CAR_Public/160729.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, July 29, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 151




                            Headlines


ABBSTER ENTERPRISES: Faces Class Action Over FSLA Violations
ABUNDANT LIFE: Bid to Certify in "Malamphy" Suit Granted in Part
ALAMOWING DEVELOPMENT: "Elliott" Suit to Recover Minimum Pay
ALLERGAN PLC: AHOLD USA Claims Antitrust Law Breach Over Asacol
AMERISOURCEBERGEN: 3rd Cir. Vacates Attorneys' Fees Award

AML CONSTRUCTION: Sued Over Violation of FLSA, Col. Wage Act
AOSS MEDICAL: PRS Seeks Certification of TCPA and ICFA Classes
APPLE AMERICAN: "Fego" Sues Over Discrimination
APPLE INC: Must Face "Opperman" Data-Mining Suit, Judge Says
AR RESOURCE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Kassin" Suit Claims

ARCTIC GLACIER: "Levin" Sues Over Ice Machine Rentals
ARISE VIRTUAL: Certification of CSP Class Sought in "Carter" Suit
AMSTERDAM PRINTING: Court Denies Class Certification as Premature
BANK OF AMERICA: Painters and Allied Trades Council Files Suit
BCM SECURITY: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA

BIG 5: Faces "Houston" Lawsuit Under California Labor Code
BNP NY: Faces "Dutan" Suit in N.Y. Alleging Violation of FLSA
BOYD GAMING: Settlement in "Gamble" Suit Has Preliminary Approval
BUMBLE BEE: Colluded On Not Selling Fad-Free Tuna, Suits Say
CALVARY ASSET: NJ Appeals Court Reinstates CIF Suit

CAMDEN IRON: "Domask" Sues Over Disability Discrimination
CANADA BONDED: Illegally Collects Debt, "Greenwald" Suit Claims
CAREY LIMOUSINE: "Yim" Suit to Recover Minimum Pay
CAREY WATERMARK: Former Employee Filed Class Actions in Calif.
CATALINA REYNA: Faces "Ballesteros" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation

CEPHEID INC: Faces "Higginbotham" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CERES INC: Faces "Varela" Suit Over Share Sale to Land O'Lakes
CHASE RECEIVABLES: Faces "Cohen" Suit Over Automated Calls
CHESAPEAKE OPERATING: "Jerry Venable" Suit Removed to W.D. Ok.
CHEVRON USA: Court Denies Motion to Remand, Bid for Legal Fees

CONOPCO INC: Court Preliminarily Approves "Morales" Settlement
CONTRA COSTA: Court Preliminarily Approves Deal in Retirees' Suit
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: October 31 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
DELAWARE: Court Denies Noble's Motion to File Amended Suit
DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES: "Leonard" Suit Goes to Arbitration

DRAFTKINGS: Loses Bid to Move Gambling Case to Federal Court
E&S RING: Faces "Kleronomos" Lawsuit Under Calif. Labor Code
ELECTROLUX HOME: Faces "East" Suit in Eastern District Louisiana
ELECTROLUX HOME: Court Strikes Class Allegations in "Waters" Suit
ELIZABETH ARDEN: Faces "Ross" Suit Over Proposed Sale to Revlon

EXAMWORKS GROUP: Daytona Beach Police Filed Class Action
FIRST CREDIT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
FITBIT INC: Fails in Bid to Dismiss Sleep Tracker Suit
FORESIGHT ENERGY: Must Defend Against "Carver" WARN Act Suit
GOLDEN STATE: "Magana" Suit Claims Violation of Cal. Labor Laws

GOOGLE INC: Aug. 28 Online Ads Case Management Conference Set
GREAT SENECA: Texas Fraudulent Sues for Consumers in Texas
GRUBHUB HOLDINGS: Souran Seeks to Certify Delivery Drivers' Class
HANNIBAL, MO: Court Narrows Claims in Suit Over Red Lights
HOMELAND SECURITY: TSA Workers' Suit Has Class Certification

ILLINOIS WORK INJURY: Certification of 3 Classes Sought
INSMED INC: Faces Securities Class Action in New Jersey
INSTANT TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Robles" Suit in Massachusetts
INTERSTATE-RIM: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
JB HUNT: "Lipford" Sues Over Discrimination

JOHNSON CONTROLS: Court Denies Motion to Remand "Hostetler" Suit
KROGER CO: Removed "Coffelt" Class Suit to C.D. California
LAND RESTORATION: Faces Tex. Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
LYFT INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Teague" Action Claims
MAGNUSSENS FREMONT: "Valdez" Suit Claims Consumers Act Violation

MARGARET BRADFORD: "Briggs" Sues Over House Defects
MARTIN AVENUE: Class Cert. Hearing in Podiatry Suit on Aug. 23
MASSAGE GREEN: Class Claims Tossed, Suit Goes to Arbitration
MATAGRANO INC: "Alapati" Suit Alleges Violation of Cal. Wage Laws
MDL 2624: Krause Seeks Certification of Classes in Adware Case

MEDIFIT CORPORATE: Final Hearing on "Flores" Suit Deal on Nov. 9
MICHAELS STORES: Rowe Seeks to Certify Retail Store Workers Class
MIDLAND FUNDING: 6th Cir. Affirms Approval of Revised Deal
MONEY STORE: Class Decertification After Jury Verdict Proper
MORGAN KEEGAN: Court Grants Motion to Compel Payment

MOTION PICTURE: Sued Over Ratings on Films with Tobacco Imagery
NASDAQ OMX: Court Sends Fees Dispute Between Insurers to Trial
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Snead Must Amend Class Cert. Bid by Sept. 13
NUTRIMOST LLC: Werfel Suit Moved to Southern District New York
NUVASIVE INC: Bid to Dismiss "Mauss" Suit Granted in Part

OBESITY RESEARCH: Appeals Court Reinstates "Duran" Claims
OKLAHOMA: Leatherwood Moves Certification of Prisoners Class
OMNI INSURANCE: Bid to Dismiss Colter Suit Premature, Court Says
ONCALL LLC: Faces "Orue" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
OZ MINERALS: Court Approves Zinifex Class Action Settlement

PAD AND PUBLICATION: Cert. Hearing in Podiatry Suit on Aug. 23
PAPA JOHN'S: Settles Class Action Over Delivery Fees Sales Tax
PAUL MICHAEL: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
PEARLS GROUPS: Court Approves Sale of Gold Coast Resort
PETER THOMAS: Falsely Marketed Personal Care Products, Suit Says

PHILADELPHIA HOUSING: Settlement in "Howard" Case Granted in Part
PRIVATEBANCORP INC: "Parshall" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
PRIVATEBANCORP INC: Faces "Griffin" Suit Over Sale to CIBC
PYRAMID CONSULTING: Class Certification Sought in "Getchman" Suit
QUAKER OATS: "Jaffee" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois

RASH CURTIS: Conover May File First Amended Complaint
RDX INC: "Roach" Suit Alleges Non-compliance of Cal. Wage Laws
REACHLOCAL: Shareholders Sue Directors Over Gannett Deal
ROCKWATER ENERGY: Court Denies Motion for Leave to Amend
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Johnson-Morris"

SCOTTRADE INC: Court Dismisses Duqum Consolidated Class Complaint
SENIOR LIVING: White Seeks to Certify Hourly-Paid Laborers Class
SKULLCANDY INC: Faces "Paprakis" Suit Over Sale to Incipio
SNAPCHAT: Faces Class Action Over Privacy Law Violation
STARZ: Faces "Freedman" Suit Over Sale to Lions Gate

SUNDIAL BRANDS: Faces "Padilla" Suit Over Hair, Scalp Products
SUTTER HEALTH: Antitrust Class Action Can Proceed, Court Rules
SYNGENTA AG: Court Declines to Adopt MDL Coordination Order
SYSCO CORPORATION: "Martin" Suit Removed to E.D. California
T-MOBILE USA: Class Cert. Bid Okayed; Settlement Denied for Now

TACO BELL: $1.2MM in Attorney Fees Awarded in Employee Suit
THINGS REMEMBERED: 9th Cir. Directs Briefing in Kaur Appeal
TOWNSHIP BAGEL: "Kirsch" Sues Over Age Discrimination
TOYOTA: Faces Detroit Suit Over Defective Prius Motor
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Hearing in "Huffman" Class Suit on Aug. 31

TUFF SHED: "Topping" Suit Removed to Southern Dist. California
TYSON FOODS: Court Partially Grants Motion for Reconsideration
UNITED STATES: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in "Atkins"
UNITED STATES: Lockheed Workers Mull Suit Over Pensions Cut
US PENITENTIARY: 3rd Cir. Reinstates "Richardson" Class Suit

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: "Lelaj" Sues Over Denied Incentives
VIGO COUNTY, IN: Court Dismisses "Grayless" Complaint
VIRGINIA: Court Rules in "Correll" Suit Over Voting Rights
VISA INC: 3 Canadian Wal-Mart Stores Stops Accepting Cards
WORLD WRESTLING: Sued for Hiding Head Trauma Risks

YAKIMA REGIONAL: Violated Consumer Protect Act, Court Rules
YUM! BRANDS: Taco Bell Seeks to Overturn Verdict
YUM! BRANDS: Appellate Briefing Underway in Taco Bell Case

* SA Gold Miners File Petitions Against Silicosis Judgment


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Exclude Expert Report in "Arbogast" OK'd
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Partially Affirms "Boyd" Summary Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss Eaton Corp. Coverage Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maine High Ct. Affirms Summary Judgments
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mag. Judge Recommends Denial of Bid to Junk Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Venue of "Griffin" Suit Transferred to Calif.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Remand "Murphy" to State Court Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Mold Verdict vs. Crane Co. Granted
ASBESTOS UPDATE: St. Paul's Suit vs. R&Q Reinsurance Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6th Cir. Upholds Prison Term for M. Sawyer

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Court Recommends Remand of "Wines"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Master Granted Limited Discovery in "Rhodes"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Corp. Junked as Defendant in "Donlon"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Continues to Defend Claims at June 24
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Has 1 Case Set fro Trial This Year

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Court Adopts Remand Recommendation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Missouri Federal Court Remands Asbestos Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer's Bid for Summary Ruling Junked
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Jury Reaches Defense Verdict in Talc Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fake Contractor Exposes Asbestos

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Essex School Fined GBP46K for Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Body Powder Suits Proposed for MDL Consolidation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Superfund Site Gets Dedicated Fire Team
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Concerns Raised
ASBESTOS UPDATE: College Reprimanded Over Asbestos Removal

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Death Sees GBP228K Payout
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gov't Charged Only 2 Asbestos Importers in 8 Yrs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boswells School Ordered to Pay GBP46K
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shelby County Workers Claim Exposure to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Stripped from Tenants' Homes

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bases Deny Disposing Asbestos in Cyprus
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allens Pay Out Over Asbestos-related Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Business Group Joins Union in Asbestos Alarm
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ausgrid, Union Spar Over Asbestos Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Postal Service Exposes Workers to Asbestos


                            *********


ABBSTER ENTERPRISES: Faces Class Action Over FSLA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for West Virginia Record, reports that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Buffalo Wild Wings
after former employees allege it violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Abbster Enterprises LLC operates the franchised Buffalo Wild Wings
in Martinsburg.

Michael Rodgers and Lauren Collins were employees of Abbster and
claim it failed to pay them and other similarly situated severs
and bartenders all earned minimum wages, according to a complaint
filed July 7 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of West Virginia.

Abbster has a policy or practice of paying servers and bartenders
at its BWW restaurant sub-minimum hourly wages under the tip-
credit provisions of the FLSA and violated the FLSA by failing to
inform its servers and bartenders of the tip-credit provisions,
according to the suit.

The plaintiffs claim the defendant violated the FLSA by its policy
or practice of requiring servers and bartenders to perform non-
tipped work that, even if it were related to their tipped
occupation, exceeded 20 percent of their time worked in one or
more individual work weeks.

The defendant also violated the FLSA by requiring servers and
bartenders to return a portion of their tips to the restaurant,
including to cover the cost of customer walkouts and cash drawer
shortages, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs claim Abbster was aware or should have been aware
that federal law requires it to pay severs and bartenders full
minimum wages and violated the FLSA by not following federal law.

Rodgers and Collins are seeking judgment in the amount of the owed
minimum wages for all time worked by them and similarly-situated
servers and bartenders; and liquidated damages in an amount equal
to the amount of unpaid minimum wages. They are being represented
by David M. Hammer of Hammer Ferretti Schiavoni.

The case is assigned to District Judge Gina Groh.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia
case number: 3:16-cv-00106


ABUNDANT LIFE: Bid to Certify in "Malamphy" Suit Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Elizabeth A. Kovachevich entered an order in the lawsuit
styled MARCIE MALAMPHY, and others similarly situated v. ABUNDANT
LIFE HOME HEALTH AGENCY, INC. and NELY NIDA VILLAVENCIO, an
individual, Case No. 8:16-cv-00327-EAK-TGW (M.D. Fla.), granting
in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification and facilitation of Court-authorized notice.

Ms. Malamphy commenced the lawsuit on February 11, 2016, alleging
that she and other hourly-paid nurses, who currently work, or have
worked for the Defendant, were deprived of proper overtime wages.

Judge Kovachevich ordered that:

   (1) within 30 days from entry of the Order, the Defendant will
       produce the full names, last known addresses, telephone
       numbers, and e-mail addresses of putative class members
       employed by the Defendant in the past three years;

   (2) within 15 days from entry of the Order, the Plaintiff's
       counsel is directed to revise the proposed notice
       consistent with the Order, and to submit the revised
       notice to the Defendant for review and approval;

   (3) with 15 days from receipt of the revised notice, the
       parties will meet and confer regarding any objections to
       the form thereof, and assuming the notice is acceptable to
       both parties, the Plaintiff may distribute the notice and
       consent to join forms via first-class mail to putative
       class members employed by the Defendant within the past
       three years;

   (4) to the extent the parties are unable to agree regarding
       the form of the proposed notice, the Defendant may file a
       written objection with the Court within seven days
       following the expiration of the 15 day review period; and

   (5) the Motion is denied as to any posting of the notice at
       Defendant's facilities.

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


ALAMOWING DEVELOPMENT: "Elliott" Suit to Recover Minimum Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Elliott, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. Alamowing Development,
LLC, B III Wing, LLC, RioWing Development, LLC, Alamowing
DeZavala, LLC, Alamowing College Station, LLC, Alamowing Seaworld,
LLC, Alamowing Tyler, LLC, Alamowing Austin I, LLC, Alamowing
Austin II, LLC, Alamowing Culebra, LLC, Alamowing SE Military,
LLC, Alamowing Longview, LLC, Alamowing Walzem, LLC, Alamowing Pat
Booker, LLC, Alamowing Waco, LLC, Alamowing Austin III, LLC,
Alamowing Killeen, LLC, Alamowing Legacy, LLC, Alamowing Cedar
Park, LLC, Alamowing El Paso, LLC, Alamowing Zarzamora, LLC,
Alamowing El Paso, II, LLC, RioWing McAllen, LLC, RioWing
Brownsville, LLC, RioWing Harlingen, LLC, RioWing Corpus Christi,
LLC, RioWing Laredo, LLC, RioWing Weslaco, LLC and RioWing McAllen
II, LLC, Alamowing Alamogordo, LLC, Alamowing Albuquerque, LLC,
Alamowing Albuquerque II, LLC, Alamowing Albuquerque III, LLC,
Alamowing Albuquerque IV, LLC, Alamowing Farmington, LLC,
Alamowing Hobbs, LLC, Alamowing Las Cruces I, Alamowing Santa Fe,
LLC, Alamowing Atascocita, LLC, Southseas Wings Discovery Bay,
LLC, Southseas Wings Laulani Village, LLC, Southseas Wings Pearl
Highlands, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-00705 (W.D. Tex., July
12, 2016), seeks minimum wages owed for all time worked with
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred
and such other and further relief for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendants owned and operated approximately 39 franchised Buffalo
Wild Wings restaurants in Texas, New Mexico, and Hawaii. Plaintiff
worked at the restaurant located at 7900 South Broadway Avenue,
Tyler, TX 75703, as a server and claims to have received below the
mandated minimum wage rates.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Glenn D. Levy, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF GLENN D. LEVY
     906 West Basse Road | Suite 100
     San Antonio, TX 78212
     Telephone: (210) 822-5666
     Facsimile: (210) 822-5650
     Email: Glenn@GlennLevyLaw.com

            - and -

     Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
     Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
     WERMAN SALAS P.C.
     77 West Washington, Suite 1402
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Tel: (312) 419-1008
     Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
            zflowerree@flsalaw.com


ALLERGAN PLC: AHOLD USA Claims Antitrust Law Breach Over Asacol
---------------------------------------------------------------
AHOLD USA, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, v. ALLERGAN, PLC (f/k/a ACTAVIS, PLC); ALLERGAN, INC.;
ALLERGAN USA, INC.; ALLERGAN SALES, LLC; WARNER CHILCOTT, LIMITED;
WARNER CHILCOTT (US), LLC; WARNER CHILCOTT SALES (US), LLC; ZYDUS
PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC.; CADILA HEALTHCARE LIMITED, Case 1:16-cv-
11498 (D. Mass., July 19, 2016), is a civil antitrust action
challenging defendants' alleged unlawful impairment of competition
for the prescription drug Asacol, an ulcerative colitis drug,
Asacol HD, and Delzicol.

Until June 15, 2015, Allergan was known as Actavis plc. Allergan
markets branded and generic pharmaceuticals throughout the United
States and has commercial operations in the United States and
around the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
     David S. Nalven, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
     Cambridge, MA 02142
     Phone: (617) 482-3700
     Fax: (617) 482-3003
     E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com
             davidn@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

     John D. Radice, Esq.
     RADICE LAW FIRM
     34 Sunset Blvd.
     Long Beach, NJ 08008
     Phone: (646) 386-7688
     Fax: (609) 385-0745
     E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com


AMERISOURCEBERGEN: 3rd Cir. Vacates Attorneys' Fees Award
---------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Luis Felipe Restrepo of the Court of Appeals, Third
Circuit, vacated the portion of the district court's Memorandum
and Order awarding plaintiff $550,000 in attorneys' fees and
expenses in the case captioned, ELI MOR, derivatively on behalf of
AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION and individually on behalf of
himself and all other similarly-situated shareholders of
AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION, v. STEVEN COLLIS, RICHARD
GOCHNAUER, RICHARD GOZON, EDWARD HAGENLOCKER, KATHLEEN HYLE,
MICHAEL LONG, HENRY MCGEE, CHARLES COTROS, JANE HENNEY, and
AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION. Eli Mor, Appellant, Case No. 15-
2831 (3rd Cir.).

On February 15, 2013, Eli Mor filed a Complaint in the District
Court derivatively on behalf of AmerisourceBergen Corporation and
individually on behalf of himself and all other similarly-situated
shareholders of ABC, naming as defendants nine members of the
Company's Board of Directors (Board) and ABC, as nominal
defendant. The Complaint alleged the Board exceeded its authority
under the Company's shareholder-approved Equity Incentive Plan
(Plan) resulting in a breach of fiduciary duties, waste of
corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. Mor's claims stemmed from
his allegations that in 2012 the Board granted 758,810 stock
awards to defendant Steven Collis, the Company's President, Chief
Executive Officer and a Director, thereby exceeding the alleged
300,000-share limit permitted to be granted to any individual
participant in one calendar year under the Plan.

The parties to the action entered into and filed the Stipulation
of Settlement on August 15, 2013. The Stipulation states that on
February 19, 2009, ABC's stockholders approved the Company's
Management Incentive Plan which provides for a 300,000-share limit
on grants of awards to eligible individuals in any calendar year
commencing on or after January 1, 2009.

On October 28, 2014, the District Court approved the parties'
negotiated settlement of this shareholder derivative class action,
reserving the issue of the amount of attorneys' fees to be awarded
to plaintiff, Eli Mor.

On July 1, 2015, the District Court filed its Memorandum and Order
addressing plaintiff's and ICLUB's requests for attorneys' fees.
The Court denied non-party ICLUB Investment Partnership (ICLUB)'s
request for fees and awarded plaintiff attorneys' fees and
expenses in the amount of $550,000. The Court found that the
litigation resulted in, among other things, the creation of a
common fund equaling $5.048 million.

On appeal, Mor argues that the District Court's award in the
action impermissibly deviates from governing law, whether federal
law or Delaware law is applied. He argued that District Court
misapprehended the facts relevant to his application for
attorneys' fees and that the Court abused its discretion by
conducting a flawed and arbitrary percentage-of-recovery analysis.

In his Opinion and Order dated July 7, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/CBc7Vt from Leagle.com, Judge Restrepo held that the
District Court's award of attorneys' fees and expenses was at
least partially based on factual assertions which were not
supported by the record, and the District Court failed to provide
an adequate explanation in support of its award so that the Court
have a sufficient basis to review for abuse of discretion.

The case is remanded to the District Court for an award of fees
and expenses.


AML CONSTRUCTION: Sued Over Violation of FLSA, Col. Wage Act
------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID JACKSON; KENNETH THOMAS; JAVIER MORA-MONCADA; GILDARDO MORA-
MONCADA, and JESUS OROZCO, on their own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. AML CONSTRUCTION & DESIGN GROUP,
ALEXANDER CASH, ALEXANDER KENNEDY, CUSTOM SOLUTIONS BY ALVARADO
CONSTRUCTION, LLC AND MIKE ALVARADO, Case 1:16-cv-01847 (D. Col.,
July 19, 2016), alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Colorado Wage Act.

AML Construction and Design Group provides service for new
construction or refinished needs.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Ralph G. Torres, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF RALPH G. TORRES
     1801 Broadway, Suite 1400
     Denver, CO 80202
     Phone: 303-297-8427
     Fax: 303-292-0522
     E-mail: RGTorres99@aol.com


AOSS MEDICAL: PRS Seeks Certification of TCPA and ICFA Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order determining that
the action entitled PRS, LLC, on behalf of plaintiff and the class
members defined herein v. AOSS MEDICAL SUPPLY, INC., and JOHN DOES
1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-07498 (N.D. Ill.), may proceed as a class
action against AOSS Medical Supply, Inc.  The Plaintiff defines
the classes as:

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

     For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of the Illinois
     Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/2, plaintiff seeks to
     represent a class consisting of (a) all persons with
     Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date three years
     prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by
     or on behalf of defendant AOSS Medical Supply, Inc.,
     promoting its goods or services for sale (d) which did not
     contain a complaint opt out notice.

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Z8FiMV3C

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


APPLE AMERICAN: "Fego" Sues Over Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------
Tyler Fego, Plaintiffs, v. Apple American Group, LLC d/b/a
Applebee's Neighborhood Grill & Bar and John Does 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. L-2554-16 (N.J. Sup., July 8, 2016), seeks
compensatory and punitive damages, interest, cost of suit,
attorneys' fees, enhanced attorneys' fees, equitable back and
front pay, equitable reinstatement and any other relief under the
New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

Plaintiff was terminated after testing positive for marijuana,
despite his prescription for medical marijuana for treatment of
Crohn's Disease.

Apple American Group, LLC operates Applebee's Neighborhood Grill &
Bar with principle place of business in the State of New Jersey at
3800 Black Horse Pike, Turnersville, New Jersey 08012.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
     COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
     18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
     Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
     Tel: (856) 727-9700
     Website: www.CostelloMains.com


APPLE INC: Must Face "Opperman" Data-Mining Suit, Judge Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a nationwide class of Apple device users can seek damages
over claims that Apple let a social networking app download users'
personal data without consent, a federal judge in San Francisco
ruled July 15.

The decision comes four years after lead plaintiff Mark Opperman
sued Apple and the social networking app Path Inc. in one of four
consolidated class actions filed in California and Texas.

Opperman claims Apple distributed "invasive versions" of the Path
app, which downloaded details from each user's contact list
without their knowledge or consent. Path stored the data, which
included email addresses and birthdays, and mined it to create
social graphing maps, the plaintiffs claim.

The class lobbed similar claims at other app developers --
including Yelp, Twitter, Instagram and "Angry Birds" maker Rovio
-- but the ruling issued on July 15 only applies to claims against
Apple and Path.  In that ruling, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar
certified a class of 480,000 Apple device users whose contact data
was downloaded by Path between Nov. 9, 2011, and Feb. 7, 2012.
Tigar refused to certify a larger class of users who downloaded
the app, finding only members of the "intrusion upload subclass"
who actually logged into the app and had their data accessed were
injured.

The judge also rejected the defendants' claims that choice-of-law
questions made class certification impractical. He found Apple and
Path failed to show that applying California law would hinder the
interests of other states where plaintiffs reside.

However, the judge did side with Apple and Path in finding that
the plaintiffs failed to offer a viable method for calculating the
inherent value of privacy on a classwide basis.

The plaintiffs' economics expert, Dr. Hank Fishkind, proposed
creating a survey that would ask respondents to choose between
getting a free app that would access their data without consent or
paying a certain fee for an app that would not download their
contacts without permission.

"It may be that the average damages that Dr. Fishkind's model
would predict will be very close to the damages actually suffered
by every class member, but there is no way of knowing this," Tigar
wrote. "It is equally or more likely that his model would
overcompensate some class members while undercompensating others."

Tigar found the class could not pursue monetary damages for
invasion of privacy or unjust enrichment, but that it could seek
nominal and punitive damages.

The fact that each class member can recover only a modest amount
in damages makes pursuing the litigation as a class, rather than
individually, "clearly superior to the alternatives," the judge
concluded.

Path's attorney, Jedediah Wakefield --
jwakefield@fenwick.com -- of Fenwick & West, declined to comment
on the ruling.

Class attorney David Given -- dmg@phillaw.com -- of Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin did not return a phone call seeking
comment July 18, afternoon.

Path was sold to Kakao, a South Korean technology firm, in May
2015, after the social networking app failed to go mainstream in
the United States and capped out at 23 million registered users.

The plaintiffs must submit all remaining motions for class
certification against the 16 remaining app developer defendants,
including LinkedIn and Foursquare Labs, by Aug. 23.

The case captioned, MARC OPPERMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
PATH, INC., et al., Defendants., Case No. 13-cv-00453-JST (N.D.
Cal.).


AR RESOURCE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Kassin" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Kassin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. AR Resource, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:16-
cv-04171-FLW-TJB (D.N.J., July 11, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

AR Resource, Inc. is a full service accounts receivable management
and collection company.

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


ARCTIC GLACIER: "Levin" Sues Over Ice Machine Rentals
-----------------------------------------------------
Carrie Levin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Arctic Glacier USA INC., Arctic Glacier
NY Inc. a subsidiary of Arctic Glacier, LLC as assignee of
Icesurance, Inc. subsidiary of Arctic Glacier Inc. d/b/a Saxony
Ice Co., Defendants, Case No. 653648/2016 (N.Y. Sup., July 12,
2016), seeks damages resulting from unjust enrichment and for
breach of the covenant of fair dealing and good faith.

Plaintiff alleges that the rental fees for ice machines being
leased to them by the Defendant is almost 50% of the actual
purchase price of the said machine.

Arctic Glacier NY Inc. is a domestic business corporation located
in 111 Eighth A venue, New York, NY 10011. Arctic Glacier USA
Inc., a Delaware company, located in New York is 111 Eighth
Avenue, New York, NY 10011. They are into the business of leasing
ice machines and the supply of ice.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lowell J. Sidney, Esq.
     244 Fifth A venue, Suite Q278
     New York, NY 10001
     Tel: (212) 315-3523

Defendant is represented by:

     WEINSTEIN KAPLAN & COHEN PC
     1325 Franklin Avenue, Suite 210
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Tel: (516) 877-2525


ARISE VIRTUAL: Certification of CSP Class Sought in "Carter" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Carter asks the Court to conditionally certify the action
captioned BARRY CARTER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ARISE VIRTUAL SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No.
1:16-cv-06262 (N.D. Ill.), as a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.  He also moves the Court for an order
allowing notice of the action to be sent to proposed class members
informing them of their right to opt-in to the Case.

Mr. Carter has brought the Case on behalf of Customer Support
Professionals, who have worked for the Defendant over the last
three years.  Arise is a "virtual call center" that employs
thousands of CSPs across the country to perform customer service
work for its customers -- such as AT&T, Disney, Apple, Rogers
Telecom, and TurboTax -- out of their home offices.  He alleges
that Arise has misclassified these workers as independent
contractors and thereby has avoided complying with the FLSA, in
particular by not paying them minimum wage (or any wage) during
their training, and requiring them to purchase their own equipment
and pay for their own training, thereby, driving their wages even
further below the minimum wage.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Q5yDU67u

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Jill Kahn, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAL, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
                  jkahn@llrlaw.com

               - and -

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 323-1550
          E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  rstephan@stephanzouras.com


AMSTERDAM PRINTING: Court Denies Class Certification as Premature
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge J. Michelle Childs of the United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina denied Plaintiff's Motion
to Certify Class in the case captioned, Career Counseling, Inc.,
d/b/a Snelling Staffing Services, a South Carolina corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Amsterdam Printing & Litho, Inc.;
Taylor Corporation, John Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:15-CV-
05061-JMC (D.S.C.).

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants faxed an advertisement to
Plaintiff and others on June 22, 2015 and December 14, 2015 in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA),

Plaintiff filed a "Placeholder" Motion to Certify Class on January
4, 2016, expressing that the court should allow the placeholder
motion to remain pending in order to avoid the "'unnecessary
gamesmanship'" surrounding "pick-off" attempts. Plaintiff requests
leave to file supplemental briefing in support of its Motion after
it has conducted more discovery.

In their Response to Plaintiff's Motion, Defendants claim that
Plaintiff has filed the placeholder motion to deny them their
right to make an offer of judgment under Rule 68 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants argue that the court should
deny Plaintiff's motion as premature because Plaintiff seeks class
certification ruling based just on its pleadings and before it has
conducted discovery.

In her Order and Opinion dated July 12, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/gKZLhu from Leagle.com, Judge Childs found that
Plaintiff's motion as premature without prejudice.  Plaintiff is
granted leave to re-file its motion for class certification after
it has conducted the discovery necessary to bring a fully briefed
motion.

Career Counseling, Inc. is represented by John Gressette Felder,
Jr., Esq., MCGOWAN HOOD AND FELDER; Brian J. Wanca, Esq. --
BWanca@andersonwanca.com -- Ross M. Good, Esq. --
RGood@andersonwanca.com -- and Ryan Michael Kelly, Esq. --
RKelly@andersonwanca.com -- ANDERSON AND WANCA

Amsterdam Printing & Litho, Inc. and Taylor Corporation are
represented by:

      Jonathan Matthew Harvey, Esq.
      JONATHAN HARVEY LAW OFFICE
      1701 Richland Street
      Columbia, SC 29201
      Tel: (803)779-3363

            - and -

      Kellie J. Mitchell, Esq.
      William E. Raney, Esq.
      COPILEVITZ AND CANTER
      1501 N. Fant St.
      Anderson, SC 29621
      Tel: (864)225-6228


BANK OF AMERICA: Painters and Allied Trades Council Files Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 35 PENSION FUND,
on Behalf of Itself and all Others Similarly Situated, v. BANK OF
AMERICA, N.A., BANK OF AMERICA MERRILL LYNCH INTERNATIONAL
LIMITED, CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK, CREDIT
SUISSE AG, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, NOMURA INTERNATIONAL PLC, HIREN
GUDKA, AMANDEEP SINGH MANKU, SHAILEN PAU, and BHARDEEP SINGH HEER,
Case 1:16-cv-05755 (S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2016), asserts violations
of the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, and state common law in relation
to their transaction of supranational, sub-sovereign, and agency
bonds (SSAs).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gerald H. Silk, Esq.
     Hannah Ross, Esq.
     Avi Josefson, Esq.
     BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
     1251 Avenue of the Americas
     York, NY 10020
     Phone: (212) 554-1400
     Fax: (212) 554-1444
     E-mail: jerry@blbglaw.com
             hannah@blbglaw.com
             avi@blbglaw.com

        - and -

     Blair A. Nicholas, Esq.
     Benjamin Galdston, Esq.
     David Kaplan, Esq.
     Lucas Gilmore, Esq.
     Brandon Marsh, Esq.
     BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
     12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
     San Diego, CA 92130
     Phone: (858) 720-3183
     Fax: (858) 793-0323
     E-mail: blairn@blbglaw.com
             benjaming@blbglaw.com
             davidk@blbglaw.com
             lucasg@blbglaw.com
             brandonm@blbglaw.com

        - and -

     Scott Martin, Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP
     33 Whitehall Street
     14th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: (646) 357-1100
     Fax: (212) 202-4322
     E-mail: smartin@hausfeld.com

        - and -

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

        - and -

     Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
     Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
     Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP
     600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Phone: (415) 633-1908
     Fax: (415) 358-4980
     E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeld.com
             bsweeney@hausfeld.com
             clebsock@hausfeld.com


BCM SECURITY: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
JAMES L. JONES, MARTY HOGAN, and others similarly situated v. BCM
SECURITY SERVICES, INC., a foreign corporation and CURTIS
MATTINGLY, individually, Case 6:16-cv-01287-RBD-KRS (M.D. Fla.,
July 19, 2016), seeks overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

BCM SECURITY SERVICES, INC. is in the business of providing
security.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James N. Turner, Esq.
     37 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 500
     Orlando, FL 32801
     Phone: (888) 877-5103
     E-mail: njtlaw@gmail.com


BIG 5: Faces "Houston" Lawsuit Under California Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------
JON HOUSTON on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated,
and on behalf of the general public v. BIG 5 SPORTING GOODS
CORPORATION; BIG 5 CORP; and DOES l-100 Case No. RG 16823835 (Cal.
Super., Country of Alameda, July 19, 2016), was brought pursuant
to the California Labor Code and California Code of Regulations.

BIG 5 SPORTING GOODS CORPORATION owns and operates trucks,
industrial trucks, industrial vehicles and/or industrial work
sites.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William Turley, Esp.
     David Mara, Esq.
     Jill Vcechi, Esq.
     THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC
     7428 Trade Street
     San Diego, CA 92121
     Phone: (619) 234-2833
     Fax: (619) 234-4048


BNP NY: Faces "Dutan" Suit in N.Y. Alleging Violation of FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nelson Dutan, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, v. BNP NY Foods, Inc. d/b/a Essen, Chong Won Byun, and
John Byun, Case 1:16-cv-05728 (S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2016), was filed
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

BNP NY Foods, Inc. is in the shopping and grocery business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BOYD GAMING: Settlement in "Gamble" Suit Has Preliminary Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen of the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada granted Plaintiffs' unopposed motion
for preliminary approval of settlement in the case captioned,
CRAIG GAMBLE, et al. Plaintiffs, v. BOYD GAMING CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 2:13-CV-01009-JCM-PAL, No. 2:13-CV-01043-JCM-
PAL., 2:13-CV-01801-JCM-PAL (D. Nev.).

Plaintiffs Craig Gamble, Michael Simmons, Maria High, Kathy
Belmonte, and Richard Caldwell (Plaintiffs) filed three separate
lawsuits against Defendant Boyd Gaming Corporation on May 9, 2013
(Case No. 2:13-cv-01009-JCM-PAL), June 12, 2013 (Case No. 2:13-cv-
01043-JCM-PAL), and October 1, 2013 (Case No. 2:13-cv-01801-JCM-
PAL). Plaintiffs alleged claims to recover unpaid wages earned
during time rounded-off by Defendant's timekeeping system and time
they spent cashing out their banks off-the-clock. Pursuant to a
stipulation by the parties, the court consolidated the lawsuits
making the case, Case No. 2:13-CV-01009-JCM-PAL, the base file.

The operative complaint in the consolidated action is Plaintiffs'
Master Second Amended Complaint, which asserts claims for unpaid
regular wages and overtime wages under the Federal Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq., and applicable
Nevada law.

The parties engaged in considerable discovery efforts throughout
the action, including written discovery and depositions.
Plaintiffs allege claims for unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages,
and liquidated damages.

Defendant agreed to pay a maximum settlement amount of $450,000
less attorneys' fees, litigation costs, and service awards.  The
parties have agreed to allocate 25% or $112,500 of the maximum
settlement amount to Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and $130,000 to
litigation costs.  Thus, $242,500 has been allocated to attorneys'
fees and litigation costs and a maximum of $207,500 will be
available for distribution to Plaintiffs and Opt-in Plaintiffs.
The parties have agreed to a pro rata formula to distribute the
remaining settlement proceeds based on the Plaintiffs' expert's
calculation of alleged damages.

The current Motion is the second unopposed motion for preliminary
approval of settlement filed in the case.

In her Order dated July 11, 2016 available at https://is.gd/xFJ5Hn
from Leagle.com, Judge Leen found that the proposed settlement is
fair and reasonable, the form of the proposed Notice of Settlement
and Consent to Settlement and Release of Claims is acceptable, and
the costs requested to be reasonable and adequately documented.

The Court ordered that Plaintiffs shall file their Motion for
Final Approval of the Settlement within 21 days after the
Acceptance Period Deadline and all other proceedings in the matter
are stayed pending consideration of final approval.

Craig Gamble, et al. are represented by Ashley R. Thronson, Esq.
-- athronson@fredlaw.com -- FREDRIKSON & BYRON, PA; Brooke A.
Bohlke, Esq. -- bbohlke@wshblaw.com -- Michele R. Fisher, Esq. --
fisher@nka.com -- and Rebekah L. Bailey, Esq. -- bailey@nka.com
-- NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP

Gamble et al. are also represented by:

      David L. Langhaim, Esq.
      ANTHEM LAW
      2879 St. Rose Pkwy., Ste. 200
      Henderson, NV 89052

Boyd Gaming Corporation is represented by Derek F. Foran, Esq. --
dforan@mofo.com -- Karen J. Kubin, Esq. -- kkubin@mofo.com --
Linda E. Shostak, Esq. -- lshostak@mofo.com -- Nancy R. Thomas,
Esq. -- nthomas@mofo.com -- and Tritia M. Murata, Esq. --
tmurata@mofo.com -- MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

Boyd Gaming is also represented by:

      Jen J. Sarafina, Esq.
      Scott M. Abbott, Esq.
      KAMER ZUCKER & ABBOTT
      3000 W Charleston Blvd # 3,
      Las Vegas, NV 89102
      Tel: (702)259-8640

Coast Hotels and Casinos is represented by Karen J. Kubin, Esq.
-- kkubin@mofo.com -- MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP -- Rebekah L.
Bailey, Esq. -- bailey@nka.com -- NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP

They are also represented by:

      Jen J. Sarafina, Esq.
      Scott M. Abbott, Esq.
      KAMER ZUCKER & ABBOTT
      3000 W Charleston Blvd # 3
      Las Vegas, NV 89102
      Tel: (702)259-8640


BUMBLE BEE: Colluded On Not Selling Fad-Free Tuna, Suits Say
------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Seaman, writing for Undercurrent News, reports that the three
largest shelf stable seafood brands in the US agreed not to sell
tuna products using raw material caught without using fish
aggregation devices (FADs), it is alleged in legal documents.

