taught over 900 children," her daughter Lucie, 40, told me,
while her gravely ill mother was sleeping.

"Asbestos fibres can be released by something as simple and
innocent as pinning up children's work on the walls.

"She keeps wondering how she could have better protected the
children she loved teaching.

"But she couldn't have protected them because she hadn't been told
that the asbestos was there."

In her final days, Sue's greatest fear was that her own
grandchildren -- Arietta, six, May, four, and one-year-old Marnie
-- could unknowingly be exposed to asbestos.

Shockingly, as many as 21,000 of Britain's schools are believed to
still contain the substance, despite the fact the dangers have
been understood for 40 years.

A year ago, as part of our Asbestos Timebomb campaign, the Mirror
revealed that seven million children in England are at risk of
asbestos exposure in schools. The Department for Education
estimates 75% of schools -- 18,279 -- could contain asbestos.

An investigation by teaching union the NUT suggested this number
could be as high as 20,959.

Between 2003 and 2012 more than 224 teachers in England died of
mesothelioma -- cancer of the lining of the lungs caused by
exposure to asbestos. Last year, 22 teachers died, giving the UK
the highest death rate in the world.

Evidence submitted to MPs suggests the death rate for former
pupils may be as many as 200 to 300 a year.

Sue, 68, asked her family to start a campaign so that every
child's potential exposure to asbestos has to be disclosed to
families. So far, 5,000 people have signed her petition on the 38
Degrees campaign website.

Some of the comments on the petition site are heartbreaking. "I am
also suffering from mesothelioma as the result of my work as a
teacher," one says.

"Like Sue, one of my greatest concerns is for the children we
taught . . . I am also in the last stages of my life." Others
write of their lost wives, mothers and fathers.

"It's too late for mum now, but she wants to save others," Lucie
said. "We want schools to give annual reports on asbestos -- as
has happened in the US for 30 years -- and we want asbestos out of
all schools."

Unison and the NUT are also calling for a complete removal.

On June 26, a few days after I spoke to Lucie, Sue died. Backed by
their lawyer Helen Grady, the family are still awaiting the
coroner's report proving her death was from mesothelioma. But they
remain determined to carry on her fight.

"A Department of Health committee found that a five-year-old is
five times more likely than an adult of 30 to develop
mesothelioma," Lucie says.

The biggest cause of work-related death since 1950, asbestos dust
still kills around 5,000 workers each year, mostly people who
worked in construction or shipbuilding.

Not banned in schools until 1999, it is worst in post-war CLASP
(Consortium of Local Authorities Special Programme) buildings, of
which there are around 6,000 left. Yet last year an NUT survey
found that 44% of current teachers have not been told if their
school contains asbestos.

A spokesman said the Department for Education is investing
œ23billion in school buildings by 2021. "Nothing is more important
than the health and safety of children and staff in our schools,"
he said.

"This will help ensure asbestos is managed safely and the amount
in school buildings continues to reduce over time. Last year, we
published a comprehensive review of asbestos in schools and we are
implementing its findings in full."

Sue's family say that even with these programmes there are many
schools that can't get asbestos removed. And they can't understand
why parents and staff don't have the right to know the asbestos
levels.

"Sue's story is heartbreaking," says Rachel Reeves MP, who chairs
the Asbestos in Schools Committee. "But what is really shocking is
that 21,000 schools still contain asbestos and pupils, parents and
staff don't know about it. The Government has a duty to protect
children and teachers."

GettyRachel ReevesRachel Reeves chairs the Asbestos in Schools
Committee
The first sign that Sue was developing the disease was finding a
lump in her chest. "We were steeling ourselves for breast cancer,"
Lucie says.

"We didn't expect mesothelioma. We knew nothing about asbestos in
schools. Mum bravely got on with chemotherapy and radiotherapy but
neither helped."

Until recently, Sue was still walking her dog out on Dartmoor and
Exmoor, keeping bees, and babysitting her
grandchildren. But after Christmas she went downhill rapidly.

Lucie says: "It's a cruel disease. But it's also completely
preventable. We don't want anyone else to have to go through what
mum went through."