Amended complaints filed in late May in the civil lawsuits
accusing the tuna brands of price fixing and collusion contain a
number of new allegations, including the alleged collusion on not
selling FAD-free tuna products.

Bumble Bee Foods, Thai Union Group-owned Tri-Union Seafoods, which
sells under the Chicken of the Sea brand, and Dongwon Industries-
owned Starkist were concerned that a switch "to a more sustainable
method of fishing would decrease supply and put pressure on their
margins", according to an amended complaint from a group of
wholesalers and retailers, dubbed "direct buyers", that are not
part of a class action.

The civil complaints have been grouped into four tracks, the
direct buyers not part of a class action, direct buyers part of a
class action, a class action from catering companies' part of and
a class action from consumers.  All of the four "tracks" make the
same allegations on the collusion over not selling FAD-free tuna.

All four complaints also allege the conspiracy to fix prices and
not sell FAD-free tuna went to the top executive level and also
involved the parent companies of Bumble Bee and Starkist, Thai
Union and Dongwon.

Bumble Bee, Chicken of the Sea, and Starkist colluded to resist
efforts by environmental groups, such as Greenpeace, to make their
products "more sustainable and less harmful to oceanic
ecosystems", alleged an amended complaint from a group of direct
buyers outside the class action, including Giant Eagle and
Affiliated Foods.

Greenpeace has been pushing for the big tuna brands to use more
pole and line tuna, or fish caught with purse seiners not relying
on FADs.

The brands' agreement "not to compete by producing branded canned
tuna labeled 'FAD free' had the effect of ensuring that such
canned tuna, which would be more costly to produce and have a
lower profit margin, did not cannibalize sales of their products
subject to the price-fixing conspiracy", alleged the amended class
action complaint from the direct buyers.

By this alleged agreement, the brands "ensured that they did not
compete on the dimension of advertising the sustainably-caught
nature of any of their branded tuna products", it is alleged.

Growing FAD-focus

In 2011, there was a particular focus on the usage of FADs,
floating devices which attract large volumes of tuna, for purse
seiners to then harvest, stated the amended class action complaint
from the caterers.

"By drawing large groups of fish together in one place, FADs
facilitate their mass capture.  Approximately one third of the
global tuna catch is facilitated by FADs," the lawsuit stated.

Generally, FAD-caught tuna results in a lower quality product and
greater "by-catch".  It is, however, more cost effective than pole
and line catching, or free-school purse seining, where FADs are
not used.

In late 2011, executives from the three companies began discussing
the issue via email, complaints allege.

As early as November of 2011, Chris Lischewski, CEO of Bumble Bee,
Shue Wing Chan, then CEO of Tri-Union and In-soo Cho, the former
CEO of Starkist, "had collaborated on an article attacking
Greenpeace and other environmental groups for criticizing the way
tuna is harvested", it is alleged in the class action lawsuit from
the direct buyers.

They reached an agreement not to sell any branded FAD-free
packaged tuna product during a teleconference the week of Feb. 6,
2012, that was confirmed in a Feb. 17, 2012 email, the complaint
from the direct buyers outside the class action stated.

This agreement was made "despite strong and growing demand by
consumers for FAD free products", according to the class action
complaint from the direct buyers.

Mr. Lischewski declined to comment to Undercurrent News. Chan did
not respond to a request for comment and Cho could not be reached
for comment.  Thai Union and Bumble Bee owner Lion Capital also
declined to comment and Dongwon did not respond to a request for
comment.

In addition to the allegations on the FAD-free tuna, the amended
complaints claim the price fixing went up to CEO level, as well as
to Thai Union and Dongwon.  Del Monte Foods, the parent of
Starkist from 2002 to 2006, is also named as a defendant in one of
the lawsuits, from a group of direct buyers not part of the class
action. Del Monte did not respond to a request for comment.

The amended civil lawsuits come as the US Department of Justice
(DOJ) continues a criminal probe of the sector.

Although a pause on discovery in the civil suits was put in place
earlier in the year after a request from the US DOJ, the
plaintiffs are still able to accumulate information and expand
their complaints, said Christopher Lebsock, of law firm Hausfeld,
which is overseeing the class action track for direct buyers, such
as Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative.

"The pause on discovery is still in place.  The additional
allegations set forth in the amended complaints are based on the
plaintiffs' continuing investigation," Mr. Lebsock told
Undercurrent.

After the January hearing when a pause was placed on discovery,
the civil lawsuits were divided into four tracks, he said.

These are "the direct purchasers class; an end buyers class, which
are consumers who bought the tuna; the commercial indirect end
users class, which are catering companies who bought the tuna to
that was used, for example, to make tuna salad purchased at a deli
counter; then a direct purchasers "opt out" group who chose not to
be part of the direct purchasers' class", said
Mr. Lebsock.  One law firm has been appointed to manage each
track.

Alleged coordinated price increases

The tuna giants' alleged "scheme" to fix prices amid dropping
sales had four main facets, it is alleged in the amended
complaints.

In addition to the allegations on the FAD-free tuna, the companies
are accused of coming to agreements to reduce can sizes across the
industry; agreements to issue collusive list prices; and to limit
promotional or discount activity.

Bumble Bee, Starkist and Chicken of the Sea "carried out these
aspects of their conspiracy through secret e-mails and telephone
calls, as wells as through conversations and meetings facilitated
by various industry groups", the class action complaint from
direct buyers alleged.

Discussions among the companies led to periodic coordinated price
increases at similar times and similar amounts during period from
2003-2012, it is alleged in the complaint for direct buyers
outside of a class action.

The other complaints, the class actions for the direct buyers,
catering companies and end consumers, alleged this took place from
around Aug. 1, 2008, however.

The most recent example given in the complaint for direct buyers
outside the class action is that, between late December 2011 and
Jan. 18, 2012, "extensive telephone communications occurred
between senior executives and sales personnel" of Bumble Bee,
Chicken of the Sea, and Starkist that resulted in an agreement to
raise list prices across their lines of tuna products.

"Advanced copies of price announcements were circulated among
defendants' executives," it is alleged.

"Pursuant to the agreement", Starkist announced a list price
increase on Jan. 13, 2012, effective March 26, 2012; Bumble Bee
announced a virtually identical list price increase on Jan. 17,
2012, effective April 1, 2012; and Chicken of the Sea announced a
virtually identical list price increase on Jan. 18, 2012,
effective April 1, 2012, it is alleged.  "Depending on the
product, the price increases led to virtually identical list
prices or price increases by a virtually identical amount."

'Collusive' monitoring of promotions

Following the decision to impose a coordinated price increase, the
cartel members engaged in monitoring of discounts, it is alleged
in the amended class action complaint from the end tuna consumers.

In "bilateral communications", the tuna giants' the sales and
management personnel "announced to each other their awareness of
particularly aggressive discounts from list price", beginning not
later than May 2012, it is alleged.

In turn, "the personnel of the brand subject to the discount or
promotion provided assurances that the discount or promotion was
not intended to spark price competition between the cartel members
but reflected particular circumstances and would not set a
precedent", it is alleged in the complaint.


CALVARY ASSET: NJ Appeals Court Reinstates CIF Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, CAPITAL INVESTMENT FUNDING, LLC, Plaintiff-
Appellant, v. CALVARY ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC; ROBERT SYPHER, an
individual; ELLIOT SALZMAN, an individual; and 457 CARLTON ROAD,
LLC, Defendants, and ARTHUR FIELD, an individual, Defendant-
Respondent, Case No. A-2710-14T1 (N.J. Super. App. Div.), Judges
Richard S. Hoffman, George S. Leone and Mary Gibbons Whipple of
the New Jersey Superior Court reversed the trial court's order
dismissing CIF's claims against Arthur Field, vacate the order
disqualifying Westrick and Tressler LLP, and remand to the trial
court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Westrick is
a "necessary witness" pursuant to RPC 3.7.

The case arose from a purchase of real property located at 457
Carlton Road in Wyckoff (Wyckoff Property). In early 2002, the
Wyckoff Property was owned by a company called SRG 457, LLC (SRG).
On March 22, 2002, SRG executed a $600,000 note to Lancaster
Resources, Inc. (LRI), secured by a mortgage on the Wyckoff
Property. In 2006, SRG defaulted on the mortgage loan, and LRI
instituted foreclosure proceedings. On September 17, 2007, the
Chancery Division entered a final judgment of foreclosure,
declaring SRG and its principal liable to LRI for $1,095,320.55,
plus interest, costs, and attorney's fees. On June 6, 2008, LRI
assigned its rights in the mortgage to Plaintiff Capital
Investment Funding, LLC -- a South Carolina limited liability
company engaged in the business of selling unsecured promissory
notes.

CIF acquired title to the Wyckoff Property as owner of the
mortgage. On October 21, 2008, 457 Carlton's financer, Calvary
Asset Management, LLC (Calvary), issued a check to CIF for
$305,778.63. This check was accepted by Field -- CIF's manager at
the time, and a founding member when CIF was created in January
1999 -- on CIF's behalf. In a letter written to CIF's receiver in
November 2011, Field admitted to knowing that the check was "no
good" when he received it. He made no attempts to recover the
amount owed to CIF for the sale of the Wyckoff Property.

In 2008, CIF's investors began filing class-action lawsuits
against CIF and Field in South Carolina state court. These
lawsuits were consolidated and resolved by way of an August 24,
2009 Mediated Global Settlement Agreement and Order Approving
Settlement.

On May 16, 2012, Westrick filed a complaint in the Law Division on
behalf of CIF against 457 Carlton, Calvary, Robert Sypher, and
Elliot Salzman (Carlton defendants), along with Field, asserting
breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust
enrichment, conversion, breach of fiduciary duties, common-law
waste, and civil conspiracy.

On December 26, 2012, Field filed a motion to dismiss the claims
against him and to disqualify Westrick and his firm, Tressler LLP,
from representing CIF. In a February 15, 2013 order, the trial
court granted Field's motion. Relying heavily on the previous
litigation that had taken place in South Carolina, the court
dismissed CIF's claims pursuant to the first-to-file rule, "res
judicata and/or collateral estoppel," and forum non conveniens.
Additionally, the court disqualified Westrick and Tressler LLP
from representing.

CIF appeals from a February 15, 2013 Law Division order which
dismissed CIF's claims against its former manager, defendant
Arthur Field, and disqualified Christopher H. Westrick and the law
firm, Tressler LLP, from representing CIF.  CIF argues that res
judicata and collateral estoppel should not bar the action
because, in the South Carolina litigation, there was no previous
adjudication on the merits and CIF's claims against Field were not
actually litigated.

In the Per Curiam dated July 12, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/WtM2NS from Leagle.com, Judges Hoffman, Leone and
Whipple held that the trial court erred by dismissing CIF's claims
pursuant to either preclusion doctrine and that the trial court
abused its discretion in denying CIF's motion for reconsideration.
Furthermore, the court erred by summarily disqualifying Westrick
as someone who is "likely to be a necessary witness" without
conducting a hearing to determine the extent to which Westrick's
testimony would be material in the case.

Capital Investment Funding, LLC is represented by:

       Christopher H. Westrick, Esq.
       CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, PC
       5 Becker Farm Road
       Roseland, NJ 07068
       Tel:(973)994-1700


CAMDEN IRON: "Domask" Sues Over Disability Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------
William Domask, Plaintiff, v. Camden Iron & Metal, Inc., Eastern
Metal Recycling, L.L.C., Mike Gaul and John Does 1-10, Defendants,
Case No. L-2556-16 (N.J. Sup. July 8, 2016), seeks compensatory
and punitive damages, interest, cost of suit, attorneys' fees,
equitable back and front pay, reinstatement, equitable instatement
or promotion and any other relief under the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination.

Plaintiff alleges harassment and discrimination over his leg
injury. He worked as a truck driver.

Defendants are into the metal recycling and processing business,
with Mike Gaul as owner.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
     COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
     18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
     Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
     Tel: (856) 727-9700
     Website: www.CostelloMains.com


CANADA BONDED: Illegally Collects Debt, "Greenwald" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Greenwald, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Canada Bonded Attorney, Inc., American
Bonded Attorney, Inc., and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:16-cv-04170-
FLW-LHG, seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.

The Defendants are in the business of providing debt collection
services for corporate and consumer collections.

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


CAREY LIMOUSINE: "Yim" Suit to Recover Minimum Pay
--------------------------------------------------
Sun Hong Yim, Rachid Drhoum, Suk Hwan Kim, Angel Buffa, Naresh
Motwani, Lutfu Ozbey, Cesar Vasconez and CVC Limousine Corp.,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Carey Limousine NY, Inc., Carey
International, Inc., Gary L. Kessler, Sally A. Snead, and John
Does #1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05554 (S.D.N.Y., July 12,
2016), seeks unpaid wages, breach of contract damages and other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York State
Labor Law.

Defendants offer limousine services where Plaintiffs worked as
drivers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William C. Rand, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
      501 Fifth Ave., 15th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel: (212) 286-1425
      Fax: (646) 688-3078


CAREY WATERMARK: Former Employee Filed Class Actions in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carey Watermark Investors 2 Incorporated said in an exhibit to its
Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on July 19, 2016, that a former employee on February 5, 2016,
filed a class action lawsuit in Santa Clara Superior Court
alleging that he and other unionized servers were paid less than
the San Jose minimum wage. The property's collective bargaining
agreement contains a waiver of the San Jose minimum wage. The
individual essentially is alleging that due to a drafting error in
the law, the waiver is invalid. Marriott denies that the waiver is
invalid and intends to vigorous defend this lawsuit.

On July 13, 2016, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Carey Watermark
Investors 2 Incorporated ("CWI 2") completed the acquisition of
the San Jose Marriott from SP6 San Jose Hotel Lessee, LLC, an
unaffiliated third party. The 510-guestroom San Jose Marriott will
continue to be managed by Marriott International, Inc. CWI 2's
total investment in the property is approximately $167.5 million,
including a $154.0 million purchase price and approximately $7.7
million of acquisition-related costs and $5.8 million of planned
capital improvements.


CATALINA REYNA: Faces "Ballesteros" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARTHA BALLESTEROS, and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b), v. CATALINA REYNA ROSAS and ALVARO SANABRIA
MENESES, Case 1:16-cv-23132-UU (S.D. Fla., July 19, 2016), was
filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff MARTHA BALLESTEROS worked for Defendants as a domestic
live-out housekeeper.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CEPHEID INC: Faces "Higginbotham" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Higginbotham, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Cepheid Inc., Case No. 5:16-cv-03882 (N.D.
Cal., July 11, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Cepheid Inc. is a molecular diagnostics company that develops,
manufactures and markets fully integrated systems for testing in
the clinical market, and for application in its original non-
clinical market.

Stuart Higginbotham is a pro se plaintiff.


CERES INC: Faces "Varela" Suit Over Share Sale to Land O'Lakes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Knox Varela, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Ceres, Inc., Cheryl P. Morley, Pascal Brandys, Richard
Flavel, Robert Godlberg, Richard Hamilton, Land O'Lakes, Inc., and
Roman Merger Sub, Inc., Case No. BC626611 (Cal. Super. Ct., July
11, 2016), is brought on behalf of all holders of common stock of
Ceres, Inc., to enjoin the acquisition of the publicly owned
shares of Ceres common stock by Land O'Lakes, Inc., through a
flawed process and inadequate consideration.

Ceres, Inc. is an agricultural biotechnology company that develops
and markets seeds and traits to produce crops for animal feed,
sugar and other markets.

Land O'Lakes, Inc. is a cooperative corporation incorporated under
the laws of Minnesota with industry-leading operations that span
the spectrum from agricultural production to consumer foods.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHASE RECEIVABLES: Faces "Cohen" Suit Over Automated Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
David Cohen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Chase Receivables and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:16-
cv-04169-FLW-LHG (D.N.J., July 7, 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.

Chase Receivables operates a debt collection firm located at 1247
Broadway, Sonoma, CA 95476.

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

CHESAPEAKE OPERATING: "Jerry Venable" Suit Removed to W.D. Ok.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Jerry Venable Revocable Family
Trust, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v.
Chesapeake Operating LLC, including affiliated predecessors and
affiliated successors, Case No. CJ-16-00011 was removed from the
District Court of Beaver County Oklahoma to the U.S. District
Court Western District of Oklahoma. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-00782-M to the proceeding.

Chesapeake Operating LLC is a petroleum and natural gas
exploration and production company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
      REX A SHARP PA
      5301 W 75th St
      Prairie Village, KS 66208
      Telephone: (913) 901-0505
      Facsimile: (913) 901-0419
      E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Patrick L. Stein, Esq.
      Timothy J. Bomhoff, Esq.
      MCAFEE & TAFT
      211 N Robinson Ave, 10th Fl.
      Oklahoma City, OK 73102
      Telephone: (405) 235-9621
      Facsimile: (405) 235-0439
      E-mail: patrick.stein@mcafeetaft.com
              Tim.Bomhoff@mcafeetaft.com


CHEVRON USA: Court Denies Motion to Remand, Bid for Legal Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susie Morgan of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied Plaintiffs' motion to
remand, and their request for costs and attorney's fees pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(c) in the case captioned, JOSEPH ROBERTSON,
ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. CHEVRON USA, INC., ET AL., SECTION: "E"
(3), Defendant, Case No. 15-874 (E.D. La.).

Joseph Robertson and 157 other plaintiffs filed suit in Civil
District Court for the Parish of Orleans on February 5, 2015; 33
additional plaintiffs were named in a supplemental petition. The
case involves personal injury and property damage claims arising
from alleged exposure to contamination from oil field pipe. The
case was originally filed in state court and subsequently removed
to federal court under the mass action provisions of the Class
Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

Plaintiffs, Joseph Robertson, et al., move to remand for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction. Defendants Exxon Mobil Corporation
(Exxon) and Mobil Exploration and Producing U.S., Inc. (MEPUS)
oppose Plaintiffs' motion, as do Defendants Joseph F. Grefer and
Camille Grefer (the Grefers). The court issued an order on
September 2, 2015, granting Plaintiff's motion to remand the case
to state court, as the Court found Defendants failed to establish
the individual amount in controversy as required under 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 1332(a) and (d)(11)(B)(i). On January 22, 2016, the Fifth
Circuit reversed the Court's finding that no plaintiff has
satisfied the individual amount-in-controversy requirement, and
the Fifth Circuit remanded the case to the Court to address
Plaintiffs' remaining jurisdictional arguments.

Plaintiffs argue Defendants fail to establish minimal diversity.
Plaintiffs also seek costs and attorney's fees incurred as a
result of the removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(c).

In her Order and Reasons dated July 11, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/Or7f1n from Leagle.com, Judge Morgan found that the
Defendants have established minimal diversity for purposes of
removal under CAFA, as at least one plaintiff and one defendant
are citizens of different states. The Court affirmed the district
court's decision to decline to award attorney's fees under Sec.
1447(c) since the Defendants satisfied the statutory criteria of
removal.

Joseph Robertson, et al. are represented by

       Darleen Marie Jacobs, Esq.
       DARLEEN M. JACOBS, APLC
       823 St Louis St,
       New Orleans, LA 70112
       Tel: (504)522-0155

              - and -

       Paula Adams Ates, Esq.
       ATES LAW FIRM, APLC
       13726 River Rd,
       Destrehan, LA 70047
       Tel: (888)874-9159

             - and -

       Robert G. Harvey, Sr., Esq.
       LAW OFFICE OF TAMARA KLUGER JACOBSON, LLC
       600 North Carrollton Avenue
       New Orleans, LA 70119
       Tel: (504) 822-2136

Chevron USA Inc. is represented by Michael Raudon Phillips, Esq.
-- mike.phillips@keanmiller.com -- Brett P. Fenasci, Esq. --
brett.fenasci@keanmiller.com -- and Shannon A. Shelton, Esq. --
shannon.shelton@keanmiller.com -- KEAN MILLER LLP

ConocoPhillips Company et al. are represented by Deborah DeRoche
Kuchler, Esq. -- dkuchler@kuchlerpolk.com -- Janika D. Polk, Esq.
-- jpolk@kuchlerpolk.com -- Mark Edward Best, Esq. --
mbest@kuchlerpolk.com -- Michele Hale DeShazo, Esq. --
mdeshazo@kuchlerpolk.com -- Milele N. St. Julien, Esq. --
mstjulien@kuchlerpolk.com -- and Skylar B. Rudin, Esq. --
srudin@kuchlerpolk.com -- KUCHLER POLK SCHELL WEINER & RICHESON,
LLC

Exxon Mobil Corporation is represented by Glen Marion Pilie, Esq.
-- glen.pilie@arlaw.com -- David M. Stein, Esq. --
david.stein@arlaw.com -- E. Paige Sensenbrenner, Esq. --
paige.sensenbrenner@arlaw.com -- Martin Alan Stern, Esq. --
martin.stern@arlaw.com -- Roland M. Vandenweghe, Jr., Esq. --
roland.vandenweghe@arlaw.com -- and Valeria M. Sercovich, Esq. --
Valerie.sercovich@arlaw.com -- ADAMS & REESE, LLP

Anadarko U.S. Offshore Corporation is represented by Mary S.
Johnson, Esq. -- msj@jgmclaw.com -- Jill Thompson Losch, Esq. --
jtl@jgmclaw.com -- and Nichole M. Gray, Esq. -- pwg@jgmclaw.com
-- JOHNSON GRAY MCNAMARA


CONOPCO INC: Court Preliminarily Approves "Morales" Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William B. Shubb of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California granted Plaintiffs'
unopposed motion for preliminary approval of settlement in the
case captioned, ALBA MORALES; LANIE COHEN; LINDA CLAYMAN; and
KENNETH DREW, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. CONOPCO, INC., d/b/a UNILEVER, Defendant,
Case No. 2:13-2213 WBS EFB (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Alba Morales, Lanie Cohen, Linda Clayman, and Kenneth
Drew brought this putative class action against defendant Conopco,
Inc., d/b/a Unilever, asserting claims arising out of defendant's
alleged labeling of certain hair care products as "TRESemme
Naturals" despite them containing synthetic ingredients.
Plaintiffs contend that defendant violated California's Unfair
Competition Law (UCL), California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act
(CLRA), and various other state consumer protection laws.

The parties litigated the case for nearly two years before
reaching a settlement agreement on February 5, 2016 before
mediator Jonathan Marks. The parties agreed the gross total
settlement fund is $3.25 million whch provides that plaintiffs'
counsel will apply to the court for a fee award of up to 30% of
the gross settlement amount, or $975,000.

Plaintiffs brought the lawsuit on behalf of a putative class of
consumers in the United States who have purchased TRESemme
Naturals products.  Plaintiffs seek preliminary approval of the
parties' stipulated class-wide settlement, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e).

In his Memorandum and Order dated July 12, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/E6gKjh from Leagle.com, Judge Shubb found that the
settlement was the result of vigorous, arm's-length bargaining.

The Court appointed Plaintiffs Alba Morales, Lanie Cohen, Linda
Clayman, and Kenneth Drew are conditionally certified as the class
representatives, the law firm of Izard, Kindall & Raabe, LLP,
through Mark Kindall, is conditionally appointed as class counsel,
the law firm of Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP,
through Alan Plutzik and Michael Strimling as liaison counsel and
KCC Class Action Service LLC as class administrator.

The final fairness hearing is set for October 17, 2016 at 1:30
p.m.

Alba Morales and Lainie Cohen are represented by Joseph DePalma,
Esq. -- jdepalma@litedepalma.com -- and Katrina Carroll, Esq. --
kcarroll@litedepalma.com -- LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG LLC

Morales et al. are also represented by:

     Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
     Robert A. Izard, Esq.
     IZARD NOBEL LLP
     Town Center, 29 S Main St,
     West Hartford, CT 06107
     Tel: (860)493-6292

           - and -

     Alan R. Plutzik, Esq.
     BRAMSON PLUTZIK MAHL & BIRKHAEUSER, LLP
     2125 Oak Grove Rd Ste 120
     Walnut Creek, CA 94598
     Tel: (925) 945-0200

Linda Clayman and Kenneth Drew are represented by Katrina Carroll,
Esq. -- kcarroll@litedepalma.com -- LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG LLC

They are also represented by:

     Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
     Robert A. Izard, Esq.
     IZARD NOBEL LLP
     Town Center, 29 S Main St,
     West Hartford, CT 06107
     Tel: (860)493-6292

          - and -

     Alan R. Plutzik, Esq.
     BRAMSON PLUTZIK MAHL & BIRKHAEUSER, LLP
     2125 Oak Grove Rd Ste 120
     Walnut Creek, CA 94598
     Tel: (925) 945-0200

Conopco, Inc. is represented by Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. --
lefkowitz@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP; and Michael
Phillip Esser, Esq. -- michael.esser@kirkland.com -- and Ross
Weiner, Esq. -- ross.weiner@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP


CONTRA COSTA: Court Preliminarily Approves Deal in Retirees' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California preliminarily approved the
parties' comprehensive written settlement agreement in the case
captioned, RETIREE SUPPORT GROUP OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, MICHAEL
SLOAN; ALYN D. GOLDSMITH; DEBORAH ELITE; BILLIE JO WILSON ELKIN;
SUSANNE BEADLE; and ALICE GROTHMANN; Plaintiffs, v. CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY, Defendant, Case No. C 12-00944 JST (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Retiree Support Group of Contra Costa County (Plaintiff
RSG), Plaintiffs MICHAEL SLOAN; ALYN D. GOLDSMITH; DEBORAH ELITE;
BILLIE JO WILSON ELKIN; SUSANNE BEADLE; and ALICE GROTHMANN
(collectively Plaintiff Class Representatives) and Defendant
Contra Costa County (Defendant County) move to preliminarily
approve their comprehensive written settlement agreement. The
terms of the Agreement required Plaintiff RSG to file a Third
Amended Complaint alleging a class action and seeking damages.
Plaintiff RSG and Plaintiff Class Representatives filed their
Third Amended Complaint on June 16, 2016.

Alternatively and additionally, the Parties agree and stipulate
that Defendant County's time for response is extended to and
including twenty (20) days after the Fairness Hearing to finally
approve the Agreement on October 25, 2016.

In his Stipulation dated July 11, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/UMQQTf from Leagle.com, Judge Tigar approved the
comprehensive written settlement.

Retiree Support Group of Contra Costa County, et al. are
represented by:

       Jeffrey Greg Lewis, Esq.
       Jacob Avery Richards, Esq.
       KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
       1201 3rd Ave,
       Seattle, WA 98101
       Tel: (206)623-1900

Contra Costa County is represented by Raymond Francis Lynch, Esq.
-- rlynch@hansonbridgett.com -- Lawrence M. Cirelli, Esq. --
lcirelli@hansonbridgett.com -- Matthew Joseph Peck, Esq. --
mpeck@hansonbridgett.com -- and Stephen B. Peck, Esq. --
speck@hansonbridgett.com -- HANSON BRIDGETT LLP


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: October 31 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on July 18 issued a statement regarding the
Corinthian Colleges, Inc. Securities Litigation.

TO: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
the common stock of Corinthian Colleges, Inc. between August 23,
2010 and April 14, 2015.

A Settlement Hearing shall be held before the Honorable George H.
King of the Central District of California on October 31, 2016 at
9:30 a.m. in the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building and United
States Courthouse, 255 East Temple Street, Courtroom 650, Los
Angeles, CA 90012, in the action captioned Erickson v. Corinthian
Colleges, Inc. et al., No. 2:13-cv-07466-GHK (PJWx) (the
"Action").  At the Settlement Hearing, the Court will consider
whether: (1) to permanently certify a class, for settlement
purposes only, of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Corinthian Colleges, Inc.
("Corinthian") between August 23, 2010 and April 14, 2015, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"); (2) to approve as fair,
reasonable, and adequate the proposed settlement of the Action in
exchange for $3.5 million; (3) to dismiss with prejudice the
Action and to enter judgment releasing the Settled Claims against
the Defendants and Released Parties; and (4) to approve Lead
Counsel's applications for the payment of attorneys' fees and
costs, reimbursement of Claims Administrator costs, and a service
award for the Lead Plaintiff.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Corinthian common stock
during the Class Period, you will be bound by the Settlement
unless you send a letter stating that you "request exclusion from
the Class in the Corinthian Colleges, Inc. Securities Litigation,"
postmarked by September 16, 2016, to: Corinthian Colleges, Inc.
Securities Litigation, c/o Garden City Group, LLC, P.O. Box 10274,
Dublin, OH 43017-5774.

If you are a Class Member and do not exclude yourself, you can
object to the Settlement by filing a signed letter with the Court
saying that you object to the proposed Settlement in the
Corinthian Colleges, Inc. Securities Litigation.  Your objection
must be filed with the Court and mailed to Lead Counsel and
Defendants' Counsel, at the addresses set forth below, no later
than September 16, 2016:

LEAD COUNSEL

Jeremy A. Lieberman
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue
20th Floor
New York, NY 10016

DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL

John W. Spiegel
Munger Tolles & Olson LLP
355 South Grand Avenue
35th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071

Any objection must include: (1) your name, address, telephone
number, and signature; (2) proof of ownership of Corinthian common
stock and membership in the Class; (3) a detailed statement of
your objections to any matters before the Court; (4) a written
notice of your intention to appear at the hearing (if you intend
to appear); and (5) all documents or writings you wish the Court
to consider.

For copies of the complete settlement documents, please visit the
Claims Administrator's website at
www.CorinthianSecuritiesLitigation.com or contact the Claims
Administrator toll-free at 1-855-907-3149

Any questions regarding the Settlement should be directed to Lead
Counsel.  Please do not contact the Court or the Clerk's Office or
Defendants' Counsel regarding this Notice.

Dated: July 18, 2016

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


DELAWARE: Court Denies Noble's Motion to File Amended Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sue L. Robinson of the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware denied a motion to file an amended
complaint in the case captioned, THOMAS E. NOBLE, Plaintiff, v.
THE STATE OF DELAWARE, GOVERNOR JACK MARKELL and ANYONE ELSE
RESPONSIBLE, Defendants, Case No. 16-188-SLR (D. Del.).

According to the Court, Movant Thomas A. Noble, a prose litigant,
has engaged in filing numerous lawsuits that contain frivolous
legal arguments that are vexatious and abuse the judicial process.
On September 13, 2004, United States District Judge Kent A. Jordan
entered an order enjoining movant from filing any pro se civil
rights complaints without prior approval of the court. Movant was
given notice to show cause why injunctive relief should not issue;
he responded to the show cause order, but "did not show cause" why
the order should not be entered. The barring order issued, and
movant did not appeal.

Under protest, the movant requests leave to file a complaint
against The State of Delaware (the State), Governor Jack Markell
(Markell), and anyone else responsible. He states he was served
the September 13, 2004 barring order for the first time on June
18, 2016. Movant contends the barring order is inapplicable
because it applies solely to prisoners proceeding in forma
pauperis, that it does not address allowing him to hire an
attorney to file civil rights complaints for him, that it did not
address allowing him to proceed pro se if he pays the filing fee,
and that the court lacks constitutional authority to require him
to seek prior approval to file a complaint if he pays the filing
fee.

A copy of Judge Robinson's Memorandum dated July 11, 2016, is
available at https://is.gd/iTPnRM from Leagle.com.


DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES: "Leonard" Suit Goes to Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Catherine D. Perry of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted Defendant's
motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case captioned,
MATTHEW LEONARD, On behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES SPORT SERVICE,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:15 CV 1356 CDP (E.D. Mo.).

Plaintiff Matthew Leonard worked at a concession stand owned and
operated by defendant Delaware North Companies Sportservice, Inc.,
during one baseball game at Busch Stadium. Leonard alleges that
although at the time he believed he was serving as a volunteer to
raise money for Washington University in St. Louis, he now knows
that he should have been compensated as an employee.

Leonard signed a Volunteer Release, Waiver and Indemnification
Agreement in which he agreed to submit any dispute arising from
his concession stand activities to binding arbitration.

DNCS has filed a motion to enforce the arbitration agreement,
compel individual arbitration of Leonard's claims, and dismiss the
case.

In her Memorandum and Order dated July 11, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/FsAzHg from Leagle.com, Judge Perry concluded that
the arbitration agreement signed by Leonard is enforceable and
that all of his claims in the case are encompassed by that
agreement.

Matthew Leonard is represented by:

      Ryan Michael Paulus, Esq.
      Jeremy D. Hollingshead, Esq.
      John M. Eccher, Esq.
      OLLINGSHEAD AND PAULUS
      8350 N St Clair Ave #225,
      Kansas City, MO 64151
      Tel: (816)581-4040

Delaware North Companies Sport Service, Inc. is represented by
Douglas W. King, Esq. -- dking@shandselbert.com -- Kevin Anthony
Sullivan, Esq. -- ksullivan@shandselbert.com -- and Mark J.
Bremer, Esq. -- mbremer@shandselbert.com -- SHANDS AND ELBERT LLP;
Richard L. Alfred, Esq. -- ralfred@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH SHAW
LLP


DRAFTKINGS: Loses Bid to Move Gambling Case to Federal Court
------------------------------------------------------------
According to Legal Sports Report, a federal judge has denied the
attempt by daily fantasy sports site DraftKings to move a
Tennessee lawsuit to federal court.

In a June 30, 2016 decision recently obtained by Legal Sports
Report, Judge Harry S. Mattice, Jr., granted plaintiff Erica
Miller's motion to continue her case in a local Tennessee court.
DraftKings had sought to have the lawsuit heard in a federal
courthouse.

The decision represents one of the first -- if not the first --
formal rulings against a leading DFS provider.

Overview of Miller v. DraftKings

The case stems from a spouse suing to recover money allegedly lost
by her husband.

According to Judge Mattice's decision, plaintiff Erica Miller's
lawsuit alleged that DraftKings operated "a daily and weekly
fantasy sports website that amounts to an unlawful gambling
enterprise and/or lottery" under Tennessee state law.

The plaintiff claimed damages of $46,400.  Ms. Miller filed her
lawsuit against DraftKings on April 1, 2016, in Chancery Court of
Greene County, Tennessee.

Later in April, DraftKings filed legal papers to shift the case
from state court to federal court.  Ms. Miller contested the
shift, desiring to keep the case at the local level.

Judge Mattice wrote that the "sole issue" in the federal-state
court debate was whether the amount in controversy exceeded
$75,000.  By rule, federal courts only hear cases worth $75,000 or
more.  Smaller cases stay with state-level courts.  An email
excerpt included by Judge Mattice in his decision indicated that
Miller's attorneys offered to settle the case for $74,000, just
shy of the threshold amount.

DraftKings made a handful of legal arguments as to why the case
should be valued at $75,000 or more, despite the fact that the
plaintiff was only claiming damages of $46,400.  In one,
DraftKings argued that the judge should consider possible punitive
damages in the case even though the plaintiff never sought such
extra damages.  Judge Mattice disagreed with each of DraftKings'
claims and ruled that the case should be "remanded" to Tennessee
state court where it was initially filed.

Judge Mattice's decision made no mention of Tennessee's recent
move to enact DFS-enabling legislation.

What is the impact of the case?

Judge Mattice's decision only pertains to a preliminary issue in
the case -- where the litigation should take place.  The merits of
the case have yet to be decided.

However, the decision does provide a hint as to how DraftKings'
litigation strategy differs from its legislative stance.  In
litigation, the Miller case indicates that DraftKings would prefer
lawsuits to be heard in federal court.  Such a stance makes sense
from a consistency perspective.

In contrast, fantasy sports bills are moving forward on a
state-by-state basis, with considerable resources devoted to
lobbying different state legislatures.  Despite a Congressional
hearing on DFS in May, there does not appear to be any active
lobbying for a federal solution to disparate state laws impacting
the legality of daily fantasy play.

As more of the lawsuits filed in late 2015 and early 2016 reach
advanced levels, a clearer picture will emerge if the strategy
employed by DraftKings in the Miller case is repeated elsewhere.

Multi-district litigation looming

The Miller v. DraftKings lawsuit is not part of the large-scale
consolidated class action lawsuit transferred to Boston in
February.

However, the June 30 decision in the Miller v. DraftKings case
coincidentally came down the same day a massive 273-page
consolidated class action complaint was filed with the federal
court in Massachusetts hearing the merged lawsuit.

The case includes allegations of negligence, false advertising,
fraud and illegal gambling. Plaintiffs in the case come from no
fewer than 25 states, including Tennessee.  Defendants include
DraftKings, FanDuel and certain banks and payment processors. Also
included as defendants are close to three dozen investors, a group
that includes media companies, sports leagues and venture capital
firms.

The Boston-based consolidated class action lawsuit in federal
court could take years for a resolution.


E&S RING: Faces "Kleronomos" Lawsuit Under Calif. Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------
KLERONOMOS, individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. E & S RING MANAGEMENT CORP., and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Case No: BC 627551 (Cal. Super., Country of Los
Angeles, July 19, 2016), was filed under the California Labor
Code, the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order, and the
California Business and Professions Code.

Defendant is a property management company that leases and manages
properties.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alan Harris, Esq.
     Rebecca Lee, Esq.
     HARRIS & RUBLE
     655 North Central Avenue, 17th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 91203
     Phone: (323) 962-3777
     Fax: (323) 962-3004
     E-mail: ahharis@harrisandruble.com
             rlee@harrisandruble.com


ELECTROLUX HOME: Faces "East" Suit in Eastern District Louisiana
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Electrolux Home
Products, Inc.

The case is captioned Angelia East and Sarah LaVergne,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-12631 (E.D. Lo.,
July 11, 2016).

Electrolux Home Products, Inc. manufactures and markets home
appliances in North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Randolph Davis, Esq.
      SLACK & DAVIS, LLP
      2705 Bee Cave Road, Suite 220
      Austin, TX 78746
      Telephone: (512) 795-8686
      E-mail: jdavis@slackdavis.com


ELECTROLUX HOME: Court Strikes Class Allegations in "Waters" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Western Virginia
granted in part defendant's motion to dismiss and granted its
alternative motion to strike in the case captioned, GLORIA WATERS
and WILLIAM HALL, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:13CV151 (STAMP) (N.D. W.Va.).

The named plaintiffs live in Weirton, West Virginia. They
purchased an Electrolux "high efficiency" washing machine at a
Sears Department Store in Steubenville, Ohio in 2009. The
plaintiffs originally filed the proposed class action in West
Virginia state court alleging claims for consumer fraud, breach of
warranties, and unjust enrichment on behalf of all persons in West
Virginia who own a washing machine manufactured by Electrolux.

The defendants removed the case to the Court under the Class
Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The plaintiffs then filed an amended
complaint defining a new class of persons in Ohio who purchased or
own a washer manufactured by Electrolux, and alleging violations
of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (WVCCPA),
violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (OCSPA), Ohio
Rev. Code Ann. Sections 1345.01-1345.13, breach of express
warranties, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability,
tortious breach of warranties, strict products liability, and
unjust enrichment. Electrolux then filed a motion to dismiss and
to strike the Ohio Class.

The Court denied the motion to strike and granted the motion to
dismiss, but permitted the plaintiffs to file a second amended
complaint to allege damages to the named plaintiffs as to their
strict products liability claims. The plaintiffs filed their
second amended complaint alleging that the named plaintiffs
suffered the following damages: (1) damaged or ruined clothing
washed in their washing machine; (2) future health risks caused by
exposure to the biofilm and mold that developed in their machine;
and (3) money spent on cleaning supplies to clean their washing
machine.

Electrolux then filed the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)
and alternatively to strike the class allegations. Electrolux
argues that the complaint should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6)
for failure to state a claim. Alternatively, Electrolux asks the
Court to strike the class allegations.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 18, 2016 available
at https://is.gd/9rYnkd from Leagle.com, Judge Stamp said the
plaintiffs have plausibly stated claims for strict products
liability under West Virginia law.  However, the plaintiffs may no
longer maintain their class allegations.

The Court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss because the
plaintiffs have alleged damages to an identifiable set of the
named plaintiffs' property: clothing washed in their defective
washing machine and granted because the plaintiffs fail to
plausibly allege future damages to their health based on exposure
to biofilm and mold in their washing machine and that a plaintiff
may never recover consequential economic losses resulting from the
inability to use the defective product, including lost profits.

The plaintiffs are directed to file a third amended complaint.

Gloria Waters and William Hall are represented by Amy E. Keller,
Esq. -- aek@wexlerwallace.com -- Edward Wallace, Esq. --
eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- and Michael H. Bowman, Esq. --
mhb@wexlerwallace.com -- WEXLER WALLACE LLP -- and R. Brent Irby,
Esq. -- birby@mhcilaw.com -- MCCALLUM, HOAGLUND COOK & IRBY LLP

Electrolux Home Products, Inc. is represented by:

      Jeffrey A. Holmstrand, Esq.
      GROVE & DELK, PLLC
      44 1/2 Fifteenth Street
      Wheeling, WV 26003
      Tel: (304)905-1961


ELIZABETH ARDEN: Faces "Ross" Suit Over Proposed Sale to Revlon
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXIS ROSS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. ELIZABETH ARDEN, INC., E. SCOTT BEATTIE, FRED BERENS,
FRANZ- FERDINAND BUERSTEDDE, MAURA J. CLARK, M. STEVEN LANGMAN,
EDWARD D. SHIRLEY, WILLIAM M. TATHAM, REVLON, INC., REVLON
CONSUMERPRODUCTS CORPORATION, and RR TRANSACTION CORP., Case No:
CACE-16-013220 (Fla. Cir., Broward County, July 19, 2016), was
filed in connection with Revlon's proposed acquisition of Elizabeth
Arden, Inc.

Elizabeth Arden, Inc. is a global beauty products company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph E. White III, Esq.
     Jonathan M. Stein, Esq.
     Adam D. Warden, Esq.
     Jordan D. Utanski, Esq.
     SAXENA WHITE P.A.
     5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601
     Boca Raton, FL 33486
     Phone: (561) 394-3399
     Fax: (888) 458-9055
     E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
             jstein@saxenawhite.com
             awarden@saxenawhite.com
             jutanski@saxenawhite.com

        - and -

     Richard A. Manikas, Esq.
     RYAN & MANIKAS, LLP
     995 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 311
     Wayne, PA 19087
     Phone: (484) 588-5516
     Fax: (484) 450-2582


EXAMWORKS GROUP: Daytona Beach Police Filed Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
ExamWorks Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("ExamWorks" or the
"Company") on April 26, 2016, entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Gold Parent, L.P., a
Delaware limited partnership ("Parent") and Gold Merger Co, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which, upon the
terms and subject to the conditions of the Merger Agreement,
Merger Sub will merge with and into ExamWorks (the "Merger"), with
ExamWorks surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of
Parent.

ExamWorks Group said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 19, 2016, that
following the announcement of the Merger, a putative class action
was filed on June 17, 2016 by a purported Company shareholder in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned City of
Daytona Beach Police and Fire Pension Fund v. ExamWorks Group,
Inc., et al., Case No. 12481 (the "Complaint").

A copy of the Complaint is available at https://goo.gl/MIKLzR


FIRST CREDIT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. First Credit Services, Inc. and John Does 1-
25, Case No. 2:16-cv-04182-WJM-MF (D.N.J., July 11, 2016), seeks
to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect
a debt.

First Credit Services, Inc. provides collection and decline
management programs for health clubs and gyms.

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


FITBIT INC: Fails in Bid to Dismiss Sleep Tracker Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge refused on July 15, to dismiss a class action
accusing Fitbit of lying to consumers that its wearable devices
can track sleep quality.

U.S. District Judge James Donato said the plaintiffs had
sufficiently stated their consumer deception and warranty claims
that Fitbit advertises on its product packaging that its "Flex"
device and other products equipped with a sleep-tracking feature
can track sleep quality even though it knows the devices can't
actually do so.

The Flex uses an accelerometer to track things like the number of
hours a wearer slept and the number of times they woke up, but the
plaintiffs say that accelerometers can only measure movement, and
that movement data do not provide an accurate picture of how long
and how well a wearer slept. They also say Fitbit charged $30 or
more for sleep-tracking products than devices without the
function.

Donato said the product packaging, coupled with the plaintiffs'
own experiences with the products and documents stating that the
devices can only measure motion, are enough to bring their claims.
Fitbit argued that the plaintiffs hadn't shown that its packaging
misleads consumers and that the claims lacked the specificity
necessary to allege fraud.

"We intend to defend ourselves vigorously and demonstrate that
plaintiffs' case has no merit," Fitbit said in a statement on
July 18.

Fitbit also cited a number of scientific studies finding that
accelerometers do accurately track sleep, but Donato declined to
consider them because the plaintiffs' claims are based on Fitbit's
packaging statements that the devices will "track your night,"
including "hours slept" and "sleep quality," and not on the
products' underlying science.

"These are not the kind of vague and empty taglines that courts
have treated as non-actionable," Donato said in his ruling. "They
are the type of particularized statements that can be sued on
because they make measurable claims about a product's
characteristics and functionality."

Although the plaintiffs have agreed to drop their breach of
implied warranty claim, Donato found that the warranty claim could
stand because sleep tracking is a key feature of the Flex and
Fitbit's other sleep-tracking devices.

Fitbit said on July 18, that the court had not addressed the
merits of the plaintiffs' allegations in refusing to dismiss the
suit.

"Due to procedural rules, the court is bound by the complaint and
cannot consider the scientific studies that support Fitbit's
claim," the company said. "These studies demonstrate that Fitbit
trackers do track sleep. Fitbit trackers are not intended to be
scientific or medical devices, but are designed to provide
meaningful data to our users to help them reach their health and
fitness goals."

Attorneys for the plaintiffs did not respond to a request for
comment on July 15, morning.

The plaintiffs are represented by Patrick Perotti --
pperotti@dworkenlaw.com -- and Frank Bartela --
fbartela@dworkenlaw.com -- of Dworken & Bernstein Co. in
Painesville, Ohio.

Fitbit is represented by William Stern -- wstern@mofo.com -- Erin
Bosman -- ebosman@mofo.com -- and Julie Park -- juliepark@mofo.com
-- of Morrison & Foerster in San Francisco and San Diego.

The case captioned, JAMES P. BRICKMAN, et al., individually and as
a representative of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
FITBIT, INC., Defendant., Case No. 15-cv-02077-JD (N.D. Cal.).


FORESIGHT ENERGY: Must Defend Against "Carver" WARN Act Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sue E. Myerscough of the United States District
Court for the Central District of Illinois denied Defendants'
motions to dismiss and Plaintiffs' request for oral argument on
the motions in the case captioned, NICK CARVER, WADE JACOBS, DALE
BASIL, MIKE LEBETER, and ERIC WALLACE, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FORESIGHT ENERGY LP,
MURRAY ENERGY CORPORATION, MURRAY AMERICAN COAL, INC, FORESIGHT
ENERGY GP LLC, FORESIGHT ENERGY LLC, FORESIGHT ENERGY SERVICES
LLC, PATTON MINING LLC, HILLSBORO ENERGY LLC, HILLSBORO ENERGY LLC
d/b/a DEER RUN MINE, MURRAY ENERGY HOLDINGS COMPANY, FORESIGHT
RESERVES LP, THE CLINE GROUP LLC, CHRISTOPHER CLINE, and DOE
DEFENDANTS 1B10 Defendants, Case No. 3:16-CV-3013 (C.D. Ill.).

The Deer Run Mine is a bituminous coal mine operated by the Murray
Energy Corporation; Murray American Coal, Inc.; and Murray Energy
Holdings Company (Defendants)  in Hillsboro, Illinois. The Deer
Run Mine employed approximately 160 workers, including Plaintiffs.
In March 2016, Plaintiffs Nick Carver, Wade Jacobs, Dale Basil,
Mike Lebeter, and Eric Wallace, on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, filed a First
Amended Complaint against Defendants. Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act of 1988 (WARN Act) by failing to give 60 days'
notice of their employment loss or the closing of the Deer Run
Mine.

In the motion, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' First Amended
Complaint establishes that 60 days' notice under WARN Act was
excused for the closure of the Deer Run Mine under the Act's
natural disaster exception because the combustion events which led
to the closure qualify as a natural disaster. Plaintiffs filed a
memorandum in opposition (d/e 27), arguing that WARN Act exception
determinations are an inappropriate basis for dismissal and that
the Amended Complaint alleges that the combustion events did not
constitute a natural disaster.

In her Opinion dated July 12, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/bJEE0v from Leagle.com, Judge Myerscough concluded
that Plaintiffs have stated a claim for relief and do not allege
facts which unambiguously establish that the natural disaster
exception to the Act applies because Plaintiffs allege all of the
required elements for a claim under the WARN Act. Plaintiffs'
Request for Oral Argument is also denied.

Nick Carver, et al are represented by Brandon Michael Wise, Esq.
-- brandon.wise@thewisefirm.com -- THE WISE FIRM LLC

Murray Energy Corporation, et al are represented by Robert Lance
Witcher, Esq. -- lance.withcer@ogletreedeakins.com -- Joseph
Thomas Charron, Jr., Esq. -- joseph.charron@ogletreedeakins.com
-- and Sarah J. Kuehnel, Esq. -- sarah.kuehnel@ogletreedeakins.com
-- OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART PC

Foresight Energy GP LLC, et al. are represented by Henry
Pietrkowski, Esq. -- hpietrkowski@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP


GOLDEN STATE: "Magana" Suit Claims Violation of Cal. Labor Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
FERMIN MAGANA, on behalf of himself all others similarly situated
and on behalf of the general public, v. GOLDEN STATE OVERNIGHT
DELIVERY SERVICE INC.; and DOES l-100; Case No: RG 16823732 (Cal.
Super., July 19, 2016), alleges failure by the Defendants to
comply with California's wage and hours laws, Wage Orders and/or
the California Labor Code.

GOLDEN STATE OVERNIGHT DELIVERY SERVICE INC. owns and operates
trucks, industrial trucks, industrial vehicles and/or industrial
work sites.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William Turley, Esq.
     David Mara, Esq.
     Jamie Serb, Esq.
     THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC รบ
     7428 Trade Street
     San Diego, CA 92l21
     Phone: (619) 234-2833
     Fax: (619) 234-4048


GOOGLE INC: Aug. 28 Online Ads Case Management Conference Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Burger, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that a massive civil court class-action lawsuit alleging that
Google purposely misled and overcharged advertisers for online ads
that were placed on error pages and inactive "parked" websites is
advancing in the wake of a June 6 Supreme Court of the United
States (SCOTUS) decision not hear Google's appeal to put a halt to
the case.

Attorneys for class-action members, which may number in the
hundreds of thousands, assert that Google violated California's
fair advertising laws by misleading advertisers who used Google's
AdWords online platform from 2004 to 2008.  In its appeal, Google
argued that the class action should be stopped as the advertisers'
group is heterogeneous does not have a valid, fair or
comprehensive method of calculating damages.

In 2012, a federal judge ruled that plaintiffs could not file a
class-action lawsuit in part because they would each qualify for
different amounts of damages.  That decision was overturned in
California's 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which concluded that
lack of a class-wide method for calculating damages in and of
itself was insufficient to halt class-action proceedings,
Noah Schubert, a partner in the law firm of Schubert Jonckheer &
Kolbe LLP, told the Northern California Record.

SCOTUS' June 6 decision upholds the 9th Circuit Court's decision.
Furthermore, Mr. Schubert pointed out that his law firm and others
participating in the class action are making use of the same
methods to calculate damages that Google uses to calculate ad
rates for its Smart Pricing program.

"We're calculating damages using Google's own Smart Pricing
methodology and the differences between what advertisers should
have paid and what they actually paid for their online ads,"
Mr. Schubert said.

Class-action attorneys have not publicly disclosed the value of
damages for the entire class action, for which plaintiffs number
in the hundreds of thousands.  More broadly, the lawsuit is likely
to set legal precedents that could have ramifications and resolve
issues in a wide variety of consumer class action lawsuits,
Schubert said.

Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe filed the first individual lawsuit that
led to formation of the class action in 2008.  Having been
appointed interim lead counsel for the entire class action,
Schubert wrote the legal brief that SCOTUS reviewed in its June 6
decision on behalf of plaintiffs, his firm and the others
participating in the lawsuit.

Looking ahead, Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California will be adjudicating the
case.  Judge Davila has scheduled a case management conference for
Aug. 28 during which both sides will meet with the judge to
discuss how the case will proceed, Schubert said.

"From our point of view, the key issue in the case is whether
Google concealed from our plaintiffs and the class that their ads
were placed on parked and other little or unused websites of
little benefit to advertisers," he said.  "That representation
would be considered false and misleading, in which case the
question becomes how much money should be awarded by way of
damages."

Mr. Schubert declined to comment when asked if he foresees
the possibility of a settlement with Google before a possible
trial begins.  However, he did point out that the case has been
going on for eight years, and that plaintiffs and attorneys are
looking forward to Judge Davila setting an adjudication schedule
that sees the case advance quickly to trial.


GREAT SENECA: Texas Fraudulent Sues for Consumers in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------
TEXAS FRAUDULENT JUDGMENT VICTIMS and All Others Similarly
Situated v. GREAT SENECA FINANCIAL CORP. Case no: DC-16-08637
(Tex. Dist., July 19, 2016), seeks equitable relief from alleged
unlawful, void and fraudulent judgments rendered against consumers
in the Courts of Dallas County, Texas.

GREAT SENECA FINANCIAL CORP. is "debt buyer" and/or "debt
collector" engaged in the business of filing consumer debt
collection lawsuits in the Courts of the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     ROSS TETER, Esq.
     TETER LAW FIRM
     P.O. Box 815823
     Dallas, TX 75381-5823
     Phone: (214) 850-8095
     Fax (972) 243-2510
     E-mail: rossteter.attorney@gmail.com


GRUBHUB HOLDINGS: Souran Seeks to Certify Delivery Drivers' Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to conditionally certify the action
titled THOMAS SOURAN, KELLY REARDON, ROY WILKIE, CARMEN GONZALEZ,
LOUIS RAMZY, ADAM SMITH, and MICAH LEWIS, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. GRUBHUB
HOLDINGS INC. and GRUBHUB INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-06720 (N.D.
Ill.), as a collective action under Section 216(b) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.  The Plaintiffs also ask the Court for an
order allowing notice to be issued to all GrubHub delivery
drivers, who have worked for GrubHub since GrubHub began its
delivery operation.

The Plaintiffs have brought the Case on behalf of delivery
drivers, who have worked for the GrubHub -- a food delivery
service, which dispatches drivers through a mobile phone
application or through GrubHub's Web site.  The Plaintiffs allege
that GrubHub has misclassified its delivery drivers as independent
contractors and, thereby, has failed to comply with the FLSA by
not paying the delivery drivers minimum wage for each work week
and by failing to pay the delivery drivers time-and-a-half for the
hours that they worked beyond 40 per week.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lC5ILCWK

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 323-1550
          Facsimile: (312) 323-1560
          E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  rstephan@stephanzouras.com

               - and -

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Thomas Fowler, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
                  tfowler@llrlaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew D. Carlson, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          466 Geary St., Suite 201
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: mcarlson@llrlaw.com


HANNIBAL, MO: Court Narrows Claims in Suit Over Red Lights
----------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge E. Richard Webber of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted
Defendant City of Hannibal's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
and dismissed Counts I, II, III, IV, V, and VIII of Plaintiffs'
Amended Class Action Complaint in the case captioned, JACOB BLAIR,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF HANNIBAL, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 2:15CV00061 ERW (E.D. Mo.).

Plaintiffs Jacob and Sarah Blair (Plaintiffs) filed a Class Action
Complaint in the Court on August 25, 2015, against Defendants City
of Hannibal (Hannibal), Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. (Redflex)
and Does 1 through 24 alleging Hannibal's red light camera program
is unconstitutional.

On November 16, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint (Amended Complaint) against Defendants asserting the
following eight counts:

     (I) Declaratory Judgment and Request for Injunction pursuant
to Missouri Revised Statute Sec. 527.010 et seq;

    (II) Violation of Plaintiffs' Constitutional Rights under the
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution
and Article I Sec. 10 of the Missouri Constitution;

   (III) Unjust Enrichment;

    (IV) Abuse of Process;

     (V) Civil Conspiracy;

    (VI) Aiding and Abetting against Redflex;

   (VII) Damages for Violation of Missouri Revised Statute Sec.
484.010, et seq, against Redflex; and

  (VIII) Money Had and Received.

On May 5, 2016, Hannibal filed the pending Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings asserting these arguments:

     (1) Count I for declaratory and injunctive relief fails
because Plaintiffs have an adequate legal remedy;

     (2) Count II fails because Plaintiffs have waived any
constitutional claims they may have had;

     (3) if Plaintiffs have not waived their constitutional
claims, Count II still fails because Plaintiffs have not pled a
constitutional claim which entitles them to relief;

     (4) Counts III and VIII of Amended Complaint fail, as a
matter of law, because they are barred by the voluntary payment
doctrine; and

     (5) Counts III, IV, V, and VIII fail, as a matter of law,
because they are barred by the sovereign immunity doctrine.

Plaintiffs opposed, contending that their Amended Complaint
states, with sufficient factual detail, multiple viable claims
against Hannibal for their illegal scheme.

In his Memorandum and Order dated July 12, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/cfSWjtu from Leagle.com, Judge Webber dismissed
Counts III, IV, V, and VIII finding that the red light program is
a governmental function so that Hannibal is entitled to sovereign
immunity. Count II is also dismissed because Plaintiffs waived
their constitutional claims by paying the fine and pleading guilty
and Count I because injunctive and declaratory relief are not
appropriate.

Jacob Blair and Sarah Blair are represented by:

      Nathan D. Sturycz, Esq.
      STURYCZ WATTS LLC
      5757 Phantom Dr #250
      Hazelwood, MO 63042
      Tel: (877)314-3223

Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. is represented by JoAnn Tracy
Sandifer, Esq. -- joann.sandifer@huschblackwell.com -- and Omri E.
Praiss, Esq. -- omri.praiss@huschblackwell.com -- HUSCH BLACKWELL,
LLP


HOMELAND SECURITY: TSA Workers' Suit Has Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California granted Plaintiffs' motion
to approve notice of collective actions and to conditionally
certify a class in the case captioned, K.H., et al., Plaintiffs,
v. SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Defendant,
Case No. 15-CV-02740-JST (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff K.H. filed the action against Defendant Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), on June 18, 2015.
Plaintiffs K.H., C.V., W.L., and J.M. (Plaintiffs K.H., et al.)
are over 40 years of age and are Federal Air Marshals (FAMs).
Plaintiffs are employed by the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA), an agency within the Department of Homeland
Security. Plaintiffs Jeffrey Boyer, Brian Pierog, Donna Baxter,
Karnel McMahan, Richard DeVivo, Gary McConaghy, and Kristen
Pavkovich (Plaintiffs Boyer, et. al.) are over 40 years of age and
were FAMs in the Federal Air Marshal Service's (FAMS) Pittsburgh
Field Office.

Plaintiff K.H. filed an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)
complaint on July 22, 2014.  One month later, Plaintiff filed an
amended EEO complaint. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
took no action on Plaintiff's complaints within the 180-day
requirement. Plaintiff K.H. filed this claim for relief against
the DHS for age discrimination on June 18, 2015, under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Defendant filed a motion
to dismiss and/or strike Plaintiff's Complaint on September 4,
2015. The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant's
motion. Plaintiffs filed their operative FAC on January 15, 2016.
DHS filed a second motion to dismiss on February 5, 2016. The
motion was granted in part and denied in part on April 26, 2016.

Plaintiffs filed the motion to approve notice and to conditionally
certify the class on April 15, 2016. Plaintiffs assert that
conditional certification is appropriate in light of their
allegations that the putative class members "(1) are FAMs employed
by Defendant; (2) performed the same duties; (3) worked in the
Cincinnati, Cleveland, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, San Diego, or Tampa
Field Office; and (4) were subjected to the FAMS' decision to
close their respective Field Offices." DHS does not oppose
conditional certification.

In his Order dated July 12, 2016 available at https://is.gd/8duD22
from Leagle.com, Judge Tigar concluded that Plaintiffs have
offered substantial allegations that the putative class members
were all harmed by a policy or decision that resulted in the
closing of the TSA offices at which they worked and that
conditional certification and approval of the proposed notice are
both appropriate.

Case Management Conference is scheduled for January 18, 2017, at
2:00 p.m. and a Joint Case Management Statement is due January 9,
2017.

K.H., et al.  are represented by Nicholas Michael Wieczorek, Esq.
-- nwieczorek@mpplaw.com -- and Jeremy J. Thompson, Esq. --
jthompson@mpplaw.com -- MORRIS POLICH & PURDY LLP -- Ernest B.
Orsatti, Esq. -- eborsatti@rothmangordon.com -- ROTHMAN GORDON,
P.C.

Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security is represented
by:

      Wendy M. Garbers, Esq.
      UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
      950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 2242
      Washington, DC 20530-0001
      Tel: (202) 514-2000


ILLINOIS WORK INJURY: Certification of 3 Classes Sought
-------------------------------------------------------
PRS, LLC asks the Court to enter an order determining that the
action captioned PRS, LLC, on behalf of plaintiff and the class
members defined herein v. CENTRAL ILLINOIS WORK INJURY RESOURCE
CENTER, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-07497 (N.D.
Ill.), may proceed as a class action against the Defendants.

PRS defines the classes as:

     For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone
     Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, plaintiff
     seeks to represent a class consisting of (a) all persons (b)
     who, on or after a date four years prior to the filing of
     this action (28 U.S.C. Section 1658), (c) were sent faxes by
     or on behalf of defendant Central Illinois Work Injury
     Resource Center, LLC, promoting its goods or services for
     sale (d) which did not contain a compliant opt out notice.

     For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of the Illinois
     Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/2, plaintiff seeks to
     represent a class consisting of (a) all persons with
     Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date three years
     prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by
     or on behalf of defendant Central Illinois Work Injury
     Resource Center, LLC, promoting its goods or services for
     sale (d) which did not contain a compliant opt out notice.

     For purposes of Count III, alleging conversion, Count IV,
     alleging nuisance, and Count V, alleging trespass to
     chattels, plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of
     (a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or
     after a date five years prior to the filing of this action,
     (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant Central
     Illinois Work Injury Resource Center, LLC, promoting its
     goods or services for sale (d) which did not contain a
     compliant opt out notice.

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9BsFZ4jC

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INSMED INC: Faces Securities Class Action in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on July 18
disclosed that a class action complaint was filed against Insmed,
Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
The complaint is brought on behalf of all purchasers of Insmed
securities between March 18, 2013 and June 8, 2016, for alleged
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by Insmed's
officers and directors.  Insmed, a biopharmaceutical company,
focuses on the development and commercialization of inhaled
therapies for patients with serious lung diseases.  The company's
lead product candidate is known as Arikayce, or liposomal
amikacin, for treatment of nontuberculous mycobacteria ("NTM")
lung disease.

View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
www.robbinsarroyo.com/shareholders-rights-blog/insmed-inc

Insmed Accused of Misleading Investors About Its Lead Product
Candidate

According to the complaint, throughout the class period, Insmed
submitted several filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission touting positive financial results and stating that the
financial information was accurate and disclosed any material
changes to the company's internal control over financial
reporting.  In fact, with regard to its clinical trials, Insmed
officials spoke with confidence, stating, "Collectively, these
data sets bring us closer to our goal to commercialize a
potentially life-saving treatment for patients suffering from
these orphan lung diseases."  In addition, Insmed officials seemed
optimistic about Arikayce's potential for commercialization,
stating, "We continue to advance our regulatory filing and our
preparations for commercialization in Europe."

However, the complaint alleges that Insmed officials failed to
disclose that: (i) the data on which Insmed's European marketing
authorization application ("MAA") for Arikayce relied was not
likely to support approval by the European Medicines Agency
("EMA") for the treatment of NTM lung disease; (ii) Arikayce's
approval by the EMA for treatment of NTM lung disease and
subsequent commercialization in Europe were thus less likely
and/or imminent than Insmed had led investors to believe; and
(iii) as a result of the foregoing, Insmed's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.  On
June 8, 2016, Insmed announced that it had withdrawn its MAA from
the EMA for Arikayce for the treatment of NTM lung disease.  The
company revealed that the Committee for Medicinal Products for
Human Use indicated that the phase 2 study did not provide a
sufficient amount of evidence to support an approval.  On this
news, Insmed stock fell $0.99 per share, or 8.24%, to close at
$11.02 per share on June 9, 2016.

Insmed 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 -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- is a
shareholder rights law firm.  The firm represents individual and
institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities
class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more
than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in which
they have invested.


INSTANT TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Robles" Suit in Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Instant
Transportation, LLC and Ardit Islamaj.

The case is captioned Milained Robles, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Instant Transportation, LLC
and Ardit Islamaj, Case No. 1685CV01018 (Mass. Sup. Ct., July 11,
2016).

The Defendants own and operate a transportation company in
Worcester, Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Jeremy Shafran, Esq.
      RUDOLPH FRIEDMANN LLP
      92 State St.
      Boston, MA 02109
      Telephone: (617) 723-7700
      Facsimile: (617) 227-0313
      E-mail: ashafran@rflawyers.com

INTERSTATE-RIM: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reports that the
proper payment of overtime and allowance for mandated meal and
rest periods remains a basic tenet of California labor amidst a
basket of rights for employees in the Golden State.  And yet,
employers continue to violate overtime pay laws and other basic
employee rights entrenched in state laws.

One of the latest examples is an overtime pay lawsuit filed
against Interstate-RIM Management Company LLC.  The lead plaintiff
in the proposed class action lawsuit, Nancy Ramirez, holds in her
action that Interstate-RIM pays their non-exempt employees, non-
discretionary incentive pay based on job performance.  While the
plaintiff has no issue with the payment of such incentive pay, the
complaint centers on the allegation that Interstate-RIM failed to
include this non-discretionary incentive pay when calculating
overtime.

To that end, the incentive pay should have rightly been reflected
in a non-exempt employee's hourly rate for the purposes of
computing overtime.  Any missed meal breaks and rest periods, as
mandated by California overtime law, should be associated as extra
time worked and thus, qualify for overtime as well.

The class action unpaid overtime lawsuit alleges that not only
were all overtime hours not properly compensated, but that
Interstate-RIM did not have a policy in place in order to
facilitate the provision of a 30-minute meal period, provided
without interruption, prior to the 5th hour of work as mandated by
California employment law.

The overtime pay class action identified Interstate-RIM as one of
the largest hotel management companies in the US.  Ms. Ramirez
seeks to represent all non-exempt employees who worked for
Interstate-RIM at any time during a period beginning four years
prior to the date the complaint was filed (June 24, 2016), and
ending on a date to be determined by the Court.

According to the unpaid overtime lawsuit, the amount of damages
sought is under $5 million.

The lawsuit also holds that Interstate-RIM required their
non-exempt employees to work off the clock on a consistent basis.
The conduct is described as requiring non-exempt employees to
clock out, only to be detained for the purposes of answering
emails and text messages on behalf of the employer, without
benefitting from compensation.

"Defendant's uniform policy and practice not to pay Plaintiff and
other California Class Members for all time worked, including
overtime worked, is evidenced by Defendant's business records,"
the lawsuit states.

The complaints include unfair competition in violation of the
California labor code, failure to pay all overtime wages, failure
to provide accurate itemized statements, and failure to reimburse
employees for required expenses.

The lawsuit is Nancy Ramirez et al v. Interstate-RIM Management
Company, LLC, Case No. BC624979, filed June 24 of this year in the
Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County
of Los Angeles.


JB HUNT: "Lipford" Sues Over Discrimination
-------------------------------------------
Richard Lipford, Plaintiff, v. J.B. Hunt Transportation, Inc. and
John Does 1-5 and 6-10, Defendants, Case No. L-2552-16 (N.J. Sup.,
July 12, 2016), seeks compensatory and punitive damages, interest,
cost of suit, attorneys' fees, equitable back and front pay,
reinstatement, equitable instatement or promotion and any other
relief under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

Plaintiff was employed as a delivery driver from April 2015 until
his discriminatory termination on or about January 19, 2016. He
injured his back while delivering a refrigerator.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
     COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
     18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
     Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
     Tel: (856) 727-9700


JOHNSON CONTROLS: Court Denies Motion to Remand "Hostetler" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon E. Deguilio of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Indiana denied a motion to remand in
the case captioned, AMOS and DEBBIE HOSTETLER, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:15-CV-
226 JD (N.D. Ind.).

The case is a putative class action arising out of alleged
environmental contamination that originated at a plant formerly
operated by defendant Johnson Controls, Inc. The plaintiffs, a
number of individuals who own property or reside in an adjacent
neighborhood, allege that contamination primarily consisting of
trichloroethylene (TCE) entered the groundwater and migrated onto
their properties. In 2007, Johnson Controls sold the plant to
defendant Tocon Holdings, LLC, which briefly operated a
manufacturing facility at the property, and more recently began
demolishing the plant, which the plaintiffs argue has caused
additional environmental hazards.

The plaintiffs filed the action in state court, asserting a number
of claims arising under state law on behalf of a proposed class
consisting of individuals who have owned, rented, or occupied
properties affected by the contamination. After litigating the
case in state court for nearly a year, Johnson Controls filed a
notice of removal, invoking federal jurisdiction under the Class
Action Fairness Act.

Plaintiffs move to remand the case to state court. In support,
they present three separate grounds:

     -- they argue that the notice of removal was untimely under
the removal statute.

     -- they argue that Johnson Controls waived its right to
remove by litigating the case in state court prior to filing its
notice of removal.

     -- they argue that the case falls under the local controversy
exception to the Class Action Fairness Act, which requires a court
to relinquish jurisdiction over cases that meet prescribed
statutory elements showing that the case is truly local in nature.

In his Opinion and Order dated July 11, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/0CuU30from Leagle.com, Judge Deguilio found that
they have failed to satisfy each of the elements of the local
controversy exception because Plaintiffs have failed to show that
greater than two-thirds of the members of the proposed class are
citizens of Indiana.

Amos Hostetler, et al. are represented by Michael P. O'Neil, Esq.
-- moneil@taftlaw.com -- Thomas A. Barnard, Esq. --
tbarnard@taftlaw.com -- Melissa A. Gardner, Esq. --
mgardner@taftlaw.com -- and Rodney L. Michael, Jr., Esq. --
rmichael@taftlaw.com -- TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP

They are also represented by:

     John D. Ulmer, Esq.
     YODER AINLAY ULMER & BUCKINGHAM LLP
     130 N Main St,
     Goshen, IN 46526
     Tel: (574)533-1171

Johnson Controls Inc., et al. are represented by Andrew E.
Skroback, Esq. -- andrew.skroback@btlaw.com -- Lauren T. Lee, Esq.
-- william.lee@btlaw.com -- Scott W. Coyle, Esq. --
scott.coyle@btlaw.com -- and Thomas Joseph Hall, Esq. --
thomas.hall@btlaw.com -- BARNES & THORNBURG LLP


KROGER CO: Removed "Coffelt" Class Suit to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against The Kroger Co.,
The Pictsweet Company, CRF Frozen Foods, LLC, and Does 1 through
25, inclusive.

The case is captioned Roger Coffelt, Jr., individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated v. The Kroger Co., The
Pictsweet Company, CRF Frozen Foods, LLC, and Does 1 through 25,
inclusive, Case No. 5:16-cv-01471-JGB-KK (C.D. Cal., July 7,
2016).

The Kroger Co. operates a supermarket chain throughout the United
States.

The Pictsweet Company and CRF Frozen Foods, LLC are growers,
packers and distributors of frozen vegetables and vegetables with
sauce blends for retail and foodservice markets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq.
      Joshua H. Watson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CLAYEO C ARNOLD APLC
      111 W. Ocean Blvd., Fourth Floor
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 216-8270
      Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
      E-mail: clay@justice4you.com
              jwatson@justice4you.com

LAND RESTORATION: Faces Tex. Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
SERGIO CONTRERAS and ALBERTO SANCHEZ, on Behalf of Themselves and
Others Similarly Situated, v. LAND RESTORATION LLC and LAND
RESTORATION HOLDINGS LLC, Case 1:16-cv-00883 (W.D Tex., July, 19,
2016), seeks actual damages, liquidated damages, a declaratory
judgment, attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, taxable costs of
court, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Defendant Land Restoration LLC is a company that does landscaping,
pool, and masonry design, construction and maintenance.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Robert W. Schmidt, Esq.
     Joe K. Crews, Esq.
     CREWS LAW FIRM, P.C.
     701 Brazos, Suite 900
     Austin, TX 78701
     Phone: (512) 346-7077
     Fax: (512) 342-0007
     E-mail: schmidt@crewsfirm.com


LYFT INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Teague" Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Teague, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-01768-BTM-MDD (S.D. Cal.,
July 7, 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.

Lyft, Inc. operates a transportation network company based in San
Francisco, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas J. Campion, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS J CAMPION
      17150 Via Del Campo, Suite 100
      San Diego, CA 92127
      Telephone: (619) 299-2091
      Facsimile: (619) 858-0034
      E-mail: doug@djcampion.com


MAGNUSSENS FREMONT: "Valdez" Suit Claims Consumers Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN VALDEZ, an individual; and, on behalf all others similarly
situated, v. MAGNUSSENS FREMONT IMPORTS, Inc. an active California
corporation, dba MAGNUSSENS LEXUS OF FREMONT; TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT
CORPORATION, an active California corporation, dba LEXUS FINANCIAL
SERVICES; and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive, Case No: RG 18823774
(Cal. Super., County of Alameda County, July 19, 2016), alleges
violation of Consumers Legal Remedies Act and of California
Vehicle Leasing Act.

MAGNUSSENS FREMONT LEXUS is in the business of buying, repairing
and re-selling used vehicles to the general public, and, taking
vehicles in trade.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Louis Liberty, Esq.
     LOUIS LIBERTY & ASSOCIATES,
     553 Pilgrim Drive, Suite A
     Foster City, CA 94404
     Phone: (650) 341-0300
     Fax: (650)403-1783


MARGARET BRADFORD: "Briggs" Sues Over House Defects
---------------------------------------------------
Ginger Briggs, Plaintiff, v. Margaret Bradford, Joe Session,
Angellero Session and Does 1-30, Defendants, Case No. RG16822884
(Cal. Super., July 12, 2016), seeks general and special damages
including property damage and losses, punitive and exemplary
damages, statutory damages, compensatory damages for losses
resulting from humiliation, mental anguish, frustration, annoyance
and emotional distress, incidental expenses, past, present and
future, interest, attorney's fees and costs of suit incurred, pre-
judgment interest, statutory penalties and such other and further
relief for tortious and contractual breach of the implied warranty
of habitability, breach of contract and violation of California
Civil Codes.

Defendants own and manage the residential unit that the plaintiffs
reside in, wherein they find mold and mildew contamination, water
leaks and intrusion, defective windows and inadequate weather
stripping.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew Wolff, Esq.
     Chris Beatty, Esq.
     2 LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC
     1956 Webster Street, Ste. 275
     3 Oakland, CA 94612
     Tel: (510) 834-3300
     Fax: (510) 834-3377
     Email: andrew@awolfflaw.com
            chris@awolfflaw.com


MARTIN AVENUE: Class Cert. Hearing in Podiatry Suit on Aug. 23
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on July 20, 2016, in the case styled
Podiatry In Motion, Inc. v. Martin Avenue Pharmacy, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-06556 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held
before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman.

The minute entry states that:

   -- motion hearing was held on July 20, 2016;

   -- Plaintiff's motion to continue its motion for class
      certification is granted;

   -- Plaintiff's motion to certify class is entered and
      continued to August 23, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.

   -- status hearing is set for August 23, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.

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


MASSAGE GREEN: Class Claims Tossed, Suit Goes to Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California granted Defendant's
unopposed motion to compel individual arbitration, strike
Plaintiff's class claims, and dismiss the Complaint without
prejudice in the case captioned, ASHLEY SALBERG, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MASSAGE
GREEN INTERNATIONAL FRANCHISE CORPORATION, a corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 3:15-CV-02805-GPC-WVG (S.D. Cal.).

Ashley Salberg filed a putative class action against Defendant
Massage Green International Franchise Corporation.  The Complaint
alleges six causes of action against Defendant, which are all
premised on Defendant's alleged failure to pay wages and overtime
pursuant to state and federal wage and hour laws.

On May 5, 2016, Defendant filed an unopposed motion to (1) compel
individual arbitration pursuant to 9 U.S.C. Sec. 2; (2) strike any
references to class allegations pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(f) or alternatively, dismiss all class claims
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6); and (3) stay litigation until the
completion of individual arbitration pursuant to 9 U.S.C. Sec. 3
or alternatively, dismiss the Complaint without prejudice.

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff is a party to an arbitration
agreement which covers all the claims alleged in Plaintiff's
Complaint and requires that they be resolved exclusively through
individual arbitration. The Agreement also provides that it be
governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) because the
"company's business involves interstate commerce," and that it be
in conformity with the procedures of the California Arbitration
Act (CAA).

In his Order dated July 11, 2016 available at https://is.gd/gfEdl2
from Leagle.com, Judge Curiel found that Defendant has
sufficiently demonstrated that the Agreement is valid and
enforceable under the FAA and that the Agreement encompasses all
of Plaintiff's claims of unpaid wages and overtime, which are
directly related to Plaintiff's employment. In addition, the Court
found that the clear language of the Agreement expressly forbids
class certification in arbitration and requires that any issues
relating to Plaintiff's employment be decided by individual
arbitration.