With seven million pupils at risk, there should be few more urgent
matters in the in-tray of the new Secretary of State for
Education, Justine Greening.

She should meet Sue's family to explain how she intends to keep
our teachers, support staff and children safe.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Yuanda's Australian Projects Need Probe
--------------------------------------------------------
Briana Shepherd, writing for ABC News, reports that the discovery
of asbestos in roof panels of WA's children's hospital could have
far wider implications for other Australian projects that use the
same major Chinese supplier, a senior WA Government official has
warned.

The WA State Government confirmed white asbestos was detected in
one of the 150 roof panels in the atrium on the eighth floor of
the soon-to-be-opened $1.2 billion Perth Children's Hospital.

The State Treasury's executive director of strategic projects and
asset sales Richard Mann said other projects serviced by the
company that supplied the panels, Yuanda Australia, would now be
under the microscope.

"It needs to be understood that this supplier in this case is a
very large, international facade specialist, that supplies
components to many, many buildings internationally, including
Australia," Mr Mann said.

"So very surprising that we would have such an occurrence in such
a well-established manufacturers building components, but recent
media has reported similar problems in other projects in Australia
as well.

"In this case the only way it could have been picked up was by
internally drilling into and sampling an internal panel which had
previously been certified as compliant by independent testing.

"I suspect that this may well lead to further investigations in
other projects across Australia and perhaps even wider."
While Mr Mann stressed there was no evidence to suggest asbestos
was apparent in any other material supplied by Yuanda Australia
for state projects, he said they would need to be investigated.

A man in a welding mask surrounded by grey particles from broken
roof panels.
PHOTO: A worker on the Perth hospital site surrounded by shards of
the roof panels. (Supplied)
Yuanda Australia has been involved in the State Government's Fiona
Stanley Hospital and the Perth Stadium.

Yuanda Australia is a subsidiary of Yuanda China Holdings limited,
one of the world's largest manufacturers and installers of primary
construction-related products.

Formed in 1993, it is listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange with
a net asset value of $622 million (RMB 3.1b) and has 11 Chinese
subsidiary companies and 18 international.

The firm lists six Australian construction projects it has built
the facades for, including three high-rise towers in Brisbane, the
South Australian Health and Medical research centre in Adelaide, a
high-rise on George Street in Sydney and a three-tower development
at Barangaroo South, currently under construction.

It was also involved in construction of the iconic "bird's nest"
national stadium in Beijing, which hosted the 2008 Olympic games.

Asbestos found on Brisbane project

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.

The tainted gaskets in Brisbane had been supplied to Yuanda
Australia, by Yuanda China, however the checks revealed the
suspect gaskets had not been used on the Adelaide hospital.

A company official at the time said the Brisbane case was isolated
and the suspect product was not used elsewhere in Australia.

Robert Vojakovic of the Asbestos Diseases Society of Australia
said overseas imports had been known to contain asbestos.

"There's been common knowledge for the last few years that China
was sending stuff to us contaminated with asbestos," he said.
"We had a similar situation in Alcoa where we examined the gaskets
and we found the content was 35 per cent asbestos."

It was also revealed in June SA-based company Australian Portable
Camps was being investigated over imports from China that
illegally contained the deadly substance.

Initial testing missed deadly substance

The contaminated panels from Yuanda Australia at the Perth
Children's Hospital were approved to be asbestos free, on two
separate occasions.

The first was by an independent testing company in China. John
Holland, the building company heading the hospital project,
conducted its own independent test in 2013.

Both came back negative for asbestos.

Mr Mann said something must have gone wrong in the supply chain.

"It's an independent Chinese testing authority, and there's no
reason whatsoever -- given it's an internationally established
testing authority -- to question the credentials of the testing
process," he said.

"It was also independently checked and verified by John Holland's
technical consultant.

"Obviously something has happened in the supply chain, probably in
the manufacturing chain that has slipped through that process and
we need to find out what that was."

Yuanda Australia has been contacted for comment.



                            *********

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  * * *