The Court exercises its discretion to conclude that dismissal is
appropriate and granted Defendant's alternative request to dismiss
Plaintiff's Complaint under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 12(b)(6) without
prejudice because Plaintiff expressly waived the rights to bring
class claims, which leaves only Plaintiff's individual claims
remaining in the action.

Ashley Salberg is represented by Alisa A. Martin, Esq. --
alisa@amartinlaw.com -- AMARTIN LAW, PC; and Lindsay Christine
David, Esq. -- lcdavid@sdlawoffices.com -- SAN DIEGO COUNTY LAW
OFFICES

Massage Green International Franchise Corporation is represented
by Boris Sorsher, Esq. -- bsorsher@fisherphillips.com -- Nathan K.
Low, Esq. -- nlow@fisherphillips.com -- and Usama Kahf, Esq. --
ukahf@fisherphillips.com -- FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP


MATAGRANO INC: "Alapati" Suit Alleges Violation of Cal. Wage Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------------
T.J ALAPATI on behalf of himself all others similarly situated,
and on behalf of the general public, v. MATAGRANO INC., and DOES-
100, Case No: RG 16323713 (Cal. Super., County of Alameda, July
19, 2016), alleges violation of the Defendant due to failure to
comply with California's wage and hours laws, Wage Orders, and/or
the California Labor Code.

MATAGRANO INC. owns, and operates trucks, industrial trucks,
industrial vehicles and/or industrial work sites.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William Turley, Esq.
     David Mara, Esq.
     Jamie Serb, Esq.
     THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC
     7428 Diego, CA 92121
     Phone: (619) 234-2833


MDL 2624: Krause Seeks Certification of Classes in Adware Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Krause, John Whittle, Rhonda Estrella, Jessica Bennett and
Robert Ravencamp, Plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Lenovo Adware Litigation, MDL No. 5:15-md-02624-
RMW (N.D. Cal.), ask the Court for an order certifying, as to
Defendant Lenovo, 12 causes of action on behalf of these three
Classes:

     (1) Direct Purchaser Class (represented by Richard Krause,
         Esq., and Robert Ravencamp, Esq.):

         All persons who purchased one or more Lenovo computer
         models, on which VisualDiscovery was installed, in the
         United States directly from Lenovo.

     (2) Indirect Purchaser Class (represented by Jessica
         Bennett, Esq., Rhonda Estrella, Esq., and John Whittle,
         Esq.):

         All persons who purchased one or more Lenovo computer
         models, on which VisualDiscovery was installed, in the
         United States from someone other than Lenovo.

     (3) California Class (represented by Jessica Bennett, Esq.
         and Rhonda Estrella, Esq.):

         All persons who purchased one or more Lenovo computer
         models, on which VisualDiscovery was installed, in
         California.

The Plaintiffs also seek an order certifying Richard Krause, Esq.,
John Whittle, Esq., Rhonda Estrella, Esq., Jessica Bennett, Esq.,
and Robert Ravencamp, Esq., as Class Representatives and
certifying the law firms of Pritzker Levine LLP, Girard Gibbs LLP
and Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP as Class Counsel.

The litigation arises from the wrongful conduct of Defendants
Lenovo and Superfish secretly installing malware called
VisualDiscovery on the Plaintiffs' laptop computers, according to
the Motion.  Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs, VisualDiscovery operated
continuously in the background, analyzing and injecting ads into
visited webpages.  The malware intercepted both unencrypted and
encrypted web traffic, allowing Superfish to obtain the content of
the Plaintiffs' communications and jeopardize the security of the
Plaintiffs' private and information.  VisualDiscovery negatively
impacted the computers' performance in material ways.
Consequently, the Plaintiffs allege, all Class members overpaid
for Lenovo laptops installed with VisualDiscovery malware.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=IrSjvBM8

The Court will commence a hearing on September 23, 2016, at 9:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan K. Levine, Esq.
          Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq.
          Shiho Yamamoto, Esq.
          PRITZKER LEVINE LLP
          180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (415) 692-0772
          Facsimile: (415) 366-6110
          E-mail: jkl@pritkzkerlevine.com
                  ecp@pritzkerlevine.com
                  sy@pritzkerlevine.com

               - and -

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Kramer, Esq.
          Andre M. Mura, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com
                  eak@girardgibbs.com
                  amm@classlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Steven N. Williams, Esq.
          Matthew K. Edling, Esq.
          Alexandra P. Summer, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
          San Francisco Airport Office Center
          840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000
          Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
          E-mail: swilliams@cpmlegal.com
                  medling@cpmlegal.com
                  asummer@cpmlegal.com


MEDIFIT CORPORATE: Final Hearing on "Flores" Suit Deal on Nov. 9
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William H. Orrick entered an order in the lawsuit
entitled FRANCISCO FLORES v. MEDIFIT CORPORATE SERVICES, INC.,
Case No. 3:15-cv-03423-WHO (N.D. Cal.), granting a motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement.

The Court preliminarily approves the MediFit Corporate Services,
Inc. "Wage and Hour" Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release
of Claims, based on the Court's determination that the Settlement
is within the range of possible final approval.

Per the parties' Joint Response to Court's Notes Regarding Hearing
on Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and their
representations at the preliminary approval hearing held on
July 20, 2016, the Court approved certain amendments to the
Settlement Agreement.

Judge Orrick conditionally certifies, for settlement purposes
only, the proposed Plaintiff Classes, defined:

     California Class: All persons who worked in California for
     Defendant, or its entity, MediFit Community Services, LLC,
     at any point since June 16, 2011 as a group exercise
     instructor, personal trainer, or swim instructor.

     FLSA Class: All persons who worked in California for
     Defendant, or its entity, MediFit Community Services, LLC,
     at any point since June 16, 2012 as a group exercise
     instructor, personal trainer, or swim instructor.

The Court provisionally (i) finds Scott Cole & Associates, APC to
be sufficiently experienced and proficient in class action
proceedings that they may act as Class Counsel and are, therefore,
appointed as such, (ii) appoints Francisco Flores and Giulia
Ferraris as the representatives of the Plaintiff Classes, and
(iii) appoints Rust Consulting as the Settlement Administrator.

The Court approves, as to form and content, the Class Notice and
the Second Amended Complaint.

The final approval hearing will be held on November 9, 2016, at
2:00 p.m.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=x1s92tfg


MICHAELS STORES: Rowe Seeks to Certify Retail Store Workers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled LAUREL ROWE, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MICHAELS STORES,
INC. and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 5:15-cv-01592-EJD
(N.D. Cal.), asks the Court to certify a class consisting of:

     All persons who are employed or have been employed by
     Defendants in California, in a retail store, who were, at
     any time within four years of the filing of this Complaint,
     classified as a non-exempt retail store employee.

Laurel Rowe also moves the Court to certify the Terminated
Subclass consisting of:

     All members of the Plaintiff Class whose employment ended
     during the Class Period.

Excluded from the Class and Terminated Subclass are all claims
resolved in the case titled Ragano v. Michaels Stores, Inc., Case
No. 3:11-CV-11-3908-CRB (N.D. Cal.), for all individuals who opted
in to the settlement class, and only during those time periods
governed by the terms of the class settlement agreement in this
prior action.  Also excluded are any Assistant Store Managers,
Store Managers, and Support Specialists.

The Plaintiff further moves the Court for appointment of the
Plaintiff as Class Representative, and for appointment of the
Plaintiff's attorneys as Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on October 20, 2016, at 9:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VwcdyCa8

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MIDLAND FUNDING: 6th Cir. Affirms Approval of Revised Deal
----------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge R. Guy Cole Jr. of the Court of Appeals, Sixth
Circuit, affirmed the district court's approval of a revised
settlement agreement, certifying a class or approving the class
notice in the case captioned, ELAINE PELZER; DIANNE FREDERICK;
RAUL OSORIO, Intervenors-Appellants, v. MARTHA VASSALLE; JEROME
JOHNSON; ANDREA BRENT; HOPE FRANKLIN; CLASS MEMBERS, Plaintiffs-
Appellees, MIDLAND FUNDING LLC; MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.;
ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP, INC., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 14-4156
(6th Cir.).

The case is a nationwide class settlement of three class-action
lawsuits arising from similar factual predicates. In the oldest of
the three, Midland Funding v. Brent, Midland Funding LLC (Midland
Funding) filed a debt-collection action in April of 2008 against
Andrea Brent in the Municipal Court of Sandusky, Ohio. The parties
in the Brent, Franklin, and Vassalle actions finally reached an
agreement and presented it to the [district] court on March 9,
2011.

In the settlement, the parties stipulated to the certification of
a class that included all natural persons sued by Midland between
January 1, 2005, and the date upon which the court would enter
preliminary approval of the class action settlement in any debt
collection lawsuit in any court where an affidavit attesting to
facts about the underlying debt was used by Midland in connection
with the debt collection lawsuit. The settlement provided for both
monetary and injunctive relief.

The district court granted preliminary approval of the settlement
on March 11, 2011. Out of a class that included approximately 1.4
million members, over 133,000 class members, or 9.2% of the class,
filed claims, while 4,262, or about 0.3% opted out, and 61, or
about 0.004% filed objections.

On August 11, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio granted final approval of the settlement. Eight
of the objectors appealed.

The Appeals Court reversed the district court's order approving
the settlement, vacated the judgment certifying the nationwide
settlement class and the award of attorneys' fees, and remanded
the case for further proceedings.

On remand, the parties engaged in a new round of settlement
negotiations. In the revised settlement, the injunctive relief
remains in place. Under the provision, Midland must "create and
implement procedures for the generation and use of affidavits in
debt-collection lawsuits, which procedures would be reasonably
assured to prevent the use of affidavits in debt-collection
lawsuits where the affiant lacked personal knowledge of the facts
set forth in the affidavit." A retired federal judge has been
appointed Special Master to monitor Midland's compliance with the
injunction, and has issued orders approving certain language in
the revised affidavits. The term of the stipulated injunction has
been extended to last for five years instead of one. Both parties
retain the right to seek relief from or modification of the
approved affidavits

The district court preliminarily approved the revised settlement
on November 27, 2013. On May 15, 2014, the district court held a
fairness hearing. Counsel for the parties and the objectors
presented argument. On October 14, 2014, the district court issued
an opinion and order approving the revised settlement, certifying
the class, and finding the notice adequate.  The district court
also awarded class counsel their requested fee of $1.5 million
plus $14,809 in expenses.

A group of objectors appeal the district court's approval of the
revised settlement, approval of the class notice, and
certification of the class.

In his Opinion dated July 7, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/mls4Fe from Leagle.com, Judge Cole held that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in approving the
settlement, certifying the class, or approving the class notice.


MONEY STORE: Class Decertification After Jury Verdict Proper
------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that a class of
mortgage borrowers awarded $32 million by a jury was properly
decertified after the verdict, the Second Circuit said (Mazzei v.
Money Store, 2016 BL 227527, 2d Cir., No. 15-2054, 7/15/16 ).

Decertification after a jury verdict but before the entry of final
judgment comports with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, the federal rule that
governs class actions, and the Seventh Amendment right to a jury,
Judge Dennis Jacobs wrote July 15 for the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.

Defense attorney Rebecca Weinstein Bacon said decertification
after a jury verdict doesn't happen often, but that's because
"class action trials are kind of like unicorns -- you don't see a
lot of them."

But a number of courts have recognized that the procedure is
appropriate, Ms. Bacon, a partner at Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar
& Scott LLP in Chicago, told Bloomberg BNA.

"This is a good reminder for defendants that there are a lot of
opportunities up until final judgment to take a stab at
decertification," she said.

A Teachable Moment

Decertification is always a risk class plaintiffs' face,
plaintiffs' attorney Jonathan D. Selbin told Bloomberg BNA.
Mr. Selbin is a partner at Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP
in New York.

Mr. Selbin said he and colleague Elizabeth Cabraser are using the
decision as a teachable moment with the more junior attorneys at
their firm.

"It means you've got to be really careful that your evidence comes
in exactly as you said it would," he said.  "You've got to try it
as a class action start to finish."

Ms. Bacon and Mr. Selbin represented the opposing parties in one
of the few consumer class actions to go to trial in recent years.

The jury ruled in favor of Whirlpool Corp. over allegations that
its front-loading washing machines were prone to mold in In re
Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Prods. Liab. Litig. (Glazer
v. Whirlpool Corp.) , N.D. Ohio, No. 08-65001, verdict 10/30/14
(15 CLASS 1265, 11/14/14).

Improper Late Fees

After Joseph Mazzei defaulted on a mortgage loan, it was
accelerated, meaning the entire principal and interest became due.
He filed a class action against The Money Store and other loan
servicers alleging they improperly charged late fees after the
acceleration.

Mr. Mazzei won certification for a class of borrowers whose loans
were owned or serviced by the lender. A jury awarded $133.80 to
Mr. Mazzei and $32 million to the class.

The defendants moved for decertification after the verdict.  The
trial judge granted the motion, finding that Mr. Mazzei failed to
prove through classwide evidence that borrowers whose loans were
only serviced by The Money Store had a contractual relationship
with the company.

High Decertification Standard

On appeal, Mr. Mazzei argued that decertification isn't available
after a jury verdict.

But the Second Circuit said Rule 23 provides that a certification
order "may be altered or amended before final judgment."

The decertification didn't impinge on the class's right to a trial
by jury under the Seventh Amendment either, the appeals court
said.

Mr. Mazzei will receive the $134 in individual damages awarded to
him by the jury, the court said.

The decertification order vacated the $32 million class award.

But the absent class members are still able to file individual
actions for breach of contract damages because the statute of
limitations on their claims was tolled by the class action.

The last relevant question on appeal, the court said, was how to
deal with the jury finding that the absent class members were all
in privity with the defendant when the judge found otherwise.

"We hold that when a district court considers decertification (or
modification) of a class after a jury verdict, the district court
must defer to any factual findings the jury necessarily made
unless those findings were 'seriously erroneous,' a 'miscarriage
of justice,' or 'egregious,'" the court said.

This high standard of error was met, making decertification
appropriate here, the appeal court concluded.

Judges Amalya L. Kearse and Ralph K. Winter joined the opinion.

Sharma & DeYoung LLP and Paul Grobman in New York represented
Mazzei.

McCarter & English LLP represented the defendants.


MORGAN KEEGAN: Court Grants Motion to Compel Payment
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri granted Plaintiffs'
emergency motion to compel the settlement administrator to make
payments to class members in the case captioned, JOHN W. CROMEANS,
JR., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. MORGAN KEEGAN & CO., INC., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 2:12-CV-04269-NKL (W.D. Mo.).

Under the Court-approved settlement, Plaintiffs' attorneys have
already been paid fees and expenses, and the settlement
administrator is prepared to disburse about $4.4 million to class
members who have submitted valid claims. However, the process has
been delayed by a post-settlement dispute between the parties.
Plaintiffs have claimed that Defendants were required under the
settlement agreement to deposit more money for payments to class
members.

Plaintiffs claimed that some of the bonds at issue were sold after
the class period and are now held by non-class members, so those
bonds could not be tendered as part of the claims process.
Plaintiffs therefore argued that Defendants owe an additional
$411,618 to the class. The Court has rejected Plaintiffs' argument
and ruled that Defendants do not owe the class an additional
$411,618.

Plaintiffs move to compel the settlement administrator to proceed
to make payments to class members who have submitted valid proofs
of claim. Morgan Keegan takes the position that the settlement
administrator cannot do so while Plaintiffs' appeal is pending
before the Eighth Circuit and that the Court lacks jurisdiction to
enter such an order.

In her Order and Reasons dated July 18, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/tfE5Yc from Leagle.com, Judge Laughrey held that
Plaintiffs' present appeal does not trigger a stay of settlement
administration.

John W. Cromeans is represented by Andrew P. Campbell, Esq. --
andy.campbell@campbellguin.com -- Stephen D. Wadsworth, Esq. --
stephen.wadsworth@campbellguin.com  -- and John C. Guin, Esq. --
jonathan.guin@campbellguin.com -- CAMPBELL, GUIN, WILLIAMS, GUY &
GIDIERE LLC

Plaintiff is also represented by:

     J. Timothy Francis, Esq.
     JAMES L. NORTH & ASSOCIATES
     Title Building, 300 Richard Arrington Jr Blvd N,
     Birmingham, AL 35203
     Tel: (205)251-0252

           -- and --

     Richard E. McLeod, Esq.
     THE MCLEOD LAW FIRM PC
     2020 Wyandotte St.
     Kansas City, MO 64108
     Tel: (816)421-5656

Elkton Bank and Trust Company, et al. are represented by Caroline
Smith Gidiere, Esq. Stephen D. Wadsworth, Esq. --
stephen.wadsworth@campbellguin.com -- and John C. Guin, Esq. --
jonathan.guin@campbellguin.com -- CAMPBELL, GUIN, WILLIAMS, GUY &
GIDIERE LLC -- J. Timothy Francis, Esq. -- JAMES L. NORTH &
ASSOCIATES -- Richard E. McLeod, Esq. -- THE MCLEOD LAW FIRM PC

They are also represented by:

     J. Timothy Francis, Esq.
     JAMES L. NORTH & ASSOCIATES
     Title Building, 300 Richard Arrington Jr Blvd N,
     Birmingham, AL 35203
     Tel: (205)251-0252

           -- and --

     Richard E. McLeod, Esq.
     THE MCLEOD LAW FIRM PC
     2020 Wyandotte St.
     Kansas City, MO 64108
     Tel: (816)421-5656

Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc. and Armstrong Teasdale LLP are
represented by Esq. Charles W. Hatfield, Esq. --
chuck.hatfield@stinson.com -- Erin M. Naeger, Esq. --
erin.naeger@stinson.com -- and Jeremy A. Root, Esq. --
jeremy.root@stinson.com -- STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP


MOTION PICTURE: Sued Over Ratings on Films with Tobacco Imagery
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that
plaintiffs defend a lawsuit seeking an injunction where no films
featuring tobacco imagery can be given "G," "PG" or "PG-13"
ratings.

Imagine Coke, Pepsi and Dr. Pepper formed a trade association that
inspected soft drinks, and despite knowing that a certain
ingredient caused debilitating diseases that would result in one
million deaths, decided to put labels on bottles certifying that
the contents are suitable for children under 17 to drink.

That's a hypothetical conjured up by plaintiffs suing the Motion
Picture Association of America over films rated "G," "PG," and
"PG-13" that contain tobacco imagery.  "This case is no
different," write the plaintiffs in a memorandum filed on
July 15.

The MPAA, its studio members and the National Association of
Theatre Owners are defending against what they see as an
impingement of free speech.  In response to a putative class
action flagging such films as Dumb and Dumber To, Transformers:
Age of Extinction and Iron Man 3 as featuring smoking imagery yet
recommended for young audiences, the defendants characterize movie
ratings as "opinions" about what most American parents would think
about the suitability of a motion picture for viewing by children.

"The First Amendment provides those opinions with 'full
constitutional protection' against civil liability," argued the
MPAA's lawyers in a motion.

The plaintiffs are now fighting against the possibility their
lawsuit is stricken under California's SLAPP statute.

"The complaint raises no question of artistic freedom or of
defendants' right to participate in public debate," states
plaintiffs' newest memo.  "Instead this lawsuit deals with
quotidian issues of false labeling and advertising.  The complaint
asserts that defendants cannot affix a PG-13 or lower
certification on movies with tobacco imagery, because they know
that it has been scientifically established that subjecting
children to such imagery will result in the premature death of
more than a million of them."

The lawsuit opens up challenging issues that if given thrift could
invite all sorts of legal liability on Hollywood's rating system.
If this litigation experiences success, it could open the
floodgates to lawsuits blaming Hollywood for helping cause gun
deaths and other social calamities.  For that reason, the studios
and theater owners are deeming ratings to be opinions that must
not be applied to "prescribe socially-appropriate values."'

The plaintiffs see this as a deflection against an action
targeting speech they deem to be commercial.  They say that
Hollywood can give no ratings or very restrictive ratings on films
with smoking, but that they can't give certifications of
appropriateness to children if the scientific community believes
otherwise.

"In the Motion, however, straightforward claims for negligence,
consumer fraud and false advertising against a trade association
promoting the sale of its members' products have been improperly
analyzed as if they were defamation claims against newspapers,
book publishers and news agencies for speech published to inform
the public about issues of public interest," continues the
memorandum.  "Defendants assert that their speech is being
targeted.  Yet, every negligent misrepresentation, consumer fraud
and false advertising case challenges speech. But the 'speech'
that is being targeted is false commercial speech; it is the false
and misleading ratings that defendants assign and then affix to
each film they rate with the individual, numbered certification
trademark or seal of the MPAA."


NASDAQ OMX: Court Sends Fees Dispute Between Insurers to Trial
--------------------------------------------------------------
BEAZLEY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, v. ACE AMERICAN
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-5119 (JSR)
(S.D.N.Y.), is a dispute between three isurers of NASDAQ arising
from a class action suit that retail investors in Facebook Inc.
brought against NASDAQ entities and officers in 2012 in the
aftermath of Facebook's troubled initial public offering on the
NASDAQ stock exchange.  On October 4, 2012, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation centralized 41 actions related to the
Facebook IPO in the Southern District of New York before Judge
Sweet, including eight actions brought against NASDAQ entities and
officers alleging federal securities law and negligence claims.

On April 30, 2013, a consolidated amended class action complaint
(the CAC) was filed against NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc., NASDAQ Stock
Market, LLC, Robert Greifeld (NASDAQ's President and CEO at the
relevant time), and Anna Ewing (NASDAQ's Chief Information Officer
at the relevant time) (collectively, the NASDAQ Parties), on
behalf of a putative class of all persons "that entered pre-market
and aftermarket orders to purchase and/or sell the common stock of
Facebook Inc. on May 18, 2012  in connection with Facebook's
initial public offering and who thereby suffered monetary losses
as a result of the NASDAQ Parties' wrongdoing.

Beazley moves for partial summary judgment against ACE on its
second cause of action seeking a declaratory judgment that ACE is
obligated to provide indemnity coverage to NASDAQ in connection
with the Facebook Class Action. Conversely, ACE moves for summary
judgment on all remaining claims against it (Counts Two, Four, and
Five) primarily on the basis that the Facebook Class Action falls
within the "professional services" exclusion of the relevant
policy.  Illinois National Insurance Company likewise moves for
summary judgment on all remaining claims against it.

In his Opinion and Order dated July 12, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/ndHwrZ from Leagle.com, District Judge Jed S. Rakoff
of the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York held that the Facebook Class Action's claims fall within
the "professional services" exclusion, the Court denied Beazley's
motion for summary judgment, granted ACE's motion for summary
judgment on Counts Two and Four, and granted INIC's motion for
summary judgment in its entirety.  The Court denied ACE's summary
judgment bid on plaintiff's breach of contract claim (Count Five),
since ACE breached its duty to advance defense costs to NASDAQ and
since Beazley appears to have damages in the form of NASDAQ's
unreimbursed attorneys' fees.

Judge Rakoff said Beazley is entitled to recover NASDAQ's
unreimbursed reasonable defense costs in excess of $2 million. It
appears undisputed that NASDAQ incurred a minimum of $10,723.75 in
unreimbursed fees in excess of $2 million.  ACE has failed to
present any argument as to why it should not be held liable for
those unreimbursed fees.  Accordingly, ACE is not entitled to
summary judgment on Count Five, and the case will proceed to trial
on that count.  At trial, Beazley will not be permitted to re-
litigate arguments that have been rejected in this Opinion and
Order or to introduce new theories of liability.  The sole issue
for trial will be the amount of unreimbursed attorneys' fees and
costs reasonably incurred by NASDAQ in defending the Facebook
Class Action in excess of $2 million.

Beazley and ACE were directed to contact chambers jointly by no
later than July 15 to schedule a trial date.

Beazley Insurance Company, Inc. is represented by Dustin H. Thai,
Esq. -- dustin.thai@troutmansanders.com -- Kevin Kieffer, Esq. -
kevin.kieffer@troutmansanders.com -- Peter Lucier, Esq. --
peter.lucier@troutmansanders.com -- Ryan C. Tuley, Esq. --
ryan.tuley@troutmansanders.com -- and Matthew Joel Aaronson, Esq.
-- matthew.aaronson@troutmansanders.com -- TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP

Ace American Insurance Company is represented by Daniel Wagner
London, Esq. -- dlondon@londonfischer.com -- LONDON FISCHER LLP


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Snead Must Amend Class Cert. Bid by Sept. 13
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Nitza I. Quinones Alejandro entered an order in the
lawsuit captioned SONIA SNEAD, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, and U.S.
BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Case No. 2:16-cv-00602-NIQA (E.D. Pa.),
deeming as moot the Plaintiff's first motion for class
certification.

In light of the Court's Second Revised Scheduling Order ordering
the Plaintiff to file an amended motion for class certification by
September 13, 2016, the Court ordered that the first-filed motion
is deemed moot.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BN7PHUvp


NUTRIMOST LLC: Werfel Suit Moved to Southern District New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Werfel Chiropractic, PC and
Howard Werfel, for themselves and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Nutrimost, LLC, Nutrimost Doctors, LLC, and Raymond
Wisniewski, Case No. 030478-2016, was removed from the New York
Supreme Court, Rockland County to the U.S. District Court
Southern District of New York (White Plains). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 7:16-cv-05514-UA to the proceeding.

The Defendants offer nutrition programs to consumers throughout
New York.

The Defendant is represented by:

      Judith Ann Lockhart, Esq.
      CARTER LEDYARD & MILBURN LLP
      2 Wall Street
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 238-8603
      Facsimile: (212) 732-3232
      E-mail: lockhart@clm.com


NUVASIVE INC: Bid to Dismiss "Mauss" Suit Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jeffrey T. Miller of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California granted in part
Defendant's motion to dismiss and granted requests for judicial
notice in the case captioned, BRAD MAUSS, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
NUVASIVE, INC.; ALEXIS V. LUKIANOV; KEVIN C. O'BOYLE; and MICHAEL
J. LAMBERT, Defendants, Case No. 13CV2005 JM (JLB) (S.D. Cal.).

The case is a putative securities-fraud class action on behalf of
those who purchased NuVasive securities between October 22, 2008,
and July 30, 2013. Danny Popov filed the initial complaint in
August 2013. Brad Mauss was appointed as lead plaintiff in
December 2013. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint in
February 2014. The first amended complaint was dismissed for
failure to state a claim because it did not link the allegedly
false statements to the asserted reasons for their falsity, and it
did not identify which Defendant made the statements.

The operative Fifth Amended Complaint asserts two claims, for (1)
securities fraud, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, against all Defendants;
and (2) control-person liability under Section 20(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act, against Defendants Lukianov, O'Boyle,
and Lambert. Plaintiff alleges, in sum, that Defendants engaged in
illegal sales, marketing, and billing practices that exposed the
company to an increased risk of regulatory liability under the
federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the False Claims Act, but they
did not disclose that risk to investors, who bought their shares
at an inflated price and were harmed when the concealed risk
materialized.

Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's fifth amended complaint for
failure to state a claim and both parties request judicial notice
of several items. Defendants also filed a request for judicial
notice of a number of documents relating to historic stock prices,
SEC filings and press releases as evidence of what information
NuVasive disclosed to the market, and evidence of NuVasive's
annual revenues for the periods beyond the class period.

In his Order dated July 12, 2016 available at https://is.gd/MS4nTt
from Leagle.com, Judge Miller found that the combination of
"partial disclosures" is sufficient to plead loss causation at the
stage of the lawsuit and the case against O'Boyle is dismissed
without leave for Plaintiff to further amend because Plaintiff has
been unsuccessful plead a viable case. NuVasive's financial forms
and press releases are appropriate for judicial notice.

Danny Popov, et al are represented by Cheryl D. Hamer, Esq.
Michele S. Carino, Esq. -- chamer@pomlaw.com -- and Jeremy A.
Lieberman, Esq. -- jalieberman@ponlaw.com -- POMERANTZ LLP; Lionel
Z. Glancy, Esq. -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- GLANCY PRONGAY &
MURRAY LLP

Nuvasive, Inc., et al. are represented by Robert W. Brownlie, Esq.
-- robert.brownlie@dlapiper.com -- Kellin Maurine Chatfield, Esq.
-- kellin.chatfield@dlapiper.com -- and Noah A. Katsell, Esq. --
noah.katsell@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER LLP


OBESITY RESEARCH: Appeals Court Reinstates "Duran" Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Associate Justice Catharine F. Easterly of the District Columbia
Court of Appeals affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded in
part the trial court's decision in the case captioned, FRED DURAN,
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. OBESITY RESEARCH INSTITUTE, LLC et
al., Defendants and Respondents; DEMARIE FERNANDEZ et al.,
Objectors and Appellants, Civil No. 14-CV-433 (D.C. App.).

On August 24, 2011, Maia Falconi-Sachs and another person signed a
one-year lease agreement -- with a term beginning on that date --
for a Senate Square apartment at 201 I Street Northeast,
Washington, D.C. 20002.  The lease named appellant and the other
person as the "Lessee," Senate Square as the "Lessor," Bozzuto as
the lessor's "Agent," and set the monthly rent amount at
$2,499.00.

On April 6, 2012, appellees placed a "Final Notice Letter" under
appellant's door, informing her that her April rent had not been
received, and that a late fee in the amount of $249.85 was due
immediately. Appellant gave appellees a check for $249.85 on April
21, 2012.

On June 27, 2012, appellant filed a class action complaint in the
District of Columbia Superior Court, alleging violations of the
Consumer Protection Procedure Act (CPPA), fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, unconscionability, and restitution/unjust
enrichment. She amended the complaint on July 12, 2012, in order
to add appellees' addresses for service of process. On August 16,
2012, the case was removed to the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia, but later was remanded and appellees
were ordered to pay appellant's attorneys' fees.  Falconi-Sachs v.
LPF Senate Square, LLC, 963 F.Supp.2d 1, 3 (D.D.C. 2013).

On February 14, 2013, the case was re-opened in Superior Court,
and appellant filed a motion for class certification. Appellant
later orally requested without opposition that the motion for
class certification be stayed, and the trial court granted her
request. On June 21, 2013, appellant filed a subsequent amended
complaint. Appellees then filed a motion to dismiss on July 12,
2013, and the motion was granted on February 7, 2014.

The trial court dismissed appellant's CPPA cause of action,
holding that it "falls within the realm of landlord-tenant
relations and thus outside the scope of the CPPA." The court
further held that appellant's fraud and negligent
misrepresentation claims failed to meet the respective elements of
those torts, that her unconscionability claim failed to plead
sufficient facts to show either procedural or substantive
unconscionability, and that her unjust enrichment claim was barred
by the voluntary payment doctrine.

Maia Falconi-Sachs timely appealed.

In her Judgment dated July 7, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/m4IhkP  from Leagle.com, Judge Easterly held that
the trial court erred by dismissing appellant's unjust enrichment
claim and the court's ruling on the affirmative defense of
voluntary payment was possibly incorrect and at the very least
premature. The Court vacated the dismissal of the unjust
enrichment claim and remanded to give appellant the opportunity to
prove her claim.

Maia Falconi-Sachs is represented by:

      Daniel Hornal, Esq.
      TALOS LAW
      705 4th Street NorthWest, Suite 403
      Washington, DC 20001
      Tel: (202) 709-9662

LPF Senate Square, LLC et al. are represented by Ward B. Coe III,
Esq. -- wcoe@gejlaw.com -- David W. Kinkopf, Esq. --
dkinkopf@gejlaw.com -- and Hillary H. Arnaoutakis, Esq. --
harnaoutakis@gejlaw.com -- GALLAGHER EVELIUS & JONES LLP


OKLAHOMA: Leatherwood Moves Certification of Prisoners Class
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled MICHAEL D. LEATHERWOOD v.
HECTOR RIOS, WARDEN, et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-00767-C (W.D.
Okla.), seeks certification of a class consisting of all medium-
security offenders incarcerated at Lawton Correctional Facility as
of July 15, 2015, and all medium-security offenders who have
arrived, or will arrive, at Lawton Correctional Facility
subsequent to July 15, 2015, until the time the ongoing common
constitutional violation at issue in the case has been cured.

Lawton Correctional Facility is a private for-profit prison under
contract with the Oklahoma Department of Corrections to provide
incarceration services to medium-security classified inmates
subject to state convictions.  The Plaintiff is classified as a
medium-security inmate assigned by DOC to be housed at LCF.  LCF
houses as many as 2548 medium-security inmates at any time and the
population of inmates is fluid.

Mr. Leatherwood also seeks the appointment of competent and
qualified class counsel to fairly and adequately represent the
interests of the class.  He contends that qualified counsel should
have experience representing large class plaintiffs in civil right
cases because he is a pro se litigant and is not a licensed
attorney and is not educated or skilled in the law.  He asks the
Court to provide a liberal review of the Motion in regards to his
pro se status.

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

Defendant Quiroga and Keefe Commissary Network, LLC are
represented by:

          Niki Cung, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          234 East Millsap Road #200
          Fayetteville, AR 72703-4099
          Telephone: (479) 695-1933
          Facsimile: (479) 973-0007
          E-mail: Niki.Cung@KutakRock.com

Defendant Minyard is represented by:

          Stefanie E. Lawson, Esq.
          ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
          OKLAHOMA OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
          313 NE 21st Street
          Oklahoma City, OK 73105
          Telephone: (405) 521-3921
          Facsimile: (405) 521-4518
          E-mail: stefanie.lawson@oag.ok.gov


OMNI INSURANCE: Bid to Dismiss Colter Suit Premature, Court Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge J. Michelle Childs of the United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina denied Defendants' motion
to dismiss in the case captioned, Allison Colter, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Omni
Insurance Company and Omni Indemnity Company, Defendants, Case No.
3:15-CV-04171-JMC (D.S.C.).

On February 17, 2015, Plaintiff Allison Colter was involved in a
motor vehicle accident with Defendants' insured. After determining
that their insured was liable for the damage to Plaintiff's
vehicle, Defendants told Plaintiff that she would receive an
amount equal to her repair estimate minus a betterment or
depreciation charge for certain damaged parts. Plaintiff, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, filed the
instant putative class action seeking damages from Defendants Omni
Insurance Company and Omni Indemnity Company (Defendants) for
their alleged imposition of an illegal and unauthorized
"betterment" or depreciation charge on property settlements for
accidents.

On October 8, 2015, Defendants removed the matter to the court on
the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1332 alleging that there is complete diversity of citizenship
between Plaintiff and Defendants, and the amount in controversy
herein exceeds the sum of $75,000, exclusive of interest and
costs. After removing the matter, Defendants filed their Motion to
Dismiss on November 3, 2015, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule
12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the basis that
Plaintiff lacks standing to raise a breach of contract class
claim.

In her Order and Opinion dated July 12, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/gNB3Ei from Leagle.com, Judge Childs found that
Defendants' Motion is premature as to Plaintiff's standing to
bring a breach of contract claim.

Allison Colter is represented by:

       Rachel G. Peavy, Esq.
       Thomas Jefferson Goodwyn, Jr., Esq.
       GOODWYN LAW FIRM
       2519 Devine Street, Suite A
       Columbia, SC 29205-1846
       Tel: (803)470-2117

Omni Insurance Company and Omni Indemnity Company are represented
by Brett Harris Bayne, Esq. -- brett.bayne@mgclaw.com -- and
J. Andrew Delaney, Esq. -- adelaney@mgclaw.com -- MCANGUS
GOUDELOCK AND COURIE


ONCALL LLC: Faces "Orue" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
MARIA THERESA ORUE 11625 Hawk Dr. Harrison, OH 45030 v. ONCALL,
LLC Serve Statutory Agent CT Corporation System 1300 East Ninth
Street Cleveland, OH 44114, Case: 1:16-cv-00760-MRB (S.D. Ohio,
July 19, 2016), was brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

OnCall, LLC offers sales force automation as well as an outsourced
sales force for commercialization solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bradley L. Gibson, Esq.
     GIBSON LAW, LLC
     9200 Montgomery, Rd., Suite 11A
     Cincinnati, OH 45242
     Phone: (513) 834-8254
     E-mail: brad@gibsonemploymentlaw.com


OZ MINERALS: Court Approves Zinifex Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Creamer Media's Mining Weekly reports that the Federal Court has
approved the settlement agreement between Adelaide-based miner Oz
Minerals and ACA Lawyers, on behalf of former Zinifex
shareholders.

"As a result of the court approval, the class action against Oz
Minerals has been dismissed without admission of liability by the
company," the ASX-listed firm reported on July 18.

Oz Minerals has agreed to an amount of A$32.5-million, of which
its net contribution is A$24-million to settle the class action
from Zinifex shareholders, who claimed that the company had failed
to disclose information to the market about refinancing its debt.

Zinifex merged with Oxiana in 2008 to form Oz Minerals.


PAD AND PUBLICATION: Cert. Hearing in Podiatry Suit on Aug. 23
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on July 20, 2016, in the case
entitled Podiatry In Motion, Inc. v. Pad and Publication Assembly
Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-06357 (N.D. Ill.), relating
to a hearing held before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman.

The minute entry states that:

   -- motion hearing was held on July 20, 2016;

   -- Defendants' motion for extension of time to August 17,
      2016, to file responsive pleading is granted;

   -- Plaintiff's motion to enter and continue its motion to
      certify class is granted;

   -- Plaintiff's motion to certify class is entered and
      continued to August 23, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.; and

   -- status hearing is set for August 23, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JAp1iYQ4


PAPA JOHN'S: Settles Class Action Over Delivery Fees Sales Tax
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Maher, writing for Madison-St. Record, reports that a Madison
County class action claiming Papa John's Pizza wrongly charged
sales tax on delivery fees has reached preliminary settlement.

The agreement, signed by Circuit Judge Andreas Matoesian, approved
$165,000 in attorney fees; a $2,000 "case contribution award" to
lead plaintiff Zachary Tucker and purchase discounts of between $1
and $3 for qualified customers.

A final approval hearing will take place at 9:00 a.m. on Oct. 14.

"Defendants have denied and continue to deny every allegation of
liability, wrongdoing, and damages, as they have substantial
factual and legal defenses to all class allegations and claims in
the litigation," states the preliminary settlement document
prepared by plaintiffs' counsel from the Carey, Danis & Lowe firm
in St. Louis.  Alan Wagner of Tampa, Fla. served as co-counsel.

The agreement also states, "Defendants have always maintained, and
continue to maintain, that sales taxes that are voluntarily paid
by customers and remitted to the state of Illinois are not
recoverable under Illinois law.  Nonetheless, Defendants have
concluded that because continuing to defend the litigation would
be protracted and expensive, and would present risks and
uncertainties, including whether plaintiff might prevail on all or
some of his claims at trial or on appeal, it is prudent to fully
and finally settle the litigation on a class-wide basis on the
terms and conditions set forth in the proposed settlement
agreement."

Larry Hepler -- lhepler@heplerbroom.com -- and W. Jason Rankin --
jrankin@heplerbroom.com -- of HeplerBroom in Edwardsville
represent Papa John's.

According to the agreement, Papa John's stopped charging sales tax
on delivery fees on Oct. 1, 2015.

The document further states that the settlement provides
"significant benefits to the proposed class" in the form of future
purchase discounts to class members who timely and properly fill
out a claim form.

Discounts are determined by the number of qualifying purchases
made between May 5, 2009 and May 6, 2016:

-- Between one and nine: $1
-- Between 10 and 24: $2
-- 25 or more: $3

The case was originally filed in Madison County in May 2014 and
later removed to federal court.  After two failed attempts to
remand to Madison County, the parties engaged in settlement
discussions and reached an agreement in principle to settle.

As part of the settlement, the federal court action would be
dismissed and refiled in state court.

It was dismissed in federal court on Sept. 23, 2015 and refiled in
Madison County on Jan. 13, 2016.

"Despite reaching the terms of the proposed settlement relatively
early in the litigation, plaintiff's counsel has invested a
considerable amount of time and expense into the investigation and
prosecution of this matter," the settlement agreement states.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 16-L-49


PAUL MICHAEL: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Cohen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Paul Michael Associates and John Does 1-25, Case No.
3:16-cv-04145-PGS-DEA (D.N.J., July 11, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Paul Michael Associates operates a law firm located at 159-16
Union Turnpike #302, Fresh Meadows, NY 11366.

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


PEARLS GROUPS: Court Approves Sale of Gold Coast Resort
-------------------------------------------------------
Sharnie Kim, writing for ABC, reports that a Gold Coast resort
subject to a class action relating to a multi-billion-dollar
financial scam has been given the green light for sale by the
Federal Court.

For nearly two decades, the Pearls Group duped millions of some of
India's poorest people into investing about $10 billion into fake
or worthless land leases.

Authorities in India have begun seizing Pearls' assets there, and
four Indian Pearls directors have been arrested on fraud charges.

The group is further alleged to have siphoned more than $100
million to Australia, including into the 2010 purchase of the
Sheraton Mirage Resort on the Gold Coast for $62 million by one of
its subsidiaries, Pearls Australasia, now known as Miiresorts
Group.

Shine Lawyers lodged a class action suit in the Federal Court of
Australia on behalf of about 46,000 Indian investors, who
collectively put more than $10 million into the scheme, and wanted
Pearls' Gold Coast assets frozen.

At a hearing in Brisbane, the court heard the Sheraton Mirage will
be sold on July 29 to an undisclosed buyer for about $140 million.

Barrister Caroline Kenny QC for the Indian investors argued the
sale should be blocked to safeguard the proceeds, or a receiver be
appointed ahead of an expected trial.

"Undertakings by lawyers and controllers of Miiresorts will be
totally inadequate," she said.

But the parties agreed the sale should proceed as planned, subject
to several undertakings including that settlement not occur before
July 29, and the profits be deposited into a law firm's account.

However, the court was told there could be as little as $40
million remaining from the sale, once government charges, a $42
million mortgage and other money, including a potential success
fee for the directors, was paid.

Justice raises concerns about class action

Justice John Dowsett also expressed concerns about the strength of
the class action suit against Miiresorts Group and associated
companies, and whether the investors could prove the funds used to
purchase the Sheraton Mirage Resort were indeed ill-gotten gains
from the Ponzi scheme.

But Caroline Kenny QC for the Indian investors said there was no
other explanation for the funds and there was a "strong
circumstantial case".

"If there is an alternative source of funding, why haven't we
heard about it?" she asked.

But Justice Dowsett said the argument may not be sufficient.

"I can't take a serious decision based on that . . . courts act on
evidence, I'm afraid," he said.

"I can see you've got good cause for suspicion . . . but I can't
make assumptions based on newspaper reports that appear on the
Indian subcontinent."

Douglas Savage QC for resort owners Miiresorts Group said the
evidence against his client may not be admissible, and it needed
time to respond.

"The applicants' material consists in large measure of newspaper
reports, Google searches and conversations with unidentified
people and the like," he said.

The case was adjourned for a pre-trial directions hearing on
August 18.


PETER THOMAS: Falsely Marketed Personal Care Products, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Florence M. Goldkrantz v. Peter Thomas Roth, LLC and Peter Thomas
Roth Labs LLC, Case No. CV-16-865842 (Ohio Cmm. Pl., July 7,
2016), seeks to put an end to the Defendants' practice of misusing
expressions "all-natural" or "all-natural 100%" in the packaging
and advertisements of their personal care products.

Peter Thomas Roth, LLC engages in the research and development of
skin care products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark Schlachet, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MARK SCHLACHET
      3515 Severn Road
      Cleveland, OH 44118
      Telephone: (216) 225-7559
      Facsimile: (216) 932-5390
      E-mail: markschlachet@me.com


PHILADELPHIA HOUSING: Settlement in "Howard" Case Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted, in part,
Plaintiff's motion for judicial approval of the settlement
agreement in the case captioned, AISHIA HOWARD, Plaintiff, v.
PHILADELPHIA HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendant, Case No. 15-4462 (E.D.
Pa.).

Aishia Howard brought the action against her former employer,
Philadelphia Housing Authority (Defendant), pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq.

In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant took
retaliatory action to terminate her employment after she
complained about wage and overtime violations that she was
experiencing.

On February 26, 2016, the parties participated in a settlement
conference with Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter, during which
the parties agreed to settle the matter for a total of $10,000.00.
After applicable tax withholdings and deductions, Plaintiff will
receive $6,250.00. Under the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff's
counsel will receive $3,750.00 in attorneys' fees and expenses.

On March 31, 2016, Plaintiff filed her motion for approval of the
settlement, a memorandum of law in support of the motion, and a
declaration of attorneys' fees and costs.

In his Opinion and Order dated July 1, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/IBCieX from Leagle.com, Judge Robreno granted in
part and denied in part Plaintiff's motion for judicial approval
of the Settlement Agreement. The Court did not approve the
overbroad release provisions, because they are neither fair nor
reasonable in light of the FLSA's purpose and the Court's approval
role. In all other respects, the Court found that the proposed
Settlement Agreement reflects a fair and reasonable compromise of
a bona fide dispute and does not otherwise impermissibly frustrate
the implementation of the FLSA in the workplace.

Aishia Howard is represented by:

      Peter D. Winebrake, Esq.
      R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
      Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
      THE WINEBRAKE LAW FIRM LLC
      715 Twining Rd #211
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Phone: +1 215-884-2491

Philadelphia Housing Authority is represented by Gregory D.
Hanscom, Esq. -- ghanscom@fisherphillips.com -- and Lori Halber,
Esq. -- lhalber@fisherphillips.com -- FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP


PRIVATEBANCORP INC: "Parshall" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Parshall, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Privatebancorp, Inc., Larry D. Richman,
Norman R. Bobins, James M. Guyette, Cheryl E. Mayberry Mckissack,
Edward W. Rabin, Jr., William R. Rybak, Alejandro Silva, Diane M.
Aigotti, Michelle L. Collins, James B. Nicholson, Richard S.
Price, Ralph B. Mandell, Canadian Imperial Bank Of Commerce and
CIBC HOLDCO Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2016CH09135 (Ill. Cir.,
July 12, 2016), seeks preliminary and permanent enjoinment,
damages, reasonable allowance for attorneys and experts fees and
such further relief for breach of fiduciary duties.

PrivateBancorp will be acquired by Canadian Imperial Bank of
Commerce and its wholly owned subsidiary, CIBC Holdco Inc. and
together with Canadian Imperial where stockholders of
PrivateBancorp will receive $18.80 in cash and 0.3657 of a share
of CIBC for each share of PrivateBancorp they own, valued at
approximately $47.00 per share.

Plaintiff alleges that said transaction is unfair and inadequate
because the intrinsic value of the Company is materially in excess
of the amount offered; denies shareholder the right to share
proportionately and equitably in the true value of the Company's
valuable and profitable business and future growth in profits and
earnings.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Theodore B. Bell, Esq.
     Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
     One South Dearborn Street, Suite 2122
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Tel.: (312) 984-0000
     Fax: (312) 212-4401

           - and -

     Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
     Brian D. Long, Esq.
     Gina M. Serra, Esq.
     Jeremy J. Riley, Esq.
     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
     Wilmington, DE 19803
     Tel: (302) 295-5310

           - and -

     Katharine M. Ryan, Esq.
     Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
     RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
     995 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 311
     Wayne, PA 19087
     Tel: (484) 588-5516


PRIVATEBANCORP INC: Faces "Griffin" Suit Over Sale to CIBC
----------------------------------------------------------
JOHN J. GRIFFIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. PRIVATEBANCORP, INC., LARRY D. RICHMAN,
NORMAN R. BOBINS, JAMES M. GUYETTE, CHERYL E. MAYBERRY MCKISSACK,
EDWARD W. RABIN, JR., WILLIAM R. RYBAK, ALEJANDRO SILVA, DIANE M.
AIGOTTI, MICHELLE L. COLLINS, JAMES B. NICHOLSON, RICHARD S.
PRICE, RALPH B. MANDELL, CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE and
CIBC HOLDCO INC., Case No: 2016CH09435 (IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION, July
19, 2016), alleges breaches of fiduciary duties arising out of
PrivateBancorp's Board of Directors' attempt to sell the Company
to Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.

PRIVATEBANCORP, INC. delivers business and personal financial
services to middle-market companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Theodore B. Bell, Esq.
     Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
     One South Dearborn Street, Suite 2122
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 984-0000
     Fax: (312) 212-4401

        - and -

     Joseph Levi, Esq.
     Michael H. Rosner, Esq.
     Justin G. Sherman, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
     30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: (212) 363-7500
     Fax: (212) 363-7171


PYRAMID CONSULTING: Class Certification Sought in "Getchman" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Lynn Getchman asks the Court to conditionally certify the
lawsuit styled DEBORAH LYNN GETCHMAN, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. PYRAMID CONSULTING, INC., Case No.
4:16-cv-01208-CDP (E.D. Mo.), as a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ms. Getchman also moves the Court to order disclosure of contact
information for similarly situated individuals, and to approve
notice for dissemination to those similarly situated.  In her
verified complaint, the Plaintiff seeks recovery of unpaid
overtime owed to her individually and to a collective group of
similarly situated employees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin J. Dolley, Esq.
          Jason M. Finkes, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN J. DOLLEY, LLC
          2726 S. Brentwood Blvd.
          St. Louis, MO 63144
          Telephone: (314) 645-4100
          Facsimile: (314) 736-6216
          E-mail: kevin@dolleylaw.com
                  jason.finkes@dolleylaw.com


QUAKER OATS: "Jaffee" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Robyn Jaffee, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Quaker Oats Company,
Case No. 1:16-cv-21576 was transferred from the Southern District
of Florida to the U.S. District Court Northern District of
Illinois. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-07134
to the proceeding.

Quaker Oats Company is a food conglomerate based in Chicago,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John W. Barrett, Esq.
      BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
      209 Capitol Street
      Charleston, WV 25301
      Telephone: (304) 345-6555
      E-mail: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com

         - and -

      Marc Raymer Weintraub
      BAILEY AND GLASSER LLP
      360 Central Avenue, Suite 1500
      St. Petersburg, FL 33701
      Telephone: (727) 894-6745
      Facsimile: (727) 894-2649
      E-mail: mweintraub@baileyglasser.com

         - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

      Robert Maurice Fulton, Esq.
      HILL WARD & HENDERSON
      101 E Kennedy Boulevard
      Suite 3700 PO Box 2231
      Tampa, FL 33601
      Telephone: (813) 221-3900
      Facsimile: 221-2900
      E-mail: bfulton@hwhlaw.com


RASH CURTIS: Conover May File First Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni of the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada granted Plaintiff's
motion for leave to file a First Amended Class Action Complaint in
the case captioned, CARMA CONOVER, Plaintiff, v. RASH CURTIS &
ASSOCIATES, Defendant, Case No. 3:15-CV-08381-FLW-TJB (D.N.J.).

On December 1, 2015, Plaintiff Carma Conover filed a Complaint
against Defendant alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, (TCPA). The class allegations consist of the same
facts and legal theories as those alleged in the original
Complaint only expanded to include "all persons within the United
States who received any pre-recorded messages via an Automated
Telephone Dialing System from Defendant without prior express
consent."

On April 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed the present motion seeking to
add class allegations. The motion comes six months following the
Complaint and 24 days following Defendant's Answer.

In the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 12, 2016 available
at https://is.gd/XcMqMB from Leagle.com, Judge Bongiovanni found
that Defendant has not satisfied any of the prerequisites under
Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 15(a)(2).

Carma Conover is represented by:

      Michael Alan Siddons, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL ALAN SIDDONS
      230 N Monroe St,
      Media, PA 19063
      Tel: (610)255-7500

Rash Curtis & Associates is represented by Andrew Michael
Schwartz, Esq. -- amschwartz@mdwcg.com -- MARSHALL, DENNEHEY,
WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN, PC


RDX INC: "Roach" Suit Alleges Non-compliance of Cal. Wage Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------
CINDY ROACH, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated,
and on behalf of the general public, v. RDX Inc.; and DOES 1-100,
Case No: RG 16823780 (Cal. Super., County of Alameda, July 19,
2016), alleges that the common policies and practices of RDX Inc.
and/or DOES 1-100 was a direct cause of Defendant's failure to
comply with California's wage and hours laws, Wage Orders, and/or
the California Labor Code.

RDX Inc. owns, and operates trucks, industrial trucks, industrial
vehicles and/or industrial work sites.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William Turley, Esq.
     David Mara, Esq.
     Jill Vecchi, Esq.
     THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC
     7428 Trade Street
     San Diego, CA 92J2l
     Phone: (619) 234-2833
     Fax: (619) 234-4048


REACHLOCAL: Shareholders Sue Directors Over Gannett Deal
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that directors are selling
ReachLocal (digital advertising) too cheaply through an unfair
process to Gannett, for $4.60 a share or $156 million,
shareholders say in a class action in Los Angeles Superior Court.


ROCKWATER ENERGY: Court Denies Motion for Leave to Amend
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David Alan Ezra of the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas denied Plaintiffs' Motion for
Leave to Amend in the case captioned, JUAN ESTRACA and RICHARD KEN
BARERRA, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ROCKWATER ENERGY SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 5:16-CV-310-DAE (W.D. Tex.).

Plaintiffs Juan Estraca and Richard Ken Barerra allege that they
were employed by Defendant Rockwater Energy Solutions, Inc. as
flowback well testers. Plaintiffs state that Rockwater
contractually agreed to pay flowback well testers an hourly rate,
with an overtime rate of one and one-half times the regular rate
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, and that flowback
well testers would be paid 24 hours per day during assignments to
frac sites. However, Plaintiffs allege that Rockwater repeatedly
failed to pay Plaintiffs for the 24-hour day, in violation of the
contract.

On March 28, 2016, Plaintiffs filed their original complaint,
alleging that Rockwater had violated the overtime pay requirement
of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-219
and seeking to bring a collective action under the FLSA.
Plaintiffs also alleged a claim for breach of contract due to
Rockwater's failure to compensate Plaintiffs without deductions
for off-duty hours, and a claim for quantum meruit for furnishing
services to Defendant which were accepted and for which payment
was reasonably expected.

Plaintiffs seek leave to amend their complaint to add a class
action complaint to pursue their breach of contract and quantum
meruit claims.

On June 17, 2016, Defendants filed a Response objecting to the
proposed amendment, arguing that the claims are preempted by the
FLSA, and further arguing that Plaintiffs have not alleged
sufficient facts to satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule
23(b), making the amendment futile.

In his Order dated July 7, 2016 available at https://is.gd/N4U4D2
from Leagle.com, Judge Ezra held that the quantum meruit claim
stated in the Proposed Amended Complaint seeks only compensation
for employment services; such a claim is preempted by the FLSA,
and is not appropriately brought as a class action and that it
fails to state a class action complaint for breach of contract
upon which relief can be granted.

Juan Estraca, et al. are represented by:

      Dorian Vandenberg-Rodes, Esq.
      Daryl J. Sinkule, Esq.
      SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
      11 Greenway Plaza
      Suite 1515
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (832)539-4690

Rockwater Energy Solutions, Inc. is represented by Juan B.
Rodriguez, Esq. -- juan.rodriguez@ogletreedeakins.com -- Lawrence
D. Smith, Esq. -- Lawrence.smith@ogletreedeakins.com -- and Mark
A. McNitzky, Esq. -- mark.mcnitzky@ogletreedeakins.com --
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Johnson-Morris"
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Charles P. Kocoras of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied Defendant's
partial motion to dismiss in the case captioned, CHERYL JOHNSON-
MORRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., an Illinois
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:13-CV-01009-JCM-PAL, No.
16C1456 (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiff Cheryl Johnson-Morris filed her original Class Action
Complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County on December 18,
2015, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act (FDCPA) and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by Defendant
Santander Consumer USA, Inc.

Santander removed the action to the Court on January 28, 2016, and
then sought dismissal of all claims.  Johnson-Morris responded
with an amended complaint, again asserting violations of the FDCPA
(Count I) and the TCPA (Counts II and III).

Before the Court is Santander's motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6) to dismiss the FDCPA claim (Count I) in Johnson Morris's
First Amended Complaint (Complaint), as untimely and for failure
to allege a cognizable claim under that Act.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 11, 2016 available
at https://is.gd/jVotwk from Leagle.com, Judge Kocoras held that
the Complaint does not indicate when Johnson-Morris knew she had
been injured and that Santander caused her injury and the
questions of timeliness should be based on a more complete factual
record. As to FDCPA claims, the majority of courts have determined
that similar flat transaction fees are incidental to the principal
obligation, and thus, fall under the scope of the FDCPA.

Cheryl L. Johnson-Morris is represented by Benjamin Harris
Richman, Esq. -- brichman@edelson.com -- Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
-- rbalabanian@edelson.com -- Dominick Larry, Esq. --
nlarry@edelson.com -- and John Aaron Lawson, Esq. --
alawson@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC

Santander Consumer USA, Inc. is represented by Henry Pietrkowski,
Esq. -- hpietrkowski@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP -- Jarrod D.
Shaw, Esq. -- jshaw@mcguirewoods.com -- Marc A. Lackner, Esq. --
mlackner@mcguirewoods.com -- and Tammy L. Adkins, Esq. --
tadkins@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIREWOODS LLP


SCOTTRADE INC: Court Dismisses Duqum Consolidated Class Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Shirley Padmore Mensah of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted
Defendant Scottrade, Inc.'s motion to dismiss consolidated class
action complaint in the case captioned, ANDREW DUQUM, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. SCOTTRADE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:15-CV-1537-
SPM (E.D. Mo.).

Defendant is a firm that provides brokerage, banking, and
retirement planning services to individuals and businesses.
Between September 2013 and February 2014, hackers gained access to
Defendant's customer databases and exported confidential customer
PII from those databases.  The data breach was reported to involve
the confidential information of approximately 4.6 million
customers. Shortly after Defendant announced the data breach,
several of Defendant's customers filed putative class action
lawsuits based on the data breach.  The Court subsequently
consolidated all four cases pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) and
E.D. Mo. Local Rule 4.03.

On February 19, 2016, Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Class
Action Complaint, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated. Plaintiffs allege that they had accounts with
Defendant and that as a result of the data breach, their PII was
disclosed, transferred, sold, opened, read, mined, and otherwise
used without their authorization. Plaintiffs allege several causes
of action against Defendant related to the data breach, including
breach of contract, breach of implied contract, negligence, unjust
enrichment/assumpsit, declaratory relief, and violations of
various state consumer protection statutes.

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs' Consolidated Class Action
Complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1),
because Plaintiffs have not suffered an injury in fact and
therefore do not have standing to bring suit in this Court under
Article III of the United States Constitution. Defendant also
argues that Plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed under Rule
12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.

In her Memorandum and Order dated July 12, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/xFJ5Hn from Leagle.com, Judge Mensah found that
Plaintiffs' allegations regarding the increased risk of identity
theft and fraud are not sufficient to demonstrate injury in fact
for purposes of Article III standing and that the case lack
subject matter jurisdiction.

Andrew Duqum, et al. are represented by Anthony G. Simon, Esq. --
asimon@simonlawpc.com  -- and John M. Simon, Esq. --
jsimon@simonlawpc.com -- THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C. -- John S.
Marrese, Esq. -- jmarrese@siprut.com -- Joseph J. Siprut, Esq. --
jsiprut@siprut.com -- and Richard Lane Miller, II, Esq. --
rmiller@siprut.com -- SIPRUT PC, Paula R. Brown, Esq. --
pbrown@bholaw.com -- Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II, Esq. --
toreardon@bholaw.com -- Timothy G. Blood, Esq. --
tblood@bholaw.com -- BLOOD AND HURST, LLP; Geoff J. Spreter, Esq.
-- geoff@spreterlaw.com -- SPRETER LAW FIRM, APC

Richard Obringer is represented by Joseph J. Siprut, Esq. --
jsiprut@siprut.com -- SIPRUT PC; Paula R. Brown, Esq. --
pbrown@bholaw.com -- Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II, Esq. --
toreardon@bholaw.com -- and Timothy G. Blood, Esq. --
tblood@bholaw.com -- BLOOD AND HURST, LLP; and Geoff J. Spreter,
Esq. -- geoff@spreterlaw.com -- SPRETER LAW FIRM, APC

Scottrade, Inc. is represented by Brandi Lynne Burke, Esq. --
bburke@thompsoncoburn.com -- Christopher M. Hohn, Esq. --
shohn@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thomas E. Douglass, Esq. --
tdouglas@thompsoncoburn.com -- and David M. Mangian, Esq. --
dmangian@thompsoncoburn.com -- THOMPSON COBURN, LLP


SENIOR LIVING: White Seeks to Certify Hourly-Paid Laborers Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled TERRANCE WHITE, on his own
behalf and others similarly situated v. SENIOR LIVING MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION, Case No. 8:16-cv-02057-JSM-TBM (M.D. Fla.), moves the
Court for conditional certification and facilitation of Court-
authorized notice.  The Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a
class of current and former hourly-paid laborers, who work(ed) at
the Defendant's location in Bartow, Florida, between July, 2013,
and the present; who worked hours for which they were not
compensated, in some cases working more than 40 hours per week,
without lawful and proper and complete overtime compensation;

Mr. White asks the Court to direct the Defendant to produce to his
counsel a list containing the full names, last known addresses,
telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of putative class members,
who worked for the Defendant in its Bartow, Florida locations
between July 2013, and the present.  He also seeks to facilitate
notice to all hourly-paid laborers, who worked in the Defendant's
facility in the Bartow, Florida, who (1) worked more than 40 hours
in any given week; and (2) were not paid proper overtime
compensation for all of their hours worked, including those hours
worked over 40 and those who were not paid the entirety of all of
the "straight-time" hours that they actually worked for the
Defendant.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4xtfZ8iL

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. John Gadd, Esg.
          LAW OFFICE OF W. JOHN GADD, PA
          2727 Ulmerton Road, Suite 250
          Clearwater, FL 33762
          Telephone: (727) 524-6300
          E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com


SKULLCANDY INC: Faces "Paprakis" Suit Over Sale to Incipio
----------------------------------------------------------
ROSE PAPRAKIS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. SKULLCANDY, INC., S. HOBY DARLING, DOUG COLLIER, HEIDI
O'NEIL, JEFF KEARL, SCOTT OLIVET, GREG WARNOCK, RICK ALDEN, and
JASON HODELL, Case 2:16-cv-00810-BCW (Utah Dist., July 19, 2016),
alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act in connection
with acquisition of Skullcandy by Incipio, LLC.

Defendant Skullcandy is a lifestyle-driven audio brand fusing
technology with focus on action sports, fashion, and music.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David W. Scofield, Esq.
     PETERS SCOFIELD
     7430 Creek Road, Suite 303
     Sandy, UT 84093-6160
     Phone: (801) 322-2002
     Fax: (801) 912-0320
     E-mail: dws@psplawyers.com

        - and -

     James M. Wilson Jr., Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     685 Third Ave., 26th Fl.
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 983-9330
     Fax: (212) 983-9331

        - and -

     Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
     MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
     The Empire State Building
     350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
     New York, NY 10118
     Phone: (212) 971-1341
     Fax: (212) 601-2610
     E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com


SNAPCHAT: Faces Class Action Over Privacy Law Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Meg Graham, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that two Illinois
men filed a lawsuit against Snapchat earlier this year alleging
the social media company violated state privacy laws with the
technology it uses for its "Lenses" feature.  Now, the case has
landed in federal court.

The class-action suit claims Snapchat has illegally collected,
stored and used users' biometric information -- features like iris
scans, fingerprints or face geometry that are biologically unique
to each person and are used to determine someone's identity -- and
thus violates the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

A Snapchat spokesman said no biometric information is collected or
stored through the feature in question and called the lawsuit
frivolous.

Jose Luis Martinez and Malcolm Neal filed the suit in May in a
superior court in Los Angeles County, where Snapchat is based. The
case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

The suit claims Snapchat collects biometric information when users
take photos of themselves using the Lenses feature, which
identifies the size and shape of a user's face and overlays
animations like dog ears or a mustache.  The suit estimates
Snapchat has created, collected and stored "tens if not hundreds
of millions" of face templates, which it says are detailed
geographic maps made by extracting and analyzing data from points
and contours of user's faces.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, enacted in 2008,
regulates how companies and individuals collect and use biometric
data.  The act says no private entity can gather and keep an
individual's biometric information without prior notification and
written permission from that person.

Snapchat's privacy policy for Lenses claims it uses object
recognition, not facial recognition, when analyzing a user's face.

"Object recognition is an algorithm designed to understand the
general nature of things that appear in an image," the privacy
policy says.  "It lets us know that a nose is a nose or an eye is
an eye.  But object recognition isn't the same as facial
recognition.  While Lenses can recognize faces in general, they
can't recognize a specific face."

In an email to Blue Sky, a spokesman for the company said no
biometric information is collected or stored through Lenses.

"Contrary to the claims of this frivolous lawsuit, we are very
careful not to collect, store or obtain any biometric information
or identifiers about our community," the spokesman said.

The suit seeks damages of $5,000 for "each and every intentional
and reckless violation" of the privacy act, or $1,000 if the court
finds a violation was negligent.  According to the notice of
removal filed by Snapchat's attorneys, the amount in controversy
exceeds $5 million.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs could not be reached for comment on
July 18.


STARZ: Faces "Freedman" Suit Over Sale to Lions Gate
----------------------------------------------------
BARBARA FREEDMAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. JOHN C. MALONE, ROBERT BENNETT, STARZ,
GREGORY MAFFEI, CHRIS ALBRECHT, IRVING AZOFF, ANDREW T. HELLER,
SUSAN LYNE, JEFF SAGANSKY, DAN SANCHEZ, CHARLES TANABE, ROBERT
WEISENTHAL, ORION ARM ACQUISITION INC., and LIONS GATE
ENTERTAINMENT CORP., Case No: Case No. 12571 (Del. Ch., July 19,
2016), alleges breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the
sale of the Company to Lions Gate Entertainment Corp.

Through its subsidiaries, Starz operates as a worldwide media and
entertainment company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Norman M. Monhait, Esq.
     Bradford P. deLeeuw, Esq.
     ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS P.A.
     919 Market Street, Suite 1401
     Citizens Bank Center
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: (302) 656-4433

        - and -

     Jeffrey W. Golan, Esq.
     Julie B. Palley, Esq.
     BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
     3300 Two Commerce Square
     2001 Market Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: (215) 963-0600
     Fax: (215) 963-0838

        - and -

     Michael A. Toomey, Esq.
     Eleven Times Square
     640 8th Avenue, 10th Floor
     New York, NY 10036
     Phone: (212) 688-0782
     Fax: (212) 688-0783


SUNDIAL BRANDS: Faces "Padilla" Suit Over Hair, Scalp Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARIANNE PADILLA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. SUNDIAL BRANDS LLC, a New York Limited Liability
Company, and NUBIAN HERITAGE, INC., a New York Corporation, and
DOES 1-25, Case No. RG 16823809 (Cal. Super., County of Alameda,
July 19, 2016), alleges that Defendants' marketing, labeling, and
advertising practices with regards to its Shea Moisture and Nubian
Heritage hair and scalp products violate California's Unfair
Competition Law, California Business and Professional Code,
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and California's False
Advertising Law.

Sundial Brands is a skin care and hair care manufacturer and maker
of brands.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark N. Todzo, Esq.
     Howard Hirsch, Esq.
     Abigail Blodgett, Esq.
     LEXINGTON LAW GROUP
     503 Divisadero Street
     San Francisco, CA 94117
     Phone: (415) 913-7800
     Fax: (415) 759-4112
     E-mail: mtodzo@lexlawgroup.com
             hhirsch@lexlawgroup.com
             ablodgett@lexlawgroup.com


SUTTER HEALTH: Antitrust Class Action Can Proceed, Court Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Anderson, writing for Sacramento Business Journal, reports
that an antitrust suit accusing Sutter Health of overcharging
patients, employers and health insurers has been allowed to seek
class-action status, in a federal appellate court ruling handed
down on July 15.

The decision by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in
San Francisco overturned a lower-court ruling that had dismissed
the case brought by plaintiffs Djeneba Sidibe and other health
plan members.  The court heard arguments in the appeal on July 8.

This latest decision sends the case back down to lower courts and
opens the door for a class-action trial on claims that the
Sacramento-based health system uses its dominance in Northern
California to overcharge patients, employers and insurers.

The ruling on July 15 does not address the merits of the lawsuit's
claims, only Sutter's arguments that that the case should not be
tried as a class action.

Regarding the underlying case, Sutter Health holds that "these
allegations have no basis in fact," said Karen Garner, the health
system's public relations director.

"The plaintiff's allegation that we demand to include all of our
hospitals in contracts is simply false.  We have many agreements
that include only some of our hospitals and physicians,"
Ms. Garner said.  "We are confident that the ultimate result will
be the same regardless of the decision, and we are hopeful that
the plaintiff will stop pursuing this costly litigation."

In a similar but different case, the United Food and Commercial
Workers & Employers Benefit Trust sued Sutter in 2014, alleging
that it required health plan customers to include all Sutter
hospitals in their networks, and that Sutter enforces that policy
with contracts which charge higher rates for out-of-network
services.  In October, the union prevailed with a ruling that
opened the door to a court trial, where Sutter had sought for the
case to be decided in arbitration. That ruling also did not
address the merits of the case against Sutter.


SYNGENTA AG: Court Declines to Adopt MDL Coordination Order
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David R. Herndon of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois declines to adopt the
Syngenta MDL Coordination Order and denied a motion to stay in the
case captioned, IN RE SYNGENTA MASS TORT ACTIONS This Document
Relates to Tweet et al. v. Syngenta AG et al., Case No. 3:16-CV-
00255-DRH (S.D. Ill.).

Thousands of lawsuits have been filed in various federal and state
courts arising from Syngenta's development and sale of corn seeds
containing genetically modified traits known as MIR 162 and Event
5307 (used in products called Viptera and Duracade) before China's
approval to import corn with that trait.

With the exception of certain Mass Actions filed in this district,
all related federal actions against Syngenta have been centralized
in an MDL before Judge John W. Lungstrum in the District of Kansas
(Syngenta MDL).  In late 2015, three actions, involving more than
2,800 plaintiffs, were removed to the Southern District of
Illinois (Poletti, Brase Farms, and Wiemers Farms). Each case was
removed as a "mass action" under the Class Action Fairness Act's
(CAFA) mass action provision. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d)(11)(B) and no
other ground for removal was asserted.

At a hearing on February 18, 2016, the Court ordered the
consolidation of Poletti, Brase Farms, and Wiemers Farms. The
Court directed the plaintiffs to file an amended consolidated
complaint in the lead case (Poletti).

The Amended Consolidated Complaint was filed on March 4, 2016. The
Amended Consolidated Complaint consolidated the claims of all
existing Plaintiffs in Poletti, Brase Farms, and Wiemers Farms,
with the exception of three plaintiffs: (1) Larry Miller (Wiemers
Farms); (2) Bradley A. Ferree (Brase Farms); and (3) Leroy Tweet
(Poletti)).

Plaintiffs Larry Miller, Bradley A. Ferree, and Leroy Tweet were
not included in the Amended Consolidated Complaint because they
had retained other counsel and wished to proceed on a separate
complaint. Accordingly, for purposes of case management, the Court
(1) consolidated the claims of Larry Miller, Bradley A. Feree, and
Leroy Tweet and (2) directed the same to file a consolidated
amended complaint in 3:16-CV-00255-DRH.

The matter is before the Court for case management. At issue is
whether the Syngenta MDL Coordination Order should be adopted in
the instant action.  Also pending is the defendants' motion to
stay further proceedings in the case pending a final decision by
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) on transfer
of the action into the existing Multi-District Litigation
currently pending before Judge Lungstrum in the United States
District Court for the District of Kansas.

In his Order dated July 12, 2016 available at https://is.gd/5ddC1p
from Leagle.com, Judge Herndon found that given the claims
asserted against the Exporter Parties, the litigation presents
different issues and dynamics than those involved in the Syngenta
MDL and that JPML still have the case authority in the case so
that it would not be prudent for the Court to halt these
proceedings.

All Plaintiffs in Case 16-255 are represented by Brian John
Perkins, Esq. -- bjp@meyers-flowers.com -- Michael W. Lenert, Esq.
-- mwl@meyers-flowers.com -- and Peter J. Flowers, Esq. --
pjf@meyers-flowers.com -- MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC; Michael K.
Johnson, Esq. -- mjohnson@JohnsonBecker.com -- JOHNSON BECKER PLLC

They are also represented by:

      Clayton A. Clark, Esq.
      Scott A. Love, Esq.
      William Wayne Lundquist, Esq.
      CLARK, LOVE & HUTSON GP
      440 Louisiana St. Suite 1600
      Houston, TX 77002
      Tel: (832)699-1528

          -- and --

      Martin J. Phipps, Esq.
      Joseph Barrett Deacon, Esq.
      PHIPPS ANDERSON DEACON LLP
      102 9th Street
      San Antonio, TX 78215
      Phone: +1 210-340-9877

Syngenta Corporation, et al. are represented by Edwin John U.,
Esq. -- edwin.u@kirkland.com -- Jordan M. Heinz, Esq. --
jordan.heinz@kirkland.com -- Michael D. Jones, Esq. --
michael.jones@kirkland.com -- Patrick F. Philbin, Esq. --
patrick.philbin@kirkland.com -- and Ragan Naresh, Esq. --
ragan.naresh@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS

They are also represented by:

     Michael J. Nester, Esq.
     DONOVAN ROSE NESTER PC
     201 S Illinois St
     Belleville, IL 62220
     Tel: (618)212-6500

Gavilon Grain, LLC is represented by Theodore J. MacDonald, Jr.,
Esq. -- tmacdonald@heplerbroom.com -- and Troy A. Bozarth, Esq. --
tbozarth@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLERBROOM LLC; James G. Powers, Esq.
-- jpowers@mcgrathnorth.com -- and Patrick D. Pepper, Esq. --
ppepper@mcgrathnorth.com -- MCGRATH, NORTH, MULLIN & KRATZ, PC LLO


SYSCO CORPORATION: "Martin" Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Martin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Sysco
Corporation, SYSCO Central California, Inc., and Does 1-100, Case
No. 9000052, was removed from the Stanislaus County Superior Court
to the U.S. District Court Eastern District of California. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-at-00530 to the
proceeding.

The case asserts labor-related claims.

The Defendants are involved in marketing and distributing food
products to restaurants, healthcare and educational facilities,
hotels and inns, and other foodservice and hospitality businesses.

John Martin is a pro se plaintiff.

The Defendant is represented by:

      Jeffrey C. Bils, Esq.
      BAKER & HOSTETLER
      11601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1400
      Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
      Telephone: (310) 820-8800
      Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
      E-mail: jbils@bakerlaw.com


T-MOBILE USA: Class Cert. Bid Okayed; Settlement Denied for Now
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard A. Jones of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington granted plaintiff
A.D.'s motion for certification of a settlement class but denied
the plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of the settlement
in the case captioned, A.D., by and through his parents and
guardians, E.D. and H.D., individually, on behalf of similarly
situated individuals, and on behalf of T-MOBILE USA, INC. EMPLOYEE
BENEFIT PLAN, Plaintiff, v. T-MOBILE USA, INC. EMPLOYEE BENEFIT
PLAN; T-MOBILE USA, INC.; and UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:15-CV-00180-RAJ (W.D. Wash.).

In February 2015, Plaintiff A.D., by and through his parents and
guardians, E.D. and H.D., filed the case alleging that T-Mobile
USA, Inc. Employee Benefit Plan (Plan); T-Mobile USA, Inc., and
United Healthcare Services, Inc. (collectively, T-Mobile) failed
to comply with the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health
Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (Parity Act). The Parity
Act generally requires group health plans and health insurance
issuers to cover medically necessary services to treat mental
health conditions as defined by the terms of the plan and in
accordance with applicable laws under the same terms and
conditions as medical and surgical services.

Plaintiff's complaint sets forth three claims for relief: (1)
breach of fiduciary duties pursuant to Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA); (2) recovery of benefits, clarification of
rights under terms of the plan, and clarification of rights to
future benefits under the plan pursuant to ERISA; and (3) to
enjoin acts and practices in violation of the terms of the plans,
to obtain other equitable relief, and to enforce the terms of the
plans pursuant to ERISA.

The parties agreed to resolve, on a class-wide basis, the criteria
for coverage on a prospective basis. The proposed Settlement
Agreement provides prospective relief following a "best practice"
model for delivery of ABA therapy, as well as a settlement fund of
$676,935.00 to address claims for reimbursement for any members
who paid for ABA services out-of-pocket.  Any attorneys' fees,
costs, claims administration costs, and an incentive award will
also be drawn from this settlement fund.

In the motion, Plaintiff proposes a class of "All individuals who
have been, are, or will be participants or beneficiaries under the
T-Mobile USA, Inc. Employee Benefit Plan who have received,
require, or are expected to require Applied Behavior Analysis
(ABA) therapy for the treatment of autism and/or autism spectrum
disorder."

In his Order dated July 18, 2016 available at https://is.gd/XiNQ1L
from Leagle.com, Judge Jones found that the class should be
certified under Rule 23(b)(1). The Court reserved its ruling on
the incentive award until it has reviewed Plaintiff's motion for
attorney's fees to determine whether an award of up to $10,000 is
warranted.

Plaintiff may file a single, renewed motion that addresses the
concerns raised by the court no later than July 30, 2016.

A. D., Plaintiff, represented by Eleanor Hamburger, Esq. --
ehamburger@sylaw.com -- and -- Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq. -
espoonmore@sylaw.com -- SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER

T-Mobile USA, Inc. Employee Benefit Plan, et al. are represented
by Katie Denise Fairchild, Esq. -- fairchildk@lanepoweel.com --
Ryan P. McBride, Esq. -- mcbrider@lanepowell.com -- and Barbara J.
Duffy, Esq. -- duffyb@lanepowell.com -- LANE POWELL PC


TACO BELL: $1.2MM in Attorney Fees Awarded in Employee Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge in
Sacramento awarded $1.2 million in attorney fees in an employment
class action against Taco Bell, but did not award incentives or
costs -- nor the $7.3 million requested.


THINGS REMEMBERED: 9th Cir. Directs Briefing in Kaur Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the appellate case, KIRAN KAUR, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarily situated,
Plaintiff-Petitioner, v. THINGS REMEMBERED, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, Defendant-Respondent, No. 16-80060 (9th Cir.), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted Petitioner's
motion for leave to file a reply in support of the petition.

The reply has been filed.

The court, in its discretion, grants the petition for permission
to appeal the district court's April 20, 2016 order denying class
action certification. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f); Chamberlan v.
Ford Motor Co., 402 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). Within
14 days after the date of this order, petitioner shall perfect the
appeal in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
5(d).

In addition to all other issues the parties may wish to raise in
this appeal, the parties shall brief the issue of whether the
district court should have considered less drastic alternatives
before denying class certification based on concerns with the
vigor of class counsel's representation. See, e.g., Busby v. JRHBW
Realty, Inc., 513 F.3d 1314, 1323-24 (11th Cir. 2008) ("In the
event that class counsel does act improperly, the ordinary remedy
is disciplinary action against the lawyer and remedial notice to
class members, not denial of class certification.") (internal
citation omitted).

The court sua sponte grants any individual or entity leave under
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a) to file an amicus curiae
brief addressing the above-stated issue in this appeal. The
brief(s) shall comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
29(c) and (d); the due dates are governed by Rule 29(e).

A copy of the Ninth Circuit's July 20 Order is available at
https://is.gd/d44oFv from Leagle.com.

Plaintiff-Appellant Kiran Kaur is represented by:

          Glenn A. Danas, Esq.
          Robert Drexler, Esq.
          Katherine Ward Kehr, Esq.
          Bevin Allen Pike, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 450
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: Glenn.Danas@CapstoneLawyers.com
                  Robert.Drexler@Capstonelawyers.com
                  Katherine.Kehr@CapstoneLawyers.com
                  Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com

Defendant-Appellee Things Remembered, Inc., is represented by:

          Amanda N. Fu, Esq.
          Marlene S. Muraco, Esq.
          Kimberly Gee Ramos, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          50 W. San Fernando Street
          San Jose, CA 95113
          Telephone: (408) 998-4150
          E-mail: afu@littler.com
                  mmuraco@littler.com
                  kgee@littler.com

               - and -

          Alexa Woerner, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          1255 Treat Boulevard
          Walnut Creek, CA 94597
          Telephone: (925) 932-2468
          E-mail: awoerner@littler.com


TOWNSHIP BAGEL: "Kirsch" Sues Over Age Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------
Helena Kirsch, Plaintiff, v. Township Bagel Cafe Corp., Donna
Leuzzi, Pat Leuzzi And John Does 1-5 AND 6-10, Defendants, Case
No. L-2551-16 (N.J. Sup., July 12, 2016), seeks compensatory and
punitive damages, interest, cost of suit, attorneys' fees,
equitable back and front pay, reinstatement, equitable instatement
or promotion and any other relief under the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination.

Plaintiff had been employed by Olivia Bagels located at 288 Egg
Harbor Road, Sewell, New Jersey as a cook. She was terminated
because of her age, claiming that she was slowing down. She was 59
at that time.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
     COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
     18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
     Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
     Tel: (856) 727-9700
     Website: www.CostelloMains.com


TOYOTA: Faces Detroit Suit Over Defective Prius Motor
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse New Service reported that in a federal class action in
Detroit over his Toyota Prius Plug-In, a Michigan man says the
electric motor never works when it is colder than 55 degrees. The
car is supposed to operate in all-electric mode for up to 13 miles
on a full charge, but lead plaintiff Richard Rosenbaum says it
works only in the summer, but just for 8 or 10 miles.


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Hearing in "Huffman" Class Suit on Aug. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on July 22, 2016, in the case
entitled Richard Huffman, et al. v. Transworld Systems, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:16-cv-03418 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing
held before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman.

The minute entry states that the status hearing set for July 25,
2016, is stricken and reset to August 31, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., in
light of proceedings before Magistrate Judge Finnegan.  The
Plaintiffs' motion to certify class is entered and continued to
the next status.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=z0qXKmew


TUFF SHED: "Topping" Suit Removed to Southern Dist. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Jeffrey Topping, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. Tuff Shed, Inc. and Does
1 through 50, Case No. 37-02016-00014577-CU-OE-NC, was removed
from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego to the
U.S. District Court Southern District of California (San Diego).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-01793-BAS-JMA
to the proceeding.

Tuff Shed, Inc. is a manufacturer and installer of storage
buildings and garages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Harmik Yeremian, Esq.
      DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
      535 N Brand Blvd Ste 705
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (818) 230-8380
      Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
      E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Tiffany Tran, Esq.
      PALMER KAZANJIAN WOHL HODSON
      2277 Fair Oaks Blvd., Suite 455
      Sacramento, CA 95825
      Telephone: (916) 442-3552
      Facsimile: (916) 640-1521
      E-mail: ttran@pkwhlaw.com


TYSON FOODS: Court Partially Grants Motion for Reconsideration
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Theresa L. Springmann of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Indiana granted in part
defendants' motion for reconsideration in the case captioned,
RONALD MAZZACONE, Plaintiff, v. TYSON FRESH MEATS, INC., and TYSON
FOODS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:13-CV-897-TLS (N.D. Ind.).

Ronald Mazzacone has sued his former employer, Tyson Fresh Meats,
Inc., and Tyson Foods, Inc., under the Americans with Disabilities
Act for failure to accommodate his disability and per se
discrimination based on a 100% healed policy.
On February 29, 2016, the Court issued an Opinion and Order
denying the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Specifically,
the Court found that, when viewing the evidence in a light most
favorable to the Plaintiff, a question of fact exists as to
whether the Plaintiff is a qualified individual; and, given the
contrasting versions of events leading up to the Plaintiff's
termination, whether Tyson failed to engage in the interactive
process or was responsible for any breakdown in communications
between the parties, leading to the denial of a reasonable
accommodation. Finally, the Court determined that a material issue
of fact existed as to whether Tyson applied a "100% healed
policy."

In the motion, Defendants request that the Court reconsider the
Summary Judgment Order. Tyson maintains that the Court should
enter summary judgment in its favor on all claims because there
are no genuine issues of material fact.

In her Opinion and Order dated July 18, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/nRd4uQ from Leagle.com, Judge Springmann held that
there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding the
availability of a vacant position to accommodate the Plaintiff and
there is sufficient ambiguity and conflict in the record to
question whether Tyson's light-duty positions were permanent or
temporary. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of Tyson on
the per se discrimination claim having relied on a manifest error
of fact regarding the nature of the conversations, particularly in
light of the context of the entire case.

Ronald Mazzacone is represented by:

      David M. Lutz, Esq.
      DAVID M LUTZ LLC
      4203 W Jefferson Blvd
      Fort Wayne, IN 46804
      Tel: (260)432-3700

Tyson Fresh Meats Inc. and Tyson Foods, Inc. are represented by
Todd J. Kaiser, Esq. -- todd.kaiser@ogletreedeakins.com
-- and Michelle R. Maslowski, Esq. --
michelle.maslowski@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH
SMOAK & STEWART PC


UNITED STATES: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in "Atkins"
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Catherine D. Perry of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri denied Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification in the case captioned, ROBERT J.
ATKINS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant, Case No. 4:15 CV 933 CDP (E.D. Mo.).

Plaintiffs are owners of nine parcels of property along a 144.3-
mile corridor in the State of Missouri which was formerly used as
a railroad line by the Missouri Central Railroad Company and the
Central Midland Railway Company. Plaintiffs seek compensation for
the government's alleged taking of their private property for
public use when the Surface Transportation Board, following the
procedures set out in the National Trails System Act, authorized
use of an abandoned rail line as a recreational trail.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class that would include themselves
and more than 325 other Missouri property owners whose property is
similarly situated along the former railroad line. In February of
2015 a Notice of Interim Trail Use (NITU) was issued, which
triggered plaintiffs' claim here. They contend that the use of the
National Trails System Act to allow the abandoned rail line to be
used as a trail interferes with their exclusive rights over their
properties and is therefore a government taking for which they are
owed compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.

In her Memorandum and Order dated July 18, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/Pf93H2 from Leagle.com, Judge Perry concluded that
the Plaintiffs failed to satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) because
they failed to show that questions common to the class predominate
over questions affecting only individual members.

Robert J Atkins, et al. are represented by J. Robert Sears, Esq.,
at BAKER STERCHI COWDEN & RICE

The United States of America is represented by:

      Edward Carlos Thomas, IV, Esq.
      U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
      950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 2242
      Washington, DC 20530-0001
      Tel: (202) 514-2000


UNITED STATES: Lockheed Workers Mull Suit Over Pensions Cut
-----------------------------------------------------------
Annette Cary, writing for Tri-City Herald, reports that workers
who saw their Hanford pensions cut in a largely failed economic
development program are preparing to file a class action lawsuit
July 19 against the Department of Energy.

The planned lawsuit seeks to restore Hanford pension and other
benefits for as many as 500 former and current employees of
Lockheed Martin Services Inc., or LMSI, which provided information
technology and other services at Hanford.

More than 100 people packed a meeting in Richland on July 18 to
hear about the planned lawsuit, which would cover 20 years of
benefit cuts.

"It's not a slam-dunk case," warned Richland attorney
Doug McKinley.

But it may shame the federal government into finally doing the
right thing, he said.

"We have nothing to lose," he added.

Workers have been fighting to have retirement benefits restored
since 1996, when about 2,000 Hanford workers were assigned to
"enterprise companies" as Fluor won the contract for environmental
cleanup at Hanford.

Those companies were no longer considered part of Hanford, and
years of service figured into workers' pensions were capped in
1996.

As most of the enterprise companies folded, some of them by 1998,
their workers typically have been reassigned to other contractors
with full Hanford pension benefits.  But Lockheed Martin Services
has remained "outside the fence," as Hanford workers call it.

Through the years, workers have pursued many avenues to regain
lost pension and other retirement benefits, said Peter Turping, a
former Lockheed Martin Services worker, who led the meeting.

They have met with state and federal elected and nonelected
officials.  They have appealed pension payouts.  They have filed
ethics reports with DOE and Lockheed. They have contacted the DOE
Office of Inspector General and made their case in news articles
in the Tri-City Herald and letters to the editor.

"Really, the only remedy is to file a legal suit," Mr. Turping
said.

Workers have to opt in to the lawsuit.  A signup sheet will be
available at www.mckinleylaw.com in the coming days for workers
who did not sign up at the Richland meeting.  A core group of 30
have been covering legal expenses, so there is no cost to sign up
for the class action lawsuit, Mr. Turping said.

One obstacle the lawsuit faces is the statute of limitations,
McKinley said.  He will be arguing that the clock did not start
running on the case in 1996, but that the case remains current
because the committee of Hanford contractors that oversees the
Hanford pension continues to make decisions regarding it.

In 1996, enterprise companies were formed with the goal of
building long-term, non-Hanford business to become permanent Tri-
City companies and reduce the local economy's reliance on Hanford.
Initially, they were given Hanford work and staffed with employees
of the previous Hanford contractor, Westinghouse and its
subcontractors.

Westinghouse employees, who were not allowed to apply for other
jobs at Hanford, were told that Lockheed Martin Services and other
enterprise companies were "outside the fence," and employees there
would accumulate no more years of Hanford service to increase
their pension benefits when they retired.

"The justification for this injury on LMSI employees was that
enterprise companies were commercial entities and not entitled to
government benefits," said a message sent to LMSI workers invited
to the July 18 meeting.

Not only were years of service frozen on workers' Hanford
pensions, reducing their pension payment, but a retirement medical
benefit and a retirement life insurance benefit were eliminated.

Yet, employees assigned to enterprise companies continued to work
on the same Hanford projects, often at the same desks and with
their same co-workers.

While LMSI employees have long heard that they work for a
commercial company, DOE disagreed when it comes to paying for the
work.

The Department of Energy said that Mission Support Alliance
improperly awarded $63.5 million in taxpayer money as profit to
Lockheed Martin Services, according to an Office of Inspector
General report issued in April.  Lockheed Martin is a principal
owner of Mission Support Alliance, which subcontracted some work
to Lockheed Martin Services.

The report said that the contract with Lockheed Martin Services
was a noncommercial and noncompeted subcontract, making it
ineligible for a profit payment beyond what Mission Support
Alliance received.

"We think that proves our case," Mr. Turping said.

The issue also came up in state Legislature hearing in 2009 after
the state Department of Revenue concluded that Lockheed Martin
Services was not doing cleanup work and was not eligible for a
lower business and occupation tax rate offered to companies
directly involved in Hanford cleanup.  Legislation was proposed
and passed to restore the tax break.

Workers argued then that it was not fair for companies to claim a
Hanford tax break if they did not have to offer their employees
the Hanford benefit package because they were considered
nonHanford companies when it came to employees.


US PENITENTIARY: 3rd Cir. Reinstates "Richardson" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal prisoner can represent a class of inmates in a
prison special protection unit even though he was removed from it
six weeks after filing his lawsuit, the Third Circuit ruled.

Sebastian Richardson was a prisoner at the U.S. Penitentiary at
Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, where he was immediately placed in the
special management unit program.  The program is intended to house
inmates with special security concerns -- individuals with past
histories of violence, or gang related activity -- to ensure they
are not placed in a cell with known enemies.  Once in the program,
inmates are rotated between cells every three weeks, sometimes
getting a new cellmate in the process.

However, Richardson claims the program does not work as intended
at USP Lewisburg. Rather, prison officials frequently place
inmates in cells with hostile cellmates, increasing their risk of
serious injury.

After seven months of living with a compatible cellmate,
Richardson claims prison staff ordered him to "cuff up" on the
cell door so a new inmate could be transferred to this cell.

Richardson refused to cuff up after finding out that his new
cellmate would be a man known to his fellow prisoners as "the
Prophet," who had attacked over 20 former cellmates.

Looking out for his own safety had serious repercussions for
Richardson, according to his December 2011 complaint.

Richardson was allegedly stripped naked, dressed in paper clothes
and held in hard restraints for a month. He also claims he was
forced to sleep on the floor, and frequently refused the use of a
shower or toilet.

Between January 2008 and July 2011, there have been 272 reported
incidents of inmate-on-inmate violence at the prison, he claims.

Richardson filed a class action against USP Lewisburg officials,
seeking a change in the prison's alleged unwritten policy that
encourages intra-inmate violence.

However, he was soon transferred out of the special management
unit, and the prison officials claim that he may no longer serve
as a class representative for prisoners in the SMU.

A federal judge agreed Richardson lacked standing, but the Third
Circuit reversed the decision on July 15.

Precedent establishes that "when a would-be class representative
is not given a 'fair opportunity' to show that certification is
warranted (perhaps because her individual claim became moot before
she could reasonably have been expected to file for class
certification), she should be permitted to continue seeking class
certification for some period of time after her claim has become
moot," Judge D. Brooks Smith said, writing for the three-judge
panel.

Otherwise, class action litigation would devolve into a race
between the parties to see who could act first -- plaintiffs in
moving for class certification, or defendants in mooting those
claims.

"Richardson was transferred out of USP Lewisburg's SMU program a
mere six weeks after he filed his amended complaint," which
clearly did not give him enough time to file for class
certification, Smith said.

The judge continued, "Whatever the outer bounds may be, it is
clear that if a defendant acts to moot a would-be class
representative's claim within six weeks of the filing of a class
action complaint, that plaintiff did not have a fair opportunity
to present his case for class certification to the District
Court."

The court also "excuse[d]" Richardson's failure to file a motion
for class certification because the class certification question
was raised by the defendants and responded to by Richardson within
seven weeks of filing his complaint, so the issue was squarely
before the court.

The case captioned, SEBASTIAN RICHARDSON, Appellant v. DIRECTOR
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; BRYAN A. BLEDSOE;  DAVID YOUNG,
Associate  Warden at USP Lewisburg;  DONALD C. HUDSON, JR.,
Associate Warden; CAPTAIN BRADLEY TRATE; SEAN SNIDER, Deputy
Captain; LT. JAMES FLEMING; LT. PEDRO CARRASQUILLO;  LT. CHRIS
MATTINGLY; LT. MATTHEW SAYLOR; LT. AARON SASSAMAN;  LT. JASON
SEEBA; ROGER MILLER; LT. THOMAS JOHNSON; LT. CAMDEN SCAMPONE;  LT.
KYLE WHITTAKER, No. 15-2876 (3rd Cir.)


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: "Lelaj" Sues Over Denied Incentives
-----------------------------------------------------------
Areti Lelaj on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Verizon Communications Inc. and John Does 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05472 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2016), seeks
economic compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages,
interest, cost of suit, attorneys' fees and any other relief for
violation of the Consumer Fraud Act.

Plaintiff purchased FiOS services but were then denied those
incentives and/or promotional gifts under said purchase. Verizon
offered a $400.00 Verizon prepaid Visa card and an Ellipsis 8
tablet or $200.00 off any tablet from Verizon Wireless if
plaintiff ordered and subscribed to Verizon FiOS service.

Verizon Communications Inc. is a telecommunications corporation
maintaining a corporate domicile in the State of New Jersey and
offering FiOS services throughout the State of New Jersey and
elsewhere.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
     COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
     18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
     Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
     Tel: (856) 727-9700
     Website: www.CostelloMains.com


VIGO COUNTY, IN: Court Dismisses "Grayless" Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge William T. Lawrence of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana dismissed the complaint
in the case captioned, DAVID H. GRAYLESS, VIGO COUNTY JAIL INMATES
IN "P-POD", Plaintiffs, v. VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, SHERIFF GREG
EWING, DEANDREA K. SMILEY, SGT. YARBROUGH, Defendants, Case No.
2:16-CV-281-WTL-MJD (S.D. Ind.).

The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, alleges in the complaint the
Vigo County Commissioners run the jail and are responsible for any
constitutional deprivation that occurs. The plaintiff claims his
due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated
when his pod was placed on a lockdown without notice. Next, the
plaintiff claims that certain defendants violated his equal
protection rights when his pod was placed on lockdown without
notice. Finally, the plaintiff alleges a violation of his rights
under the Eighth Amendment based on the cold temperatures in the
day room.

In the motion, plaintiff requests that the action proceed as a
class action.

In his Entry dated July 12, 2016 available at https://is.gd/UaJahL
from Leagle.com, Judge Lawrence found that the complaint failed to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted because it lacks
factual content allowing the Court to draw the reasonable
inference that the conditions of his confinement involve the
deprivation of a single identifiable human need or the denial of
the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities. The class
certification is denied because he cannot adequately represent a
class action.

The plaintiff has until August 11, 2016 to file an amended
complaint.


VIRGINIA: Court Rules in "Correll" Suit Over Voting Rights
----------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Robert E. Payne of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted in
part Plaintiff's motion for declaratory and injunctive relief in
the case captioned, Carroll Boston Correll, Jr., On behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Mark R.
Herring, In his official capacity as Attorney General of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:16CV467
(E.D. Va.).

Plaintiff Carroll Boston Correll, Jr., a Virginia delegate to the
Republican National Convention, filed a Verified Class Action
Complaint For Injunctive And Declaratory Relief on June 24, 2016.
The original Complaint posited a class consisting of Republican
and Democrat delegates to the parties' respective national
conventions. Subsequently, Correll filed the Amended Complaint,
which does not include Democrat delegates in the putative class.
The Amended Complaint includes allegations purporting to represent
a class of all Virginian delegates to the 2016 Republican National
Convention.

The Amended Complaint presents five counts:

     Count I alleges that Va. Code Sec. 24.2-545(D) violates
Correll's First Amendment right to free political speech, more
specifically his individual right to "vote for a presidential
nominee at a party's nominating convention," "by stripping
delegates" to the 2016 Republican National Convention "of their
freedom to vote their conscience, or to vote consistent with party
rules."

     Count II alleges that Section 545(D) violates Correll's First
Amendment rights of free association, again "by stripping
delegates" to the 2016 Republican National Convention "of their
freedom to vote their conscience, or to vote consistent with party
rules."

     Count III alleges that Section 545(D) "exceeds the powers
retained by the Commonwealth of Virginia under the Constitution of
the United States" and cannot be enforced.

     Count IV and Count V present prayers for forms of relief,
rather than claims upon which relief may be granted.

Immediately after filing his Complaint, Correll filed a Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. During a
telephone conference, the parties shortly thereafter agreed to
consolidate for hearing and decision the request for a restraining
order and the request for a preliminary injunction. The parties
agreed that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2), the Court
should further consolidate the hearing on the preliminary
injunction with a bench trial on the merits.

At trial, the parties presented a Joint Stipulation and ten Joint
Exhibits. Correll presented an additional set of exhibits
consisting of minutes from earlier Republican National
Conventions. Correll and the Intervenors each presented an expert
witness to testify about the Rules of the Republican Party that
govern the proceedings of the national party (RNC Rules),
particularly about RNC Rules 16, 17, 37, and 38. The experts also
testified about certain filings that the Republican Party of
Virginia (RPV) made pursuant to RNC Rule 16.

In his Memorandum Opinion dated July 11, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/zPPOPn from Leagle.com, Judge Payne entered judgment
in Correll's favor on Counts I and II and the Commonwealth will be
permanently enjoined from enforcing Va. Code Sec. 24.2-545(D).
There is no need to enter judgment on Counts IV or Count V because
they are prayers for relief, not claims upon which relief can be
granted.  As to Count III, Correll put on no evidence and did not
argue it that the dismissed it with prejudice.

Carroll Boston Correll, Jr., is represented by Andrew Michael
Grossman, Esq. -- agrossman@bakerlaw.com -- David Boris Rivkin,
Jr., Esq. -- drivlin@bakerlaw.com -- Mark Wendell DeLaquil, Esq.
-- mdelaquil@bakerlaw.com -- and Richard Bryan Raile, Esq. --
rraile@bakerlaw.com -- BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

Mark R. Herring, et al. are represented by:

       Anna Tillie Birkenheier, Esq.
       Heather Hays Lockerman, Esq.
       Joshua David Heslinga, Esq.
       OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
       950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
       Washington, DC 20530-0001
       Tel: (202)353-1555


VISA INC: 3 Canadian Wal-Mart Stores Stops Accepting Cards
----------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Nassauer and Robin Sidel, writing for The Wall Street
Journal, report that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has taken the unusual
step of making its shoppers feel the pain of a dispute with Visa
Inc.

The retail behemoth on July 18 stopped accepting Visa credit cards
at three of its Canadian stores, marking a rare consumer-facing
battle in an escalating war between the biggest global retailer
and credit-card companies, largely over the fees Wal-Mart pays
them.

Despite months of talks, Wal-Mart said it was unable to agree on
terms with Visa.  The retail chain argues that the fees it pays
when shoppers use the cards are too high.  U.S. stores, which
account for 62% of Wal-Mart's global sales, are unaffected by the
Canada dispute and work under a different agreement.

For the showdown, Wal-Mart picked Thunder Bay, Ontario, a town of
120,000 at the northwest corner of Lake Superior relatively
isolated from other major Canadian and northern U.S. cities.

"It's an escalation.  They want to see what the consumer does and
they want to see what Visa does," said Dave Marcotte, a senior
vice president at Kantar Retail, a research and consulting firm.

Because of Thunder Bay's size and location, it's a relatively low-
risk gambit.  "The location kind of keeps things contained," said
Mr. Marcotte.

Wal-Mart plans to roll out the change in phases across Canada,
where it has 405 stores, said a company spokesman. The company
hasn't set a timeline.

Visa says it is working to ensure Canadians can use their cards
everywhere they wish to shop -- including at Wal-Mart stores.

Visa also says there's no evidence that reductions in credit-card-
related fees in other countries have resulted in savings for
consumers.

Some customers caught in the middle voiced their displeasure on
July 18.   "I think Wal-Mart just lost a couple of thousands of
dollars a month from one family," said Rebecca Zajac, who uses her
Visa card from Royal Bank of Canada each week when she shops at
one of the Thunder Bay stores.

Ms. Zajac, who previously saw the signs at Wal-Mart warning that
they would stop accepting Visa on July 18, says she stocked up on
things she likes buying at Wal-Mart in advance and will go to a
different grocery store that accepts Visa.  Wal-Mart had posted
signs at the front of its Thunder Bay stores in June saying it
planned to shut off Visa.

Ms. Zajac, a chef who briefly worked as a Wal-Mart greeter about
15 years ago, says she and her husband are debating whether to go
back if Wal-Mart starts accepting Visa again.

Wal-Mart spokesman Alex Roberton said: "We regret any customer
dissatisfaction" and that the store is "taking a stand for our
customers because Visa's high fees can result in increased
prices."  Mr. Roberton said fewer than 10 customers out of
thousands in affected stores on July 18 didn't have the right form
of payment.

Visa and MasterCard Inc. agreed in late 2014 to cap Canadian fees
at roughly 1.5%, but Wal-Mart and other large merchants typically
are able to negotiate their own deals.

A retailer blocking a credit card "is extremely rare," said Joel
Bines, managing director at AlixPartners, a consultancy. Retailers
are offering shoppers more ways to pay, from card types to mobile
payment, said Mr. Bines.  "Probably the last thing a retailer
should be doing in today's fight for consumer share is making it
harder for customers to shop."

Earlier this year, Wal-Mart and Kroger Co. filed separate lawsuits
against Visa related to new chip-enabled debit cards meant to
enhance the cards' cybersecurity features.  The retailers say that
when shoppers use the new chip cards, they should be able to only
type in a personal identification number, or PIN.

Visa's rules require that customers also have the choice of
signing.  Retailers say signing is more expensive and less secure
than a PIN. U.S. merchants paid roughly $40 billion in interchange
fees last year -- roughly 2% of every transaction, according to
payments consulting firm R.K. Hammer Inc.

Meanwhile, a federal appeals court in June threw out a $7.25
billion antitrust settlement between Visa and MasterCard and
millions of retailers after determining that some of the merchants
covered by the pact weren't adequately represented, ending a
class-action lawsuit that had stretched over a decade.

In Canada, around 59% of people say Wal-Mart is right to cut off
Visa from stores, according to a recent poll from the Angus Reid
Institute, a Canadian polling agency.  However, almost half of
Wal-Mart shoppers surveyed who use Visa said they are less likely
to shop there if the card is banned.

The companies worked to win over public opinion July 18.  On
Twitter, Visa's Canadian account took a jab at Wal-Mart, noting
that Visa is still accepted at many stores in Thunder Bay "most of
them local small businesses."

Visa also started offering a $25 gift card to cardholders who
spend at least $75 at grocery stores. On social media, Wal-Mart
repeated its mantra that Visa's fees indirectly raise prices in
stores.

It's more common for a merchant to cut off acceptance of a single
card brand in the case of a contract's expiration, such as when
Costco Wholesale Corp. recently stopped accepting American Express
cards because it struck a new deal with Citigroup Inc. and Visa.


WORLD WRESTLING: Sued for Hiding Head Trauma Risks
--------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that World Wrestling Entertainment are being sued
by Jimmy "Superfly" Snuka and dozens of other retired male and
female wrestlers over neurological injuries they claimed were
suffered during bouts -- while WWE concealed the risks.

The complaint was filed on behalf of more than 50 plaintiffs who
have performed with WWE or its predecessors since the 1970s,
including Joseph "Road Warrior Animal" Laurinaitis and Paul
"Mr Wonderful" Orndorff.

It accused Stamford, Connecticut-based WWE and chairman Vince
McMahon of intentionally classifying wrestlers as "independent
contractors" rather than employees, as a means to avoid liability
under applicable worker protection laws.

"WWE placed corporate gain over its wrestlers' health, safety, and
financial security, choosing to leave the plaintiffs severely
injured and with no recourse to treat their damaged minds and
bodies," the complaint said.

The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as
improved medical monitoring.

WWE, in a statement, called the lawsuit another attempt to hold it
liable by a lawyer who had two earlier lawsuits dismissed.

"This is another ridiculous attempt by the same attorney who has
previously filed class action lawsuits against WWE, both of which
have been dismissed," the statement said.

"A federal judge has already found that this lawyer made patently
false allegations about WWE, and this is more of the same.  We're
confident this lawsuit will suffer the same fate as his prior
attempts and be dismissed."

WWE has won the dismissal of some claims in other lawsuits
accusing it of hiding the risks of head trauma from wrestling. The
NFL and NHL have also been sued by retired players over head
injuries.

The July 18 complaint was filed with the federal court in New
Haven, Connecticut.

The plaintiffs accused WWE of concealing the risks of the
degenerative brain disease chronic traumatic encephalopathy and
other traumatic brain injuries attributable to wrestling,
including through "scripted" moves it choreographed.

Konstantine Kyros, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, in an email said
WWE's "exploitative business model" kept his clients from learning
their rights under laws such as the federal Occupational Safety
and Health Act.

According to the complaint, Mr. Laurinaitis, 55; Mr. Snuka, 72;
and Mr. Orndorff, 66, suffer from cognitive difficulties including
headaches, dizziness and memory loss.

Messrs. Snuka and Orndorff have also experienced confusion,
depression and mood swings.

The plaintiffs include former referees and identical twins Earl
and Dave Hebner, 66, who according the complaint have experienced
cognitive difficulties.

Dave Hebner has also been diagnosed with Parkinson's disease, the
complaint said.

Below is the full list of plaintiffs (via Wrestle Zone):

JOSEPH M. LAURINAITIS, a.k.a. | Road Warrior Animal

JIMMY "SUPERFLY" SNUKA, by and through |his guardian, Carole Snuka

PAUL ORNDORFF, a.k.a. Mr. Wonderful

SALAVADOR GUERRERO IV, a.k.a. Chavo | Guerrero, Jr.

CHAVO GUERRERO, SR., a.k.a. Chavo Classic

BRYAN EMMETT CLARK, JR., a.k.a. Adam Bomb

ANTHONY NORRIS, a.k.a. Ahmed Johnson

JAMES HARRIS, a.k.a. Kamala

DAVE HEBNER

EARL HEBNER

CHRIS PALLIES, a.k.a. King Kong Bundy

KEN PATERA

TERRY MICHAEL BRUNK, a.k.a. Sabu

BARRY DARSOW, a.k.a. Smash

BILL EADIE a.k.a. Ax

JOHN NORD, a.k.a. The Bezerker

JONATHAN HUGGER a.k.a. Johnny The Bull

JAMES BRUNZELL, a.k.a. Jumpin' Jim

SUSAN GREEN, a.k.a. Sue Green

ANGELO MOSCA, a.k.a. King Kong Mosca

JAMES MANLEY, a.k.a. Jim Powers

MICHAEL "MIKE" ENOS"

BRUCE "BUTCH" REED, a.k.a. The Natural

CARLENE B. MOORE-BEGNAUD, a.k.a. Jazz

SYLVAIN GRENIER

OMAR MIJARES a.k.a. Omar Atlas

DON LEO HEATON, a.k.a. Don Leo Jonathan

TROY MARTIN, a.k.a. Shane Douglas

MARC COPANI, a.k.a. Muhammad Hassan

MARK CANTERBURY, a.k.a. Henry Godwin

VICTORIA OTIS, a.k.a. Princess Victoria|

JUDY HARDEE a.k.a. Judy Martin,

MARK JINDRAK

BERNARD KNIGHTON as Personal Representative of the Brian Knighton,
a.k.a. Axl Rotten, Estate,

MARTY JANNETTY

JON HEIDENREICH

TERRY SZOPINSKI, a.k.a. The Warlord

SIONE HAVEA VAILAHI, a.k.a. The Barbarian

LARRY OLIVER, a.k.a. The Crippler

BOBBI BILLIARD

TIMOTHY SMITH, a.k.a. Rex King

TRACY SMOTHERS, a.k.a. Freddie Joe Floyd

MICHAEL R HALAC, a.k.a. Mantaur

RICK JONES, a.k.a. Black Bart

KEN JOHNSON, a.k.a. Slick

GEORGE GRAY, a.k.a. One Man Gang

FERRIN JESSE BARR, a.k.a. JJ Funk

LOU MARCONI

ROD PRICE

DONALD DRIGGERS

RODNEY BEGNAUD, a.k.a. Rodney Mack

RONALD SCOTT HEARD, a.k.a. Outlaw Ron Bass

BORIS ZHUKOV


YAKIMA REGIONAL: Violated Consumer Protect Act, Court Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------
Molly Rosbach, writing for Yakima Herald, reports that in yet
another blow to Yakima Regional Medical and Cardiac Center in a
lawsuit over its charity care practices, a judge has ruled the
hospital violated the state Consumer Protection Act by failing to
provide adequate financial help to low-income patients.

Besides reaffirming the position of the patients represented in
the class action, the Consumer Protection Act violation means
Regional and Toppenish Medical Center and their corporate owner
could be required to pay up to triple damages, up to $25,000, for
each of those patients.  It was not immediately clear on July 18
how many patients the case could involve.

"Clearly the actions of Defendants (the hospitals) were deceptive
acts or practices," Superior Court Judge Susan L. Hahn wrote in
her ruling, released to the attorneys in the case on July 14.

The lawsuit against Regional, Toppenish and their Florida-based
parent company Health Management Associates (now owned by
Tennessee-based Community Health Systems) was filed in 2013. In
December, the judge ruled in favor of the patients on an earlier
motion, finding that the hospitals violated the state Charity Care
Act by not informing patients of charity care options or screening
them for financial need when they first arrived at the hospital,
as the law requires.

Instead, documents revealed, the hospitals aggressively sought
payment from indigent patients who would have qualified for full
or partial charity care, requiring deposits before medical
services were provided and even sending them to collections for
unpaid bills.

". . . it is likely some indigent patients were unable to pay
these deposits and as a result denied access to qualified medical
services," Judge Hahn wrote in her ruling.

The judge had also previously found that the hospitals' failure to
screen patients for charity care was a breach of contract, since
its demand for payment was based on incorrect assessments of the
patients' eligibility for charity care.

Hospital leadership at Regional declined to comment on the ruling,
citing ongoing litigation.

"What I do want to emphasize is our hospital now uses new charity
care policies approved by the Washington State Department of
Health, policies that we adopted following our affiliation with
CHS in January 2014," administrative director of operations Darrin
Cook wrote in a statement.

By fully establishing the hospitals' liability in the case, this
latest ruling also affects how damages will be sought for patients
included in the suit.  Where Regional's owner has argued that
damages should be determined individually for each person, lawyers
for the patients want to determine the figure as an aggregate
total.

"The state Supreme Court has said, once liability is found, then
you can do damages on an aggregate basis," lead attorney
Ele Hamburger said.  "It puts us in a strong position to argue
that there shouldn't be thousands of jury trials on damages."

Determining damages via individual trials would be "completely
impractical," Ms. Hamburger said earlier this month.

The aforementioned state Supreme Court case "makes a particular
point that to do an individualized process would defeat the
purpose of the class action, and it would let the wrongdoer
benefit because they avoid payment for people who don't show up or
who can't handle the claims process," she said.

That case, Moore v. Washington Health Care Authority, dealt with
public employees who had been wrongfully denied health coverage.

If the judge declares that damages should be calculated in the
aggregate, then after a trial establishes the full amount, members
of the suit will receive a letter informing them how to submit
their claims to receive their share of the money.

The triple-damages piece of the Consumer Protection Act ruling
only applies backward four years, so not every patient would be
eligible for it, Ms. Hamburger said.

This ruling could prove a boost to a similar case against
Northwest Hospital in Seattle, brought by Columbia Legal Services
in June, alleging the hospital there failed to screen emergency
room patients for charity care and refused to allow patients to
apply for charity care after bills had been sent out.

Columbia Legal Services also initiated the case against Regional,
Toppenish and HMA.


YUM! BRANDS: Taco Bell Seeks to Overturn Verdict
------------------------------------------------
Yum! Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 19, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 11, 2016, that Taco Bell denies
liability as to the underpaid meal premium class claim and has
filed a post-trial motion to overturn the verdict.

The Company and Taco Bell were named as defendants in a number of
putative class action suits filed in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010
alleging violations of California labor laws including unpaid
overtime, failure to timely pay wages on termination, failure to
pay accrued vacation wages, failure to pay minimum wage, denial of
meal and rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business
expenses, wrongful termination, discrimination, conversion and
unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of California
Business & Professions Code Sec.17200. Some plaintiffs also sought
penalties for alleged violations of California's Labor Code under
California's Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") as well as
statutory "waiting time" penalties and alleged violations of
California's Unfair Business Practices Act. Plaintiffs sought to
represent a California state-wide class of hourly employees.

These matters were consolidated, and the consolidated case is
styled In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions. The In Re Taco Bell
Wage and Hour Actions plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in
June 2009, and in March 2010 the court approved the parties'
stipulation to dismiss the Company from the action, leaving Taco
Bell as the sole defendant. Plaintiffs filed their motion for
class certification on the vacation and final pay claims in
December 2010, and on September 26, 2011 the court issued its
order denying the certification of the vacation and final pay
claims. Plaintiffs then sought to certify four separate meal and
rest break classes. On January 2, 2013, the court rejected three
of the proposed classes but granted certification with respect to
the late meal break class. The parties thereafter agreed on a list
of putative class members, and the class notice and opt out forms
were mailed on January 21, 2014.

Per order of the court, plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint to clarify the class claims. Plaintiffs also filed a
motion for partial summary judgment. Taco Bell filed motions to
strike and to dismiss, as well as a motion to alter or amend the
second amended complaint. On August 29, 2014, the court denied
plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. On that same
date, the court granted Taco Bell's motion to dismiss all but one
of the PAGA claims. On October 29, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion
to amend the operative complaint and a motion to amend the class
certification order. On December 16, 2014, the court partially
granted both motions, rejecting plaintiffs' proposed on-duty meal
period class but certifying a limited rest break class and
certifying an underpaid meal premium class, and allowing the
plaintiffs to amend the complaint to reflect those certifications.
On December 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed the third amended
complaint. On February 26, 2015, the court denied a motion by Taco
Bell to dismiss or strike the underpaid meal premium class.

Beginning on February 22, 2016, the late meal period class claim,
the limited rest break class claim, the underpaid meal premium
class claim, and the associated statutory "waiting time" penalty
claim was tried to a jury. On March 9, 2016, the jury returned
verdicts in favor of Taco Bell on the late meal period claim, the
limited rest break claim, and the statutory "waiting time" penalty
claim. The jury found for the plaintiffs on the underpaid meal
premium class claim, awarding approximately $0.5 million. A bench
trial was subsequently conducted with respect to the PAGA claims
and plaintiffs' Business & Professions Code Sec.17200 claim.

On April 8, 2016, the court returned a verdict in favor of Taco
Bell on the PAGA claims and the Sec.17200 claim. In a separate
ruling issued the same day, the court also ruled that plaintiffs
were entitled to prejudgment interest on the underpaid meal
premium class claim, awarding approximately $0.3 million.

Taco Bell denies liability as to the underpaid meal premium class
claim and has filed a post-trial motion to overturn the verdict.
Plaintiffs' have also filed various post-trial motions and have
indicated an intention to appeal the jury and court verdicts.

"We have provided for a reasonable estimate of the possible loss
relating to this lawsuit. However, in view of the inherent
uncertainties of litigation, there can be no assurance that this
lawsuit will not result in losses in excess of those currently
provided for in our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements,"
the Company said.


YUM! BRANDS: Appellate Briefing Underway in Taco Bell Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Yum! Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 19, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 11, 2016, that the Ninth Circuit set a
briefing schedule, with plaintiff's brief due on July 27, 2016,
and Taco Bell's answering brief due August 26, 2016.

On May 16, 2013, a putative class action styled Bernardina
Rodriguez v. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in California Superior
Court. The plaintiff sought to represent a class of current and
former California hourly restaurant employees alleging various
violations of California labor laws including failure to provide
meal and rest periods, failure to pay hourly wages, failure to
provide accurate written wage statements, failure to timely pay
all final wages, and unfair or unlawful business practices in
violation of California Business & Professions Code Sec.17200.
This case appears to be duplicative of the In Re Taco Bell Wage
and Hour Actions case. Taco Bell removed the case to federal court
and, on June 25, 2013, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
to include a claim seeking penalties for alleged violations of
PAGA. Taco Bell's motion to dismiss or stay the action in light of
the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions case was denied on
October 30, 2013.

In April 2014 the parties stipulated to address the sufficiency of
plaintiff's legal theory as to her discount meal break claim
before conducting full discovery. A hearing on the parties' cross-
summary judgment motions was held on October 22, 2014, and on
October 23, 2014, the court granted Taco Bell's motion for summary
judgment on the discount meal break claim and denied plaintiff's
motion. Trial was set for mid-April 2016. Plaintiff ceased to
actively pursue this matter and failed to timely file the required
pre-trial statement. Subsequently, plaintiff filed a request to
dismiss with prejudice all of her remaining claims, which the
court approved on March 2, 2016. Plaintiff then filed a notice of
appeal concerning the court's summary judgment ruling. The Ninth
Circuit has set a briefing schedule, with plaintiff's brief
currently due on July 27, 2016, and Taco Bell's answering brief
due August 26, 2016.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit. A reasonable estimate of the
amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at
this time.


* SA Gold Miners File Petitions Against Silicosis Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------
Mining Review reports that gold miners from the Occupational Lung
Disease Working Group have filed petitions with the Supreme Court
of Appeal against the class certification judgment.

Gold miners from the Occupational Lung Disease (OLD) Working Group
each filed petitions to the Supreme Court of Appeal for leave to
appeal against the class action certification judgement delivered
in the South Gauteng High Court on May 13 in relation to workers
suffering from silicosis and tuberculosis.

The companies are made up of African Rainbow Minerals, Anglo
American South Africa, AngloGold Ashanti, Gold Fields, Harmony and
Sibanye Gold.

The High Court certified the establishment of two separate classes
for silicosis and tuberculosis and also changed the common law in
respect of general damages claims.  The court granted leave to
appeal only in respect of the latter point.

The class action suit will represent thousands of gold miners who
contracted the fatal lung disease silicosis while working
underground.  It stretches back decades and includes non-South
African miners who contracted the disease at the time.

The companies say they are conscious of concerns that the appeal
processes will delay finalization of the matters.

The reason they site for the appeal is because the judgment
addresses a number of highly complex and important issues.

The High Court itself found that the scope and magnitude of the
proposed claims is unprecedented in South Africa and that the
class action would address novel and complex issues of fact and
law.

In an attempt to shorten any delay due to an appeal process, it is
permissible to request that the appeals be dealt with on an
expedited basis the gold miners also say.

The companies intend to do this, should leave to appeal be granted
by the Supreme Court of Appeal.

In addition, the Working Group remains of the view that achieving
a mutually acceptable comprehensive settlement which is both fair
to past, present and future employees, and sustainable for the
sector, is preferable to protracted litigation.

The Working Group will continue with its efforts -- which have
been on-going for more than a year -- to find common ground with
stakeholders, including the claimants' legal representatives.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Exclude Expert Report in "Arbogast" OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James K. Bredar of the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland granted Defendant CBS Corporation of
Delaware's motion in limine to exclude the report, opinions, and
testimony of the Plaintiffs' expert as to asbestos exposure, R.
Leonard Vance, Ph.D., J.D. PE, CIH, and, motion for summary
judgment as to all of Plaintiffs' claims against it in the case
captioned CHARLES LEMUEL ARBOGAST, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, v.
A.W. CHESTERTON CO. et al., Defendants, Civil No. JKB-14-4049 (D.
Md.).

A full-text copy of Judge Bredar's Memorandum dated June 6, 2016,
is available at https://is.gd/CDQIhT from Leagle.com.

Charles Lemuel Arbogast, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by David M
Layton, Ashcraft and Gerel LLP, John Eugene Herrick, Motley Rice
LLC & John E Guerry, III, Motley Rice LLC.

Barbara Arbogast, Plaintiff, represented by David M Layton,
Ashcraft and Gerel LLP, John Eugene Herrick, Motley Rice LLC &
John E Guerry, III, Motley Rice LLC.

CBS Corporation of Delaware, Defendant, represented by Clare Marie
Maisano, Evert Weathersby Houff.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Neil Joseph MacDonald,
MacDonald Law Group, LLC, David A Fusco, K and L Gates LLP, James
B Insco, II, K and L Gates LLP, pro hac vice, Michael J Sechler, K
and L Gates LLP & Thomas E Birsic, K and L Gates LLP.

Eaton Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michelle Noorani,
Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP & Warren N Weaver, Whiteford
Taylor and Preston LLP.

Foster Wheeler, LLC., Defendant, represented by R Thomas
Radcliffe, Jr., Dehay and Elliston LLP & Patrick C Smith, Dehay
and Elliston LLP.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by R
Thomas Radcliffe, Jr., Dehay and Elliston LLP & Patrick C Smith,
Dehay and Elliston LLP.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Defendant, represented by F Ford Loker, Jr.,
Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Leianne S McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Michael L Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P Harris, Jr.,
Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R Schroll, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Robin Silver, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Cary I schachter,
Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D Cook, Wilcox and Savage & James E
Hooper, Wheeler Trigg Kennedy LLP.

MCIC, Inc., Defendant, represented by Louis E Grenzer, Jr., Bodie,
Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Neil
Joseph MacDonald, MacDonald Law Group, LLC.

Sepco Corporation, Defendant, represented by F Ford Loker, Jr.,
Miles and Stockbridge PC, Laura A Cellucci, Miles and Stockbridge
PC, Leianne S McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Matthew R Schroll,
Miles and Stockbridge PC & Richard M Lee, Selman Breitman LLP, pro
hac vice.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Danielle
Grilli Marcus, Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP.

Goodrich Corporation, Movant, represented by John C Ruff, DeHay
and Elliston LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Partially Affirms "Boyd" Summary Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John H. Boyd, III, as the representative of plaintiff and
appellant Captain John H. Boyd, Jr. (deceased), appeals the
district court's summary judgment in favor of Warren Pumps, LLC,
and Air and Liquid Systems Corporation (successor in interest to
Buffalo Pumps, Inc.) in a diversity products liability action
alleging that exposure to asbestos from the Appellees' products
during Captain Boyd's service onboard the United States Navy's USS
Gainard and USS McCain in the 1950s caused Captain Boyd to develop
mesothelioma.

Reviewing the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo,
McIndoe v. Huntington Ingalls Inc., 817 F.3d 1170, 1173 (9th Cir.
2016), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case
captioned JOHN H. BOYD, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WARREN PUMPS,
LLC, Defendants-Appellees. JOHN H. BOYD, III, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, sued individually and as
successor-in-interest to Buffalo Pumps, Inc., Defendant-Appellee,
Nos. 13-56975, 13-57018 (9th Cir.).

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's June 16, 2016 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/JAZEwx from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss Eaton Corp. Coverage Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff, Eaton Corporation, filed a suit against Westport
Insurance Corporation.  Eaton alleges that Westport has wrongly
failed to provide coverage for asbestos-related claims under an
excess insurance policy that Westport's predecessor issued to
Eaton's predecessor in 1978.

Judge Lynn Adelman of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin ordered that Westport's motion to
dismiss, or, in the alternative, to transfer venue, is denied.

The case is EATON CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. WESTPORT INSURANCE
CORPORATION F/K/A PURITAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
15-C-1157 (E.D. Wis.).  A full-text copy of Judge Adelman's
Decision and Order dated June 6, 2016, is available at
https://is.gd/VbRmV3 from Leagle.com.

Eaton Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Carmen N Anderson,
Esq. -- canderso@vonbriesen.com -- von Briesen & Roper SC, Jessica
M Reginato, Esq. -- jreginato@vonbriesen.com -- von Briesen &
Roper SC, John T Waldron, K&L Gates LLP, Matthew J Louik, K&L
Gates LLP, Kay M Brady, K&L Gates LLP & Kelly J Noyes, Esq. --
knoyes@vonbriesen.com -- von Briesen & Roper SC.

Westport Insurance Corporation, Defendant, represented by Benjamin
A Blume, Esq. -- bblume@cmk.com -- Carroll McNulty & Kull LLC &
Nicole J Kelly, Esq. -- nkelly@cmk.com -- Carroll McNulty & Kull
LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maine High Ct. Affirms Summary Judgments
---------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Grant and the Estate of Edward Grant appeal from summary
judgments entered against them in the Business and Consumer Docket
(Murphy, J.) on their complaint for negligence; failure to warn of
defective, unreasonably dangerous goods; and loss of consortium.
The judgments were entered upon the motions of New England
Insulation Company; Foster Wheeler, LLC; Warren Pumps, LLC; and
Imo Industries, Inc.  Because the Estate was unable to produce
evidence to establish a prima facie case that any of the named
defendants' products were a proximate cause of the injuries, the
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirms the summary judgments.

The case is PATRICIA GRANT et al. v. FOSTER WHEELER, LLC, et al.,
No. BCD-15-404 (Me.).

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated June 7, 2016, is available
at https://is.gd/Z6L8UG from Leagle.com.

On the briefs:

Kevin M. Noonan, Esq., McTeague Higbee, PA, Topsham, for
appellants Patricia Grant and the Estate of Edward Grant.

Kip Adams, Esq. -- Kip.Adams@lewisbrisbois.com -- and Christopher
Tauro, Esq. -- Chris.Tauro@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, Boston, Massachusetts, for appellee New
England Insulation Company.

Steven F. Wright, Esq., Wright & Associates, P.A., Portland, for
appellees Foster Wheeler, LLC, and Imo Industries, Inc.

Steven F. Wright, Esq., Wright & Associates, P.A., Portland, and
Laurie J. Hepler, Esq., Carroll Burdick & McDonough LLP, San
Francisco, California, for appellee Warren Pumps, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mag. Judge Recommends Denial of Bid to Junk Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate L. Patrick Auld of the United States District Court for
the Middle District of North Carolina, in a June 7, 2016,
memorandum opinion recommend that the court deny Defendant
Brenntag North America, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Personal Jurisdiction and Defendant Brenntag Specialties, Inc.'s
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, and the
Plaintiff's Motion for Limited Jurisdictional Discovery in the
case captioned MERTON ERIC BRANSON, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN
INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, et al., Defendants, No. 1:15cv73
(M.D.N.C.).

Magistrate Auld recommends that the court should deny the
Dismissal Motions, without prejudice to resolution at trial of any
viable personal jurisdiction issues, and will deny as moot the
Discovery Motion.

A full-text copy of Magistrate Auld's Decision is available at
https://is.gd/cOwYS8 from Leagle.com.

MERTON ERIC BRANSON, Plaintiff, represented by JOHN S. HUGHES,
WALLACE AND GRAHAM, P.A., WILLIAM MARC GRAHAM, WALLACE AND GRAHAM,
P.A. & W. MARLOWE RARY, II, WALLACE AND GRAHAM, P.A..

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, Defendant, represented by
CHRISTOPHER ANDREW PAGE, Esq. -- Chris.Page@youngmoorelaw.com --
YOUNG MOORE & HENDERSON, P.A..

AVOCET ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant, represented by JOHN T.
HOLDEN, Esq. -- jholden@dmclaw.com -- DICKIE MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE,
P.C..

BRENNTAG NORTH AMERICA, Defendant, represented by TRACY E. TOMLIN,
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP.

BRENNTAG SPECIALTIES, INC., Defendant, represented by TRACY E.
TOMLIN, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP.

DURO DYNE CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by KENNETH KYRE,
JR., Esq. -- kkyre@pckb-law.com -- PINTO COATES KYRE & BOWERS,
PLLC.

DURO DYNE MACHINERY CORP, Defendant, represented by KENNETH KYRE,
JR., PINTO COATES KYRE & BOWERS, PLLC.

DURO DYNE NATIONAL CORP., Defendant, represented by KENNETH KYRE,
JR., PINTO COATES KYRE & BOWERS, PLLC.

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by
KEITH E. COLTRAIN, Esq. -- Keith.Coltrain@WallTempleton.com --
WALL TEMPLETON & HALDRUP, P.A..

WHITTAKER, CLARK & DANIELS, INC., Defendant, represented by TRACY
E. TOMLIN, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Venue of "Griffin" Suit Transferred to Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James L. Robart of the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington at Seattle, in a June 13, 2016
order granted Sarah Griffin's motion to transfer the venue of her
complaint to the Southern District of California pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1404(a).

Of the current defendants in this matter, only Defendant San Diego
Gas & Electric Company filed an opposition.  SDG&E agrees that
transfer to the Southern District of California is appropriate but
argues that transfer should occur under 28 U.S.C. Section 1406,
rather than under Section 1404, because venue is improper in the
Western District of Washington.  The court has considered the
submissions of the parties, the appropriate portions of the
record, and the relevant law, and no party has requested oral
argument.

A full-text copy of Judge Robart's Decision is available at
https://is.gd/UTHBiA from Leagle.com.

The case is SARAH GRIFFIN, Plaintiff, v. CBS CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. C16-0584JLR (W.D. Wash.).

Sarah Griffin, Plaintiff, represented by Anna D. Knudson, BERGMAN
DRAPER & LADENBURG PLLC, Kaitlin T. Wright, BERGMAN DRAPER &
LADENBURG PLLC, Matthew Phineas Bergman, Esq. --
matt@bergmanlegal.com -- BERGMAN DRAPER & LADENBURG PLLC & Vanessa
Firnhaber Oslund, BERGMAN DRAPER & LADENBURG PLLC.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Barry Neal Mesher,
SEDGWICK LLP, Christopher S. Marks, Williams Kastner & Gibbs LLP,
Megan Maria Coluccio, SEDGWICK LLP & Rachel Tallon Reynolds,
SEDGWICK LLP.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Barry Neal
Mesher, SEDGWICK LLP, Christopher S. Marks, Williams Kastner &
Gibbs LLP, Megan Maria Coluccio, SEDGWICK LLP & Rachel Tallon
Reynolds, SEDGWICK LLP.

IMO Industries Inc, Defendant, represented by James Edward Horne,
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL & Michael Edward Ricketts, GORDON THOMAS
HONEYWELL.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Richard G. Gawlowski, WILSON SMITH COCHRAN & DICKERSON.

San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), Defendant, represented
by Richard D. Ross, BETTS PATTERSON & MINES.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by G. William Shaw, K&L GATES
LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Remand "Murphy" to State Court Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2012, Robin Murphy, a Louisiana citizen, filed a petition
for damages in state court premised upon his alleged occupational
exposure to asbestos-containing materials, in the mid-1960's and
1970's, while working as an electronic technician at Southern Bell
Telephone and as a carpenter helper for Roland Bourgeois.

Removing defendant, Rohm and Haas Company was not initially named
as a defendant in Murphy's suit.  Supplier defendants Eagle, Inc.,
the McCarty Corporation, Reilly-Benton Company, Inc., and Taylor-
Seidenbach, Inc., all Louisiana citizens, however, were named in
the original petition as defendants.  Murphy alleged that the
fault of each of the various defendants "contributed . . . to
[his] exposure to asbestos and subsequent contraction of
mesothelioma."

Murphy was deposed over the course of three separate days in
September and October 2012.  Thereafter, in the summer of 2014, he
dismissed the Non-Diverse Defendants from his lawsuit without
prejudice.  Following Murphy's death on August 14, 2014, the
Plaintiff, also a Louisiana citizen, filed a supplemental and
amending petition for damages, on or about August 14, 2015,
alleging that she is the surviving spouse of Robin Murphy and that
he had passed away as a consequence of his asbestos exposure.  She
asserted wrongful death and survival claims against 26 separate
and diverse defendants, including removing defendant, R&H, and re-
named as defendants the Non-Diverse Defendants that her late
husband had previously dismissed without prejudice.

Following its receipt of service of the First Supplemental
Petition, in September 2015, R&H filed exceptions in state court,
as well as a motion, and proposed order, to set the exceptions for
hearing. Six days later, on October 29, 2015, however, R&H removed
the state court suit to this Court.  The Plaintiff's motion to
remand now before the Court, along with the parties' several
supporting and opposing memoranda, followed.

In seeking remand, the Plaintiff contends that the proper joinder
of the Non-Diverse Defendants in this action precludes complete
diversity of citizenship such that the matter must be remanded to
state court.  The Plaintiff further urges, in the alternative,
that R&H waived any right it had to federal court removal by
filing exceptions to the Plaintiff's First Supplemental Petition,
along with a motion and proposed order to have the exceptions set
for hearing, in state court.  In opposition, R&H argues that the
Non-Diverse Defendants are not properly joined and, thus, their
Louisiana citizenship should not be considered.  Given that, R&H
maintains that diversity is complete, for purposes of the subject
matter jurisdiction provided by 28 U.S.C. Section 1332, such that
the Plaintiffs' request for remand should be denied.  R&H likewise
disputes that it waived its right to federal court removal by
virtue of its pre-removal conduct in state court.

Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana in a June 7, 2016, order and
reasons finds the Non-Diverse Defendants to have been improperly
joined such that their Louisiana citizenship should not be
considered for purposes of establishing subject matter
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332.  Accordingly, because
the other defendants are diverse from the Plaintiff in
citizenship, the Plaintiff's motion to remand is denied.

A full-text copy of Judge Engelhardt's Decision is available at
https://is.gd/Iv4uNN from Leagle.com.

The case is ROBIN MURPHY, ET AL., v. ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC., ET
AL., SECTION "N" (5), Civil Action No. 15-5566 (E.D. La.).

Carolyn Lanoue Murphy, Plaintiff, represented by Lawrence G.
Gettys, Heard, Robins, Cloud & Black, LLP.

Irvin D. Murphy, Plaintiff, represented by Lawrence G. Gettys,
Heard, Robins, Cloud & Black, LLP.

Kelly Murphy Ricks, Plaintiff, represented by Lawrence G. Gettys,
Heard, Robins, Cloud & Black, LLP.

Robin S. Murphy, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Lawrence G.
Gettys, Heard, Robins, Cloud & Black, LLP.

Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc., Defendant, represented by Kay Barnes
Baxter, Esq. -- kay@cs-law.com -- Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC,
Ashley A. Edwards, Esq. -- aedwards@cs-law.com -- Cosmich Simmons
& Brown, PLLC, Georgia Noble Ainsworth, Esq. -- georgia@cs-law.com
-- Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC, Margaret Adams Casey, Esq.,
Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC & Martin James Dempsey, Jr., Esq. --
jimmy@cs-law.com -- Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC.

Certainteed Corporation, Defendant, represented by William Claudy
Harrison, Jr., Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Barbara Bourgeois
Ormsby, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Jennifer E. Adams,
Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP & Marc John Bitner, Deutsch,
Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by John Joseph
Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C.,
James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot
L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C. & Peter R. Tafaro,
Frilot L.L.C..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Jay
Morton Jalenak, Jr., Esq. -- jay.jalenak@keanmiller.com -- Kean
Miller & Patrick Dale Roquemore, Esq. --
patrick.roquemore@keanmiller.com -- Kean Miller.

Eagle, Inc., Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP & James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP.

McCarty Corporation, Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn,
Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Douglas Kinler, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP.

Reilly-Benton Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas L.
Cougill, Esq. -- tomc@willingham-law.com -- Willingham Fultz &
Cougill, Jamie M Zanovec, Esq. -- jamiez@willingham-law.com --
Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Jeanette Seraile-Riggins, Esq.,
Willingham Fultz & Cougill & Jennifer D. Zajac, Esq. --
jenniferz@willingham-law.com -- Willingham Fultz & Cougill.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stephen
Rodney Whalen, Esq. -- stephen.whalen@bswllp.com -- Breazeale,
Sachse & Wilson, L. L. P.

Occidental Chemical Corporation, Defendant, represented by John
Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot
L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan,
Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C. & Peter R.
Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C..

Plastics Engineering Company, Defendant, represented by William
Claudy Harrison, Jr., Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Barbara
Bourgeois Ormsby, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Jennifer E.
Adams, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP & Marc John Bitner,
Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP.

Rogers Corporation, Defendant, represented by Leigh Ann Tschirn
Schell, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Joseph Henry
Hart, IV, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Lori Allen
Waters, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Magali Ann
Puente-Martin, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC & Thomas
A. Porteous, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC.

Rohm & Haas Company, Defendant, represented by Tyson B. Shofstahl,
Adams & Reese, LLP.

Special Electric Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kay
Barnes Baxter, Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC, Ashley A. Edwards,
Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC, Georgia Noble Ainsworth, Cosmich
Simmons & Brown, PLLC, Margaret Adams Casey, Cosmich Simmons &
Brown, PLLC & Martin James Dempsey, Jr., Cosmich Simmons & Brown,
PLLC.

Cooper Industries LLC, Defendant, represented by William Claudy
Harrison, Jr., Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP.

Eaton Corporation, Defendant, represented by Robert E. Barkley,
Jr., Esq. -- rbarkley@barkleythompson.com -- Barkley & Thompson,
L.C., Mark Powell Seyler, Esq. -- mseyler@barkleythompson.com --
Barkley & Thompson, L.C. & Thomas E. Schwab, Esq. --
tschwab@barkleythompson.com -- Barkley & Thompson, L.C..

Siemens Corporation, Defendant, represented by Douglas Watson
Redfearn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & M. Davis Ready,
Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP.

Graybar Electric Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Cynthia
Cleland Roth, Esq. -- croth@bluewilliams.com -- Blue Williams, LLP
& Paul D. Palermo, Esq. -- ppalermo@bluewilliams.com -- Blue
Williams, LLP.

Rockwell Automation, Inc., Defendant, represented by Richard P.
Sulzer, Esq. -- rsulzer@sulzerandwilliams.com -- Sulzer &
Williams, LLC & Robert Edward Williams, IV, Esq. --
rwilliams@sulzerandwilliams.com -- Sulzer & Williams, LLC.

Ward Lumber Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by David John
Calogero, Davidson, Meaux, Sonnier, McElligott, Fontenot, Gideon
&.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel,
III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H.
Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot L.L.C.,
Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C. & Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot
L.L.C..

BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC, Defendant, represented by Nancy
Cundiff, Esq. -- nbrechtel@csa-lawfirm.com -- Cotten, Schmidt &
Abbott, LLP & Christine Changho Bruneau, Esq. -- cbruneau@csa-
lawfirm.com -- Cotten, Schmidt & Abbott, LLP.

AT&T Corp., Defendant, represented by Nancy Cundiff, Cotten,
Schmidt & Abbott, LLP & Erin Wedge Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz
LLP.

Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher
Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, Anne
Elizabeth Medo, Deutsch Kerrigan LLP, David C Bach, Hailey,
McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale LLP, Edward J. Lassus, Jr.,
Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale & Richard J. Garvey, Jr.,
Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale.

Cytec Engineered Materials Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael
W. Rutledge, Esq. -- mrutledge@shmrlaw.com -- Salley, Hite, Mercer
& Resor LLC.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Glenn B.
Adams, Esq. -- gadams@phjlaw.com -- Porteous, Hainkel & Johnson,
Leandro Ryan Area, Esq. -- rarea@phjlaw.com -- Porteous, Hainkel &
Johnson & Nancy Lee Cromartie, Esq. -- ncromartie@phjlaw.com --
Porteous, Hainkel & Johnson.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stacey
Leigh Strain, Esq. -- strain@hubbardmitchell.com -- Hubbard,
Mitchell, Williams & Strain, PLLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Mold Verdict vs. Crane Co. Granted
----------------------------------------------------------
On March 30, 2010, Valent Rabovsky and his wife, Ann Rabovsky,
commenced a civil action against various defendants in the
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, claiming that Valent
Rabovsky, who had worked as a millwright since the 1950s,
developed malignant mesothelioma from work-related exposure to
asbestos and products containing asbestos, which were produced,
manufactured, or sold by Defendants.  This civil action was
removed to federal court on July 1, 2010.  In their amended
complaint, Plaintiffs averred that Defendant Crane Co.,
individually and as successor-in-interest to Chapman Valve
Company, manufactured, produced, sold, and/or supplied Crane Co.
valves at Decedent's work sites.  The Plaintiffs proceeded to
trial against only Defendant Crane Co.; however, liability
assessment of certain other defendants was also presented to the
jury.

On February 2, 2016, a jury trial was held on the issue of whether
Defendant Crane Co. was negligent in failing to warn Plaintiffs of
the danger of exposure to asbestos.  The jury found in favor of
the Plaintiffs and awarded $1,085,000 in damages, consisting of
$835,000 in compensatory damages for the Decedent's Estate under
the Survival Act, 20 Pa. C.S. Section 3371, et seq., and $250,000
for Ann Rabovsky for loss of consortium.  The jury apportioned
liability amongst Defendant Crane Co. and the Settling Defendants,
and specifically assessed liability as follows:

   Joint Tortfeasor Defendant   Apportioned Liability
   --------------------------   ---------------------
   Crane Co.                             30%
   CBS Corporation                       25%
   Foster Wheeler Energy Corp.           20%
   Goulds Pumps, Inc.                    13%
   Doe Run Resources Corp.                5%
   Duquesne Light Company                 5%
   Honeywell International                2%
   AK Steel Corporation                   0%
   Beazer East, Inc.                      0%
   IMO Industries, Inc.                   0%
   Ingersoll-Rand                         0%
   Pennsylvania Electric Company          0%
   United States Steel Corporation        0%
        ______                          100%

Pursuant to the Court's post-trial scheduling order, the
Plaintiffs and Defendant Crane Co. filed motions with supporting
memoranda and later presented oral argument on whether and how the
verdict should be molded.

Judge Nitza I. Quinones Alejandro of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in a June 15,
2016, memorandum opinion denied Crane Co.'s motion to mold the
verdict and award; and granted the Plaintiffs' motions to mold the
verdict against Crane Co. and for delay damages.

The case is ANN RABOVSKY and LYNN C. DOBRICK, Personal
Representative of the Estate of VALENT RABOVSKY, Deceased
Plaintiffs v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al. Defendants,
Civil Action No. 10-3202 (E.D. Pa.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Quinones Alejandro's Decision is available at https://is.gd/p5P3l3
from Leagle.com.

ANN RABOVSKY, Plaintiff, represented by CHARLES E SOECHTING, JR.,
SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER BARTLETT PC, BENJAMIN J. BRALY, SIMON
EDDINS GREENSTONE LLP, DAVID B. HALPERN, BROOKMAN, ROSENBERG,
BROWN & SANDLER, KATHRYN ANN PRYOR, SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER
BARTLETT, PC, KEVIN W. PAUL, SIMON GREENSTURE PANATIER BARTLETT
PC, LISA WHITE SHIRLEY, SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER BARTLETT PC,
RACHEL C. MOUSSA, SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER BARTLETT PC & SEAN R.
COX, SIMON EDDINS GREENSTONE.

LYNN C. DOBRICK, Plaintiff, represented by BENJAMIN J. BRALY,
SIMON EDDINS GREENSTONE LLP, CHARLES E SOECHTING, JR., SIMON
GREENSTONE PANATIER BARTLETT PC, DAVID B. HALPERN, BROOKMAN,
ROSENBERG, BROWN & SANDLER, KATHRYN ANN PRYOR, SIMON GREENSTONE
PANATIER BARTLETT, PC, KEVIN W. PAUL, SIMON GREENSTURE PANATIER
BARTLETT PC, LISA WHITE SHIRLEY, SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER
BARTLETT PC, RACHEL C. MOUSSA, SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER BARTLETT
PC, SAMUEL I. IOLA, pro hac vice, SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER
BARTLETT PC & SEAN R. COX, SIMON EDDINS GREENSTONE.

CRANE CO., Defendant, represented by ERIC R.I. COTTLE, K&L GATES
LLP, GREGORY M. STOKES, SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC, MICHAEL J. ROSS, pro
hac vice, K&L GATES LLP, NICHOLAS P. VARI, pro hac vice, K&L
GATES, G. DANIEL BRUCH, JR., SWARTZ CAMPBELL, LLC, MICHAEL J.
ZUKOWSKI, K&L GATES & TARA L. PEHUSH, pro hac vice, K&L GATES.

THE DOE RUN RESOURCES CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by
NORMAN L. HAASE, SWARTZ, CAMPBELL & DETWEILER.

FLOWSERVE (US), INC., Defendant, represented by TIMOTHY D. RAU,
MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN.

FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by LEROY
J. JANICZEK, REILLY, JANICZEK & MCDEVITT, PC & VINCENT F. REILLY,
REILLY JANICZEK & MCDEVITT, PC.

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, Defendant, represented by PETER J.
NEESON, RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP.

IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, represented by CRAIG FOSTER
TURET, CURTIN & HEEFNER LLP.

KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC., Defendant, represented by DAVID L.
PENNINGTON, HARVEY PENNINGTON CABOT GRIFFITH & RENNEISEN, LTD.

PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, represented by JOHN C.
MCMEEKIN, RAWLE & HENDERSON & SUSAN M. DEAN, RAWLE & HENDERSON
LLP.

RILEY POWER, INC., Defendant, represented by JOAN P. DEPFER,
MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN.

CRANE CO., Defendant, represented by GREGORY M. STOKES, SWARTZ
CAMPBELL LLC & GREGORY M. STOKES, SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC.

THE DOE RUN RESOURCES CORPORATION, Cross Claimant, represented by
NORMAN L. HAASE, SWARTZ, CAMPBELL & DETWEILER.

THE DOE RUN RESOURCES CORPORATION, Cross Defendant, represented by
NORMAN L. HAASE, SWARTZ, CAMPBELL & DETWEILER.

CRANE CO., Cross Defendant, represented by GREGORY M. STOKES,
SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC & GREGORY M. STOKES, SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC.

ANN RABOVSKY, Cross Defendant, represented by BENJAMIN J. BRALY,
SIMON EDDINS GREENSTONE LLP & KEVIN W. PAUL, SIMON GREENSTURE
PANATIER BARTLETT PC.

VALENT RABOVSKY, Cross Defendant, represented by BENJAMIN J.
BRALY, SIMON EDDINS GREENSTONE LLP, KATHRYN ANN PRYOR, SIMON
GREENSTONE PANATIER BARTLETT, PC & RACHEL C. MOUSSA, SIMON
GREENSTONE PANATIER BARTLETT PC.

CRANE CO., Defendant, represented by GREGORY M. STOKES, SWARTZ
CAMPBELL LLC.

IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, represented by CRAIG FOSTER
TURET, CURTIN & HEEFNER LLP.

KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC., Cross Defendant, represented by DAVID L.
PENNINGTON, HARVEY PENNINGTON CABOT GRIFFITH & RENNEISEN, LTD.

PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Cross Defendant, represented by
JOHN C. MCMEEKIN, RAWLE & HENDERSON & SUSAN M. DEAN, RAWLE &
HENDERSON LLP.

RILEY POWER, INC., Cross Defendant, represented by JOAN P. DEPFER,
MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN.

THE DOE RUN RESOURCES CORPORATION, Cross Defendant, represented by
NORMAN L. HAASE, SWARTZ, CAMPBELL & DETWEILER.

CRANE CO., Cross Claimant, represented by GREGORY M. STOKES,
SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC.

IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, represented by CRAIG FOSTER
TURET, CURTIN & HEEFNER LLP.

KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC., Cross Defendant, represented by DAVID L.
PENNINGTON, HARVEY PENNINGTON CABOT GRIFFITH & RENNEISEN, LTD.

PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Cross Defendant, represented by
JOHN C. MCMEEKIN, RAWLE & HENDERSON & SUSAN M. DEAN, RAWLE &
HENDERSON LLP.

RILEY POWER, INC., Cross Defendant, represented by JOAN P. DEPFER,
MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN.

THE DOE RUN RESOURCES CORPORATION, Cross Defendant, represented by
NORMAN L. HAASE, SWARTZ, CAMPBELL & DETWEILER.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: St. Paul's Suit vs. R&Q Reinsurance Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In September 2015, R&Q Reinsurance Company filed a declaratory
judgment action against St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company
in the Northern District of Illinois.  The Illinois court
subsequently transferred that action to the Pennsylvania Court.
Prior to that transfer, in October 2015, St. Paul sued R&Q in this
District for breach of contract on the same underlying claims.
R&Q filed a motion to dismiss the second-filed Pennsylvania
Action.  The Pennsylvania Action was subsequently reassigned to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

U.S. District Judge Berle M. Schiller said R&Q's motion will be
granted, and the Pennsylvania Action will be dismissed without
prejudice.  The Court concludes that the first-filed rule applies,
and that there was no inequitable conduct justifying a departure
from the rule.  St. Paul may assert its claims in its answer to
the surviving action.

The case is ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff,
v. R&Q REINSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Civil Action No. 15-5528
(E.D. Pa.).  A full-text copy of Judge Schiller's June 2, 2016
Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/1uzRyP from Leagle.com.

ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, represented
by DAVID A. ATTISANI, Esq. -- dattisani@choate.com -- CHOATE HALL
& STEWART LLP, pro hac vice, DIANE SEOL, Esq. -- dseol@choate.com
-- CHOATE HALL & STEWART LLP, pro hac vice, IRENE OBERMAN KHAGI,
Esq., CHOATE HALL & STEWART LLP, pro hac vice, PAOLA TRIPODI
KACZYNSKI, LAW OFFICES WILLIAM J FERREN & ASSOC, ROBERT A. KOLE,
Esq. -- rkole@choate.com -- CHOATE HALL & STEWART LLP, pro hac
vice & SAMANTHA KRASNER, Esq. -- skrasner@choate.com -- CHOATE
HALL & STEWART LLP, pro hac vice.

R&Q REINSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by LLOYD A. GURA,
MOUND COTTON WOLLAN & GREENGRASS, MICHAEL H. GOLDSTEIN, MOUND
COTTON WOLLAN & GREENGRASS LLP, pro hac vice, MICHAEL S. HINO,
PEPPER HAMILTON LLP & NICHOLAS H. HORSMON, MOUND COTTON WOLLAN &
GREENGRASS LLP, pro hac vice.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6th Cir. Upholds Prison Term for M. Sawyer
-----------------------------------------------------------
In 2006, Mark Sawyer and four co-defendants formed A&E Salvage and
purchased the salvage rights to a former industrial site in
eastern Tennessee in order to demolish the buildings on site and
obtain salvageable material.  Despite the presence of large
amounts of regulated asbestos-containing material, A&E Salvage
knowingly failed to comply with the National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for asbestos.  The Environmental
Protection Agency eventually intervened and cleaned up the site,
pursuant to its power under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act at a total cost of over
$16 million.  Sawyer eventually pled guilty to one count of
conspiring to violate the Clean Air Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 371.
The district court sentenced Sawyer to a 60-month prison term and
held Sawyer and his co-defendants jointly and severally liable for
$10,388,576.71 in restitution to the EPA.  Sawyer challenges his
sentence and the district court's restitution award.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in a
June 3, 2016, affirmed the sentence and the restitution award.

A full-text copy of the Sixth Circuit's Decision is available at
https://is.gd/0ASbO5 from Leagle.com.

The appeals case is UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. MARK C. SAWYER, Defendant-Appellant, No. 15-5181 (6th Cir.).

ARGUED: Francis L. Lloyd, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS L. LLOYD,
JR., Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellant.

Matthew T. Morris, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Knoxville,
Tennessee, for Appellee.

ON BRIEF: Francis L. Lloyd, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS L. LLOYD,
JR., Knoxville, Tennessee, Ashley Meredith Lowe, BAKER, DONELSON,
BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, Knoxville, Tennessee, for
Appellant.

Matthew T. Morris, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Knoxville,
Tennessee, for Appellee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Court Recommends Remand of "Wines"
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case IN RE ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NEAL WINES, Individually
and as Executor of the Estate of DONNIE LACEY WINES, and on behalf
of all Wrongful Death beneficiaries, Plaintiff, v. ABB, INC., et
al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 14-1190-GMS-SRF (D. Del.),
Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware issued a report and
recommendation on June 10, 2016, recommending that the court grant
the motion to remand to state court on the grounds that the notice
of removal filed by Rockwell Automation Inc., was untimely and
does not meet the requirements of the federal officer removal
statute.

A full-text copy of the Report and Recommendation is available at
https://is.gd/MkMGr9 from Leagle.com.

Neal Wines, Plaintiff, represented by David W. deBruin, The
deBruin Firm LLC.

Alfa Laval Inc., Defendant, represented by Jason A. Cincilla,
Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Amaryah K. Bocchino, Manion Gaynor &
Manning LLP, Jessica L. Reno, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP &
Stephanie Elizabeth Smiertka, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi,
Swartz Campbell LLC.

Durez Corporation, Defendant, represented by Frederick L.
Cottrell, III, Richards, Layton & Finger, PA, Katharine Lester
Mowery, Richards, Layton & Finger, PA & Travis Steven Hunter,
Richards, Layton & Finger, PA.

Eaton Corporation, Defendant, represented by Nicholas E. Skiles,
Swartz Campbell LLC.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Beth E.
Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Ingersoll Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della
Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Ana
Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin,
Jennifer D. Smith, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin,
Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin &
Sarah Anne Fruehauf, City Solicitor's Office.

Occidental Chemical Company, Defendant, represented by Frederick
L. Cottrell, III, Richards, Layton & Finger, PA, Katharine Lester
Mowery, Richards, Layton & Finger, PA & Travis Steven Hunter,
Richards, Layton & Finger, PA.

Rockwell Automation Inc., Defendant, represented by Nicholas E.
Skiles, Swartz Campbell LLC, Joseph S. Naylor, Swartz Campbell LLC
& Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Schneider Electric USA Inc., Defendant, represented by Neal C.
Glenn, Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP, Brian Tome,
Reilly, Janiczek, McDevitt, Henrich & Cholden, P.C. & Daniel
Partick Daly, Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

William Powell Company, Defendant, represented by Anne Kai
Seelaus, Barnard, Mezzanotte, Pinnie and Seelaus.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Master Granted Limited Discovery in "Rhodes"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned VICKI YOUNG, as Personal Representative of
the Estate of JAMES NATHAN RHODES and PAMELA SUSAN RHODES, his
Spouse, Plaintiffs, v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a MINNESOTA MINING AND
MANUFACTURING COMPANY, et al., Defendants, No. 1:13CV864
(M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs filed the action against several
defendants seeking monetary damages for Plaintiff James Nathan
Rhodes, who allegedly contracted asbestos cancer from exposure to
asbestos dust while working in the mechanical and industrial
employment field.  Mr. Rhodes subsequently died as a result of his
asbestos caused disease, Mesothelioma.  An amended complaint was
filed to add a claim for wrongful death, and to substitute and add
parties to this action.  The Plaintiffs thereafter filed a second
amended complaint to add additional parties including Master and
MIW.  Master and MIW both filed motions to dismiss. On February
11, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed the pending motion for limited
jurisdictional discovery pertaining to Master and MIW.

Magistrate Judge Joe L. Webster of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, in a June 2, 2016
memorandum opinion and order granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
limited jurisdictional discovery regarding defendants Master
Industries, Inc., and Master Industries Worldwide, LLC.  In
granting jurisdictional discovery, the court will limit discovery
to the topic of specific jurisdiction with respect to Master and
MIW.  The Plaintiffs may serve eight interrogatories and requests
for production of documents on both Master and MIW related solely
to the issue of specific jurisdiction, according to the court.

A full-text copy of Magistrate Webster's decision is available at
https://is.gd/zqCFdV from Leagle.com.

VICKI YOUNG, Plaintiff, represented by JOHN S. HUGHES, WALLACE AND
GRAHAM, P.A., MONA LISA WALLACE, WALLACE AND GRAHAM, P.A., W.
MARLOWE RARY, II, WALLACE AND GRAHAM, P.A. & WILLIAM MARC GRAHAM,
WALLACE AND GRAHAM, P.A..

PAMELA SUSAN RHODES, Plaintiff, represented by JOHN S. HUGHES,
WALLACE AND GRAHAM, P.A., MONA LISA WALLACE, WALLACE AND GRAHAM,
P.A. & WILLIAM MARC GRAHAM, WALLACE AND GRAHAM, P.A..

ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, represented by TIMOTHY
PECK, SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD LLP.

CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC., Defendant, represented by STEPHEN B.
WILLIAMSON, Van Winkle, Buck, Wall, Starnes & Davis, P.A..

CROSBY VALVE, INC., Defendant, represented by TRACY E. TOMLIN,
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP.

ELLIOTT COMPANY, Defendant, represented by TRACY E. TOMLIN, NELSON
MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP.

FISHER CONTROLS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendant, represented by
DANIEL B. WHITE, GALLIVAN WHITE & BOYD, P.A., JAMES M. DEDMAN, IV,
GALLIVAN WHITE & BOYD, P.A., JACOB M. BIBIS, VON BRIESEN & ROPER,
S. C. & JOHN G. GOLLER, VON BRIESEN & ROPER, S. C..

FLOWSERVE CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by DANIEL B. WHITE,
GALLIVAN WHITE & BOYD, P.A., JAMES M. DEDMAN, IV, GALLIVAN WHITE &
BOYD, P.A., TIMOTHY W. BOUCH, Leath Bouch & Seekings, LLP &
STEPHANIE G. FLYNN, GALLIVAN WHITE & BOYD, P.A..

GARDNER DENVER, INC., Defendant, represented by AMY C. DRAYTON,
DEAN & GIBSON, PLLC.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, represented by JENNIFER M.
TECHMAN, EVERT WEATHERSBY HOUFF.

GOULDS PUMPS, INC., Defendant, represented by TRACY E. TOMLIN,
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, TRAVIS ANDREW BUSTAMANTE,
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP & WILLIAM MICHAEL STARR,
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP.

INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY, Defendant, represented by TIMOTHY PECK,
SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD LLP.

RILEY POWER, INC., Defendant, represented by ERIN ELAINE SHOFNER,
HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG, LLP & TERESA LAZZARONI, HAWKINS
PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG, LLP.

UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by CHARLES M.
SPRINKLE, III, HAYNSWORTH SINKLER BOYD, P.A., MOFFATT G. MCDONALD,
HAYNSWORTH SINKLER BOYD, P.A., SCOTT E. FRICK, HAYNSWORTH SINKLER
BOYD, P.A. & W. DAVID CONNER, HAYNSWORTH SINKLER BOYD, P.A..

UNITED CONVEYOR CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by TIMOTHY
PECK, SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD LLP.

WARREN PUMPS, LLC, Defendant, represented by JOSHUA HAMILTON
BENNETT, BENNETT & GUTHRIE, P.L.L.C..

YUBA HEAT TRANSFER, LLC., Defendant, represented by WILLIAM
MICHAEL STARR, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP.

AURORA PUMP, Defendant, represented by TRACY E. TOMLIN, NELSON
MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP.

CBS CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by JENNIFER M. TECHMAN,
EVERT WEATHERSBY HOUFF.

CRANE CO., Defendant, represented by RONALD A. CHARLOT, K&L GATES
LLP & RICHARD A. FARRIER, K&L GATES LLP.

AMERICAN TALC COMPANY, Defendant, represented by TRACY E. TOMLIN,
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP.

BRENNTAG NORTH AMERICA, Defendant, represented by TRACY E. TOMLIN,
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP.

BRENNTAG SPECIALTIES, INC., Defendant, represented by TRACY E.
TOMLIN, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP.

MASTER INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER
CARLISLE LAM, BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP.

MASTER INDUSTRIES WORLDWIDE, LLC, Defendant, represented by
RICHARD T. BOYETTE, CRANFILL SUMNER & HARTZOG & LAURA E. DEAN,
CRANFILL SUMNER & HARTZOG LLP.

MILWHITE, INC., Defendant, represented by TRACY E. TOMLIN, NELSON
MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP.

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by
KEITH E. COLTRAIN, WALL TEMPLETON & HALDRUP, P.A..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Corp. Junked as Defendant in "Donlon"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles R. Breyer of the United States District Court, N.D.
California, San Francisco Division, ruled that the complaint
captioned PATTI DONLON, Individually and as Succcesor-in-Interest
to the Estate of PATRICK THEISEN DONLON, Decedent; SEAN DONLON;
and DOES ONE through TEN, inclusive, Plaintiffs, v. AC AND S,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. CV 3:11-03376-CRB (JSC)(N.D.
Calif.), is dismissed, with prejudice, as to defendant Asbestos
Corporation, Limited.

A full-text copy of Judge Breyer's Order dated July 19, 2016, is
available at https://is.gd/f4OtUl from Leagle.com.

Patti Donlon, Plaintiff, represented by Katherine Yao Wang,
Harowitz & Tigerman, Roger Edward Gold, Harowitz & Tigerman, LLP,
Stephen Michael Tigerman, Esq. -- tigerman@htlawoffices.com --
Harowitz & Tigerman LLP & Steven Marc Harowitz, Esq. --
harowitz@htlawoffices.com -- Harowitz and Tigerman, LLP.

Sean Donlon, Plaintiff, represented by Roger Edward Gold, Harowitz
& Tigerman, LLP, Stephen Michael Tigerman, Harowitz & Tigerman LLP
& Steven Marc Harowitz, Harowitz and Tigerman, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Continues to Defend Claims at June 24
----------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corporation continues to defend itself against asbestos-
related personal injury claims, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 24, 2016.

The Company states, "Casualty reserves of $246 million and $269
million as of June 24, 2016 and December 25, 2015, respectively,
represent accruals for personal injury, asbestos and occupational
injury claims. The Company's self-insured retention amount for
these claims is $50 million per occurrence. Currently, no
individual claim is expected to exceed the self-insured retention
amount. In accordance with the Contingencies Topic in the ASC, to
the extent the value of an individual claim exceeds the self-
insured retention amount, the Company would present the liability
on a gross basis with a corresponding receivable for insurance
recoveries. These reserves fluctuate based upon the timing of
payments as well as changes in estimate. Actual results may vary
from estimates due to the number, type and severity of the injury,
costs of medical treatments and uncertainties in litigation. Most
of the Company's casualty claims relate to CSXT unless otherwise
noted below. Defense and processing costs, which historically have
been insignificant and are anticipated to be insignificant in the
future, are not included in the recorded liabilities.

"Personal injury reserves represent liabilities for employee work-
related and third-party injuries. Work-related injuries for CSXT
employees are primarily subject to the Federal Employers'
Liability Act ("FELA"). In addition to FELA liabilities, employees
of other current or former CSX subsidiaries are covered by various
state workers' compensation laws, the Federal Longshore and Harbor
Workers' Compensation Program or the Maritime Jones Act.

"CSXT retains an independent actuary to assist management in
assessing the value of personal injury claims. An analysis is
performed by the actuary quarterly and is reviewed by management.
This analysis for the quarter resulted in an immaterial adjustment
to the personal injury reserve. The methodology used by the
actuary includes a development factor to reflect growth or
reduction in the value of these personal injury claims. It is
based largely on CSXT's historical claims and settlement
experience.

"The Company is party to a number of asbestos claims by employees
alleging exposure to asbestos in the workplace. Management reviews
asserted asbestos claims quarterly.  Unasserted or incurred but
not reported ("IBNR") asbestos claims are analyzed by a third-
party specialist and reviewed by management annually.

CSXT's historical claim filings, settlement amounts, and dismissal
rates are analyzed to determine future anticipated claim filing
rates and average settlement values for asbestos claims reserves.
The potentially exposed population is estimated by using CSXT's
employment records and industry data. From this analysis, the
specialist estimates the IBNR claims liabilities.

"Occupational claims arise from allegations of exposure to certain
materials in the workplace, such as solvents, soaps, chemicals
(collectively referred to as "irritants") and diesel fuels (like
exhaust fumes) or allegations of chronic physical injuries
resulting from work conditions, such as repetitive stress
injuries, carpal tunnel syndrome and hearing loss."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Has 1 Case Set fro Trial This Year
-------------------------------------------------------
GMS Inc. has one asbestos-related personal injury case currently
scheduled for trial later this year and is in the early stages of
discovery, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
April 30, 2016.

The Company states "The building materials industry has been
subject to personal injury and property damage claims arising from
alleged exposure to raw materials contained in building products
as well as claims for incidents of catastrophic loss, such as
building fires. As a distributor of building materials, we face an
inherent risk of exposure to product liability claims in the event
that the use of the products we have distributed in the past or
may in the future distribute is alleged to have resulted in
economic loss, personal injury or property damage or violated
environmental, health or safety or other laws. Such product
liability claims have included and may in the future include
allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a
failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence,
strict liability or a breach of warranties. In particular, certain
of our subsidiaries have been the subject of claims related to
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products they distributed
prior to 1979, which have not materially impacted our financial
condition or operating results. Since 2002, approximately 944
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits have been brought and we
vigorously defend against them. Of these, 855 have been dismissed
without any payment by us, 21 are on deferred or inactive court
dockets, 63 are pending and only 5 have been settled. In total, we
have paid an aggregate of less than $300,000,000 in connection
with these settlements. One of the pending cases is currently
scheduled for trial later this year and is in the early stages of
discovery. The complaint names one of our subsidiaries, along with
multiple other parties, as a defendant and seeks unspecified
damages. Despite our past experience, the amount, if any, required
to resolve this matter may be significantly higher than amounts
paid in prior settlements and could be material to us. We have not
recorded a reserve, nor disclosed a potential range, for this
matter because the amount of any exposure cannot be reasonably
estimated at this time.  We are exposed to product liability,
warranty, casualty, construction defect, contract, tort,
employment and other claims and legal proceedings related to our
business, the products we distribute, the services we provide and
services provided for us by third parties."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Court Adopts Remand Recommendation
--------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Delaware federal court has
adopted a report and recommendation of a magistrate judge that
suggested an asbestos case be remanded to state court, according
to a recent order.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware issued the
order on July 21; in it, the court adopted a report and
recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Sherry Fallon, in which
the judge concluded that there was no causal connection between
"the claims and the conduct performed under color of a federal
office."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Missouri Federal Court Remands Asbestos Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Missouri federal court has
remanded an asbestos suit, concluding that the removing defendant
had not met its burden to show that one of the defendants was
fraudulently joined.

In the July 22 order, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri remanded the case to the St. Louis Circuit
Court.

Plaintiff James Hartfield filed the underlying claims, contending
that he developed mesothelioma as a result of secondhand exposure.
Hartfield specifically said that his father -- a pipefitter for
nearly 20 years -- brought asbestos fibers home on his work
clothing.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer's Bid for Summary Ruling Junked
--------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Louisiana federal court
has denied an insurer's motion for summary judgment in an asbestos
case without prejudice, arguing that, since discovery has yet to
take place, the motion is premature.

In the July 21 order, the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana said that the insurer filed the motion prior
to the commencement of formal discovery and, as such, the
insurance company's motion "is simply premature."

Plaintiff William D. Coleman asserted the claims, contending that
he was exposed to asbestos at the Libbey-Owens-Ford Plant in
Louisiana.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Jury Reaches Defense Verdict in Talc Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a California jury has
reached a defense verdict at the conclusion of an asbestos trial
involving Colgate-Palmolive Co.'s Cashmere Bouquet talc product,
rejecting the plaintiff's claims that exposure to asbestos in the
talcum powder caused her to develop mesothelioma.

Judge C. Edward Simpson of the California Superior Court for Los
Angeles County presided over the trial, which ended in a verdict
on July 21. The trial lasted nine days and the jury deliberated
for three hours before reaching a defense verdict, sources told
HarrisMartin.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fake Contractor Exposes Asbestos
-------------------------------------------------
Fairfield City Champion reported that unlicensed contractors
exposed asbestos when they used a high-pressure water hose on a
house roof, causing a clean-up bill that could total tens of
thousands of dollars for a Fairfield householder.

Council's Environmental Management officers are investigating the
incident that potentially exposed residents in the Fairfield Local
Government Area to asbestos.

It has prompted a warning from Fairfield City Council for
residents to be asbestos aware and to be wary of "fly-by-night"
operators.

"Unlicensed contractors advertising and promoting roof cleaning
and restoration within the Fairfield LGA were recently paid to
'clean' a residential roof," Mayor of Fairfield City Frank Carbone
said.

"A high-pressure water device was used, resulting in a pollution
incident. The owner has been left with a substantial asbestos
clean-up cost for her property as well as her adjacent neighbours'
properties.

"The contractors have 'disappeared' after being paid and cannot be
contacted."

The Asbestos Education Committee website states that if asbestos
is disturbed it can release dangerous fine particles of dust
containing asbestos fibres.

Breathing in this dust can cause asbestosis, lung cancer and
mesothelioma, which is the cancer that most often occurs in the
lining of the lung.

There is no cure. If you are thinking about renovating, it is
important for home owners and renovators to be aware of how to
safely manage asbestos in and around the home.

Facts to keep in mind:

* Homes built or renovated before 1987 have a high potential to
contain asbestos materials (this may include the roof)

* If an offer seems too good to be true -- it probably is.

Before engaging contractors to do work that may involve asbestos,
or if you are not sure if they are licensed, contact WorkCover NSW
on 131 050.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Essex School Fined GBP46K for Asbestos Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Will Lodgewill, writing for East Anglian Daily Times, reported
that a mid-Essex school has been ordered to pay GBP46,000 after a
poorly-planned refurbishment exposed staff to asbestos.

Managers at The Boswells School, in Chelmsford, converted an old
boiler room into a cleaning store.

During the work asbestos residue on the walls was disturbed and
caretakers swept contaminated debris from floors.

Their exposure to risk only came to light after a later asbestos
survey was completed in the area, Chelmsford Crown Court heard on
Friday.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found
materials containing asbestos were also present in other areas,
and school caretaking staff and contractors had disturbed the
fabric of school buildings over many years without being alerted
to their presence.

Anyone who entered potentially contaminated areas were placed at
risk of developing serious ill health conditions. The school, in
Burnham Road, also failed to ensure that spread of asbestos was
prevented or reduced.

Boswells Academy Trust pleaded guilty to breaching two health and
safety regulations.

Judge David Turner QC fined the trust GBP26,000 and ordered it to
pay costs of GBP20,000.

Glyn Davies, HSE inspector, said after the hearing: "The Boswells
Academy Trust should have controlled this potentially lethal risk
by identifying the type, location and condition of any asbestos
containing materials within the fabric of the school, and by
implementing suitable precautions to prevent its disturbance.

"It should then have ensured such information was shared with
anyone liable to disturb this fabric.

"This prosecution should act as a reminder, not just to schools,
but to all persons in control of the repair and maintenance of
non-domestic premises, of the need to ensure correct measures are
put in place."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Body Powder Suits Proposed for MDL Consolidation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that
with more than 1,200 talcum powder lawsuits alleging ovarian
cancer risk in association with use of a heritage Johnson &
Johnson product, a motion has been filed proposing consolidation
by the US Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for pre-trial
proceedings.

The Motion for Transfer was officially filed July 15th, with the
proposed jurisdiction identified as the Southern District of
Illinois.

Body powder and cancer has been in the news for some time given
allegations that Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower-to-
Shower products are linked to ovarian cancer. In the past several
months two bellwether cases found for the plaintiffs, with
substantial awards tied to the outcome. In a third Johnson &
Johnson lawsuit, the jury also found for the plaintiff, although
no monetary award was extended to the plaintiff involved.

According to a CBS News report back in May (05/03/16) talc is a
naturally-occurring mineral comprised of magnesium, silicon and
oxygen. In its natural form, talc can also contain asbestos --
although CBS News is quick to point out that talcum products sold
in the US have not contained asbestos since the 1970s.

That's an important observation, given the prevalence of talc as a
widely-used ingredient in cosmetics and personal care products.

The presence of asbestos in talcum powder prior to the 1970s
notwithstanding, positions on the modern-day talcum powder, and
the outcomes of research are mixed -- at least, according to the
American Cancer Society.

As an example, Dr. Francisco Xynos of SSM Health St. Mary's
Hospital in St. Louis told a CBS affiliate that scientific
evidence linking talc to cancer is somewhat weak. "I think the
concern for the general population should be negligible, because
there is no scientific proof of that," Xynos said, in comments to
KMOX in St. Louis.

And yet the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an
offshoot of the World Health Organization, holds that talcum-based
body powder used in the genital area is "possibly carcinogenic to
humans."

Dr. Daniel Cramer is more forceful than that. The Director of the
OB/GYN Epidemiology Center at Brigham and Women's Hospital in
Boston, has reportedly conducted his own studies and has concluded
the link between genital use of talc-based body powder and ovarian
cancer is very real, and the evidence is compelling.

"I think the link is a persuasive one," Cramer told CBS Boston.
"There have been more than 20 epidemiologic studies and a majority
of these have found an elevated risk, and when you combine those
risks into a single estimate, it is highly significant."

During the trial associated with the body powder lawsuit brought
by the family of the late Jackie Fox, it was revealed that Johnson
& Johnson knew as early as 1997 that there was the potential for a
link between body powder containing talc, and ovarian cancer when
used on the genitals -- a common use.

Talcum powder lawsuit attorneys engaged by the plaintiff
introduced into evidence an internal memo from a Johnson & Johnson
medical consultant suggesting to the pharmaceutical giant that
denying any cancer risk associated with body powder use could
result in a talc industry "perceived by the public like it
perceives the cigarette industry: denying the obvious in the face
of all evidence to the contrary."

In other words, noted Fox's legal team, Johnson & Johnson made a
conscious decision in 1997 to avoid warning consumers about the
potential risk for ovarian cancer through the use of talcum
powder.

Jackie Fox, a woman from Birmingham, Alabama, was diagnosed with
ovarian cancer in March, 2013 and died in October, 2015 after
living with ovarian cancer for over two years. A talcum powder
lawsuit alleging wrongful death from body powder and cancer was
brought by the victim's son.

A jury awarded the plaintiff $72 million (Fox v. Johnson &
Johnson, Case No. 1422-CC09012-01, Division 10, Missouri Circuit
Court, 22nd Judicial District St. Louis). Johnson & Johnson is set
to appeal the verdict. Meanwhile, with scores of women having used
Johnson & Johnson body powder across decades -- over entire
lifetimes, in some cases -- it is prudent to assume cases
suggesting a link between body powder and cancer will grow beyond
the 1,200 cases now proposed for multi district consolidation in
the Southern District of Illinois.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Superfund Site Gets Dedicated Fire Team
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Pholphiboun, writing for KPAX.com, reported that it's taken
months to find firefighters willing to take on the danger of
battling blazes in areas with dangerous levels of asbestos, but
now, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Forest
Service have put together a team ready for the challenge.

EPA Superfund Project Manager Christina Progess says with the
current high level of asbestos still in and around the WR Grace
Superfund site, special gear will be needed when fighting fires in
that area.

A new team of four specially trained firefighters are now in place
while fire packs, one fire engine, dozers, water tenders and a
helicopter are dedicated resources to this specific area.

"We find that asbestos have been in the bark and in the duff which
is the litter on the forest floor and unless you disturb it, the
asbestos remains where it is," Progess said.

Two small test burns were conducted last year and findings showed
exposure to asbestos were very high and prolonged exposure can
lead to heath concerns like cancer.

Handcrew Leader Jason Sunell says that the new gear changes it up
a bit. "Probably working about 60% to 70% of your production rate;
unlike what you'd be at your 90% to 100% as just a normal fire
fighter."

The fire pack can weigh up to 40 pounds while crews may take
several hours hiking up to the fire site and wearing this
respirator mask. Because crews are now working with a respirator,
working hours are cut down by half.

The funding is shared between the USFS and the EPA.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Concerns Raised
-----------------------------------------
Jonathan Bell, writing for The Royal Gazette, reported that
concerns of asbestos contamination have risen in the aftermath of
a conflagration in Hamilton that burnt down one of the city's
oldest buildings.

Sources told The Royal Gazette that firefighters had flagged up
the issue, given the building's age, and its proximity to
restaurants.

Asbestos exposure is generally only considered serious if the dust
goes airborne. The material was once widely used in construction.

Mayor Charles Gosling said that no worries had been communicated
to City Hall.

A government spokeswoman last night said the matter remained under
investigation.

"At this time it is not certain whether the claims are accurate or
not," she said.

"The Department of Health is liaising with the Bermuda Fire and
Rescue Service to ascertain the facts and plan necessary steps
accordingly."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: College Reprimanded Over Asbestos Removal
----------------------------------------------------------
Droitwich Spa Advertiser reported that a Worcester school has been
reprimanded by the health and safety executive about the way it
removed an asbestos roof.

Two 18-year-old workers knocked the asbestos down from the roof of
a small outbuilding at Christopher Whitehead Language College
during the October half term in 2013.

Following an investigation, the college has received a letter of
contravention of health and safety, upholding a complaint by
public service union, Unison.

Unison said it had complained to the HSE after becoming concerned
that the removal of the asbestos breached health and safety
guidelines.

Charlie Sarell, Unison West Midlands regional organiser, said: "We
are glad that the Health & Safety Executive have concluded their
investigation into issues at the school, after concerns raised by
Unison.

"If it wasn't for the hard work and determination of our members,
this issue would never have seen the light of day.

"Serious concerns, however, remain for staff, pupils and parents."

However, the school's headteacher Neil Morris denied there were
serious concerns and said the school had improved its health and
safety policies as a result.

He said the building in question was a small lean-to with a roof
"no bigger than a door" that was falling down and had to be
removed.

The school was given advice on how to remove the asbestos by
Worcestershire County Council and opted to do so in October when
the weather was damp and double bagged it as instructed.

He said: "The only thing we didn't get right was two of the young
lads, 18-year-old employees, were knocking it down from the roof
so the asbestos was falling down.

"The concern was could we have done it in a safer manner.

"With hindsight, we could and should have done it in a better
manner.

"But have the actions we've taken made it (health and safety
procedure) even safer? Not only I but the HSE think our actions
are exemplary and model practice."

He added: "We've had one complaint in 13 years.

"This was three years ago and in our final meeting with HSE they
felt we were in a better position to deal with asbestos in the
future which undoubtedly we will have to do."

"No pupils or staff were at risk."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Death Sees GBP228K Payout
---------------------------------------------------
David Shepherd, writing for South West Business, reported that
widow Mary Atkins has been awarded GBP228,000 in damages from an
engineering company after her husband died from a condition
related to asbestos exposure.

Mrs Atkins, who lives in Wollaston, near Lydney, brought the case
after her husband Richard died from mesothelioma in 2013.

He was an apprentice and engineer at APE Allen, part of Queen's
Engineering Works in Bedford.

He was exposed to the asbestos while working there in the 1960s.

Mrs Atkins' solicitor Brigitte Chandler, from Swindon law firm
Charles Lucas & Marshall and one of the UK's leading legal
specialists in asbestos cases, said as the exposure to the
substance took place more than 50 years ago it had been initially
difficult to find witnesses.

"However, we were able to trace a former colleague of Mr Atkins to
New Zealand who remembered the exposure to asbestos and gave a
statement," she said.

"This forced the company to accept liability."

Mr Atkins was involved in the installation and service work on
ships and at pumping stations dealing with diesel engines,
turbines and pipes.

He worked on ships in the Cammell Laird yard in Birkenhead, near
Liverpool, and Portsmouth.

"Asbestos was widely used in boiler and engine rooms on ships,"
said Mrs Chandler.

"Quite often, the work involved removing small amounts of
asbestos."

Developing asbestos disease can take up to 70 years from the point
of exposure.

Mrs Atkins was able to bring a claim for damages due to her
husband's pain and suffering and her loss of income.

Mrs Chandler said: "Many people may have forgotten they were
exposed to asbestos.

"It can happen in the home or in work or even from people bringing
it home on their clothes. If anyone develops chest pains they
should seek medical advice."

Mesothelioma is a type of cancer which most often starts in the
covering of the lungs but can also start in the abdomen.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gov't Charged Only 2 Asbestos Importers in 8 Yrs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Burrell, writing for The Australian, reported that federal
authorities have prosecuted just two companies found to have
imported asbestos-laced materials since 2008 and extracted a
meagre $64,000 in fines, despite mounting evidence thousands of
contaminated products are slipping past border controls.

As business groups and unions call for urgent action after recent
asbestos scandals at building sites in Brisbane and Perth, it has
emerged that the maximum fine for illegally importing asbestos --
$180,000 -- has never been imposed.

Michael Shepherd, the president of the Asbestos Industry
Association which represents businesses engaged in abating the
hazardous material, said asbestos was entering the country from
China because Australian Border Force was checking less than 5 per
cent of all products imported.

He said products containing asbestos were only detected by "pure
chance" and nobody knew the full extent of the problem.

Mr Shepherd said companies importing cheap materials were
unconcerned about being fined because of the rarity of Australian
prosecutions.

Companies knew they could save millions of dollars by taking a
chance on importing cheaper materials from China -- where asbestos
is common -- rather than sourcing them in Australia.

"The maximum penalty is $180,000 but the true cost of rectifying
these issues is going to be in the multi-millions if we have to
pull out asbestos and shut down buildings," he said.

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection told a Senate
inquiry this year that the total amount of fines, penalties and
costs imposed for asbestos importation offences since 2009 stood
at $64,000.

It is believed that authorities have prosecuted only two cases of
importing asbestos-contaminated material since 2008: one involving
Chinese machinery, the other industrial equipment from Vietnam.

There have been no prosecutions for the importation of building
products containing asbestos, despite rising fear of contamination
at construction sites around the country.

In its interim report handed down in May, the Senate committee
raised "major concerns" about the ability of Australia's
enforcement agencies to effectively police borders so that
products containing asbestos were detected.

"At the moment, this area of enforcement appears to require
substantial strengthening and should be a high priority for
government," the committee said.

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection did not
respond to questions from The Weekend Australian about
prosecutions it had overseen.

It emerged that the $1.2 billion Perth Children's Hospital project
and the 1 William Street tower in Brisbane were contaminated by
asbestos in products supplied by Chinese company Yuanda.

The Perth site had white asbestos, or chrysotile, in some Yuanda-
made roof panels; the Brisbane tower was found to have asbestos-
tainted gaskets.

Border Force has halted 21 Yuanda containers at various ports and
executed warrants at company offices in Sydney and Brisbane.

Mr Shepherd called for compulsory asbestos testing of all
materials imported from China.

"That will be a cost to industry but it's a fraction of the cost
in the long term in terms of health impacts and managing the
asbestos," he said. "The other thing we need to do is gather
intelligence in China -- we need to understand their asbestos
industry and their manufacturing processes over there, so we can
get a better handle on where the asbestos is being put into these
products."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boswells School Ordered to Pay GBP46K
------------------------------------------------------
Joe Sturdy, writing for Essex Chronicle, reported that a
Chelmsford school with asbestos residue in its ceilings and walls
has been ordered to pay a total of GBP46,000.

Staff failings, ineffective recording and training and an
insufficient survey at Boswells School led to maintenance workers
and contractors being potentially exposed to the deadly material
between February 1, 2012 and July 21, 2014.

At a sentencing hearing at Chelmsford Crown Court on July 22, Tom
Forster, prosecuting for the Health & Safety Executive said: "On
inspection there was obvious residue of asbestos in walls and
ceiling voids.

"There was also dust and debris on the window sills, in a box in
block A.

Tom Forster, barrister for the Health & Safety Executive
"There was no [written, official] record of asbestos in the school
and the only asbestos survey the school had was totally historic,
dating back to 2004.

"There was a historical management plan dating back to 2009.

"It was generally ignored by the school.

"There was a general failure of the school to manage asbestos.

"In that mix there was no training of staff and contractors and a
general lack of awareness of asbestos in the school.

"When the school became an academy this continued unabated. It was
the same ship but the deckchairs had been slightly rearranged."

The court heard that the issue first came to light back in July
2014 when a contractor was asked to do some work and replace a
heating element and ran their own survey.

It found that C block contained asbestos.

The site manager then promptly informed the previous head teacher
in July 2014.

He reported the incident, which then saw the Health and Safety
Executive investigation begin.

"The maintenance staff were very concerned by the report because
it found in a paint store residue of asbestos," said Mr Forster.

"They had cleaned out that store in 2013 and they said they were
covered in dust from head to toe and had no idea that there was
asbestos in school."

The areas had been cleaned of asbestos around 2000, but the health
and safety investigation found there was also 'overspray residue'
in ceiling voids where staff had run cables through.

The A block also had 28 findings of 'asbestos-containing material'
with a 'medium' potential to release the fibres, a further 80 with
a low risk and 40 with a 'very low' capacity to do so.

"There was dust and debris on a window ledge, and in other timber
boxes in a classroom, A17, and store sheds," continued Mr Forster.

"There's debris in all of these places, not just where maintenance
staff go, but unfortunately also pupils."

The court heard that a plan to deal with the asbestos issue was
made as far back as January 17, 2004 but it lacked detail -- but
nevertheless required action because of the material detected.

But that plan was locked in the cupboard of one of the members of
staff and there was a "lack of communication between staff about
the issue" of asbestos.

Lack of training of staff
A separate asbestos management plan was also sent round in 2009.

But a note was sent around with it by an employee at the school by
email saying: "Fear not, nothing time-consuming for you to do. If
you have any trouble sleeping you will be asleep by page four".

Mr Forster said: "In all circumstances there was a simple lack of
training of staff. Staff did not have any training at all.

"Not only was that a problem but so were electrical contractors
untrained or made unaware of problems."

Defending, Angus Withington said that the school had spent over
half a million pounds in sorting out the issue once it was made
aware.

He said that the current headteacher, Paul Banks who has been at
the school since September 2014, was left to clear up the
"failures of his predecessors" did not take any annual leave and
began to take steps to sort the problem even before he was
officially in post.

He added that the school expressed 'deep, sincere regret'

An expert doctor had said that "he couldn't detect any discernible
increase of exposure to children in school" and "no direct
exposure to children from maintenance activities".

He added: "The real risk was to the maintenance people and
contractors".

A separate report by Southend Borough Council after the incident
said that "Boswells manage asbestos exceptionally well" and a
number of the staff are now health & safety trained.

Speaking of Mr Banks, Mr Withington said: "He has fully taken
ownership of this issue and there is no doubt that there have been
comprehensive steps taken in order to address this matter and
Southend Borough Council is happy on that basis."

Speaking of the possible financial ramifications, he said: "When
schools become an academy, it has a pot [of money] which was given
to them in understanding they could use that to provide on-going
services.

"I think it was about GBP1m.

"The benefit of being an academy has been effectively wiped by
having to clear up the failures of his predecessors."

The school was ordered to pay a fine of GBP26,000, costs of
GBP20,000 and a statutory surcharge within 18 months.

The judge presiding over the case, Judge David Turner QC, added:
"Mercifully no-one appears to have been injured or is reported to
have developed diseases.

"None of the current 1,500 or so pupils or their predecessors is
thought to be have been exposed directly to dust and there is
argument by all experts that there is a low likelihood of any harm
to children or students at the school."

'The case was deeply regrettable'
Mr Banks said: "Today's judgement relates to a historical case
which occurred prior to my joining The Boswells School in 2014 and
was the result of inadequate health and safety procedures in place
at the time. The case was deeply regrettable and The Boswells
Academy Trust has accepted full responsibility.

"Immediately following the incident, the school established a
robust asbestos management system, overseen by a dedicated
Premises Committee, which has been diligently implemented ever
since. This includes monthly premises surveys which have shown the
school to be compliant with all relevant regulations.

"We remain entirely committed to protecting the health and safety
of all children, staff and visitors to the school, now and in the
future, and the procedures we now have in place are thorough and
reliable."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shelby County Workers Claim Exposure to Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tish Clark, writing for Local Memphis, reported that the Local I-
Team spoke with Shelby County workers who said they are concerned
that they were potentially exposed to asbestos during renovations
of several Shelby County buildings.

One of those buildings is the old Shelby County Morgue on Madison
Avenue in Midtown.

Work there has been stopped several times because of workers
concerns.

The county hired experts to come in and clean up the asbestos, but
as construction continued, county workers have found areas of
additional concern.

The fibers were found in the Old County Morgue where crews have
recently been doing construction. Other buildings on Poplar
Avenue, Main Street and Mississippi Boulevard also contained the
fibers.

County workers hired attorney Bruce Kramer and claimed that
nothing is being done to remove asbestos.

Kramer sent this letter to the county which states in part:

"It is my understanding that the health department and Human
Relations Department of Shelby County are aware of this situation
but have neglected to rectify the situation which has put our
clients, and their families, at and medical exposure and risk."

Local 24 contacted the Shelby County government to find out what's
being done. They sent us this statement.

"Shelby County Government is committed to providing safe
workplaces for its employees.  Facts and information about the
interior renovation work at Shelby County-owned buildings are
being reviewed."

Dr. Tyler Zerwekh is Shelby County's administrator of
environmental health services. He said the county is aware of the
concerns and they are looking into it.

"Part of our responsibility is to check the companies as they
remove it so if they tend to find more asbestos we're out there
weekly, daily, on a regular basis to ensure that they're taking
the proper precautions under federal law to remove it safely and
not expose the employees or people are kind the asbestos area,"
Zerwekh said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Stripped from Tenants' Homes
------------------------------------------------------
Scunthorpe Telegraph reported that contractors have finished their
work in removing asbestos from the properties of hundreds of
tenants of Ongo Homes in Crowle and Scunthorpe.

The asbestos is said to be commonly found in the communal areas of
properties built or refurbished prior to 2000.

The work has seen asbestos-lined cupboards in 55 communal areas
replaced with news doors and frames.

An Ongo spokeswoman stressed asbestos posed no risk to human
health unless it was damaged resulting in the release of fibres.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bases Deny Disposing Asbestos in Cyprus
--------------------------------------------------------
Cyprus Mail reported that the British Bases denied media reports
that they had disposed of asbestos waste in Cyprus.

The announcement follows an extensive article in Phileleftheros,
which, citing sources, said that the government gave permission to
the Bases to bury asbestos waste at the mine where the mineral was
extracted from, in Amiandos.

According to confirmed sources, the daily said, the agreement made
with the government was for the burial of 50 containers filled
with asbestos material which was removed from the territory of the
SBA.

"It seems the permission was given by the Geological Survey
Department, which arbitrarily determined the price for the
materials which will be transported for burial in the mining
crater at the Asbestos mine," it said. It added that the price set
was at EUR16 per cubic metre.

The standard practice of the Bases has been, the article said, to
ship the containers with asbestos waste to the UK. The Bases, it
said, produce 70 to 90 containers of asbestos waste each year.

"The management costs paid by the Bases today are too high," the
article said, and for this reason they opted for disposing of the
asbestos waste in Cyprus. It added that Agriculture Minister Nicos
Kouyialis told the paper he was not aware of such an agreement.

In the past asbestos was widely used worldwide for the
construction of buildings. It is however considered today as
highly hazardous for human health, and its removal from old
buildings is not uncommon.

"Reports in today's media that the Bases have disposed of asbestos
waste in Cyprus are untrue," spokesman Sean Tully said in an
announcement.

"We investigated the possibility of disposing of asbestos waste in
Cyprus. However, following discussions with the department of the
environment we decided to continue to ship all of our asbestos
waste to the UK," he said.

Tully told the Cyprus Mail that part of the asbestos waste is from
old barracks that are gradually being demolished.

In a statement released later on Thursday, the Geological Survey
Department (GSD) confirmed that the British Bases had queried them
on the possibility of burying asbestos waste at the Amiantos mine.

The initial query was made on September 2, 2015. Following that,
the department sought advice from the foreign ministry, "due to
the potential political dimensions."

The foreign ministry responded that it saw no political issues,
advising that the British Bases' query "be handled as a technical
matter."

According to the GSD, it subsequently put the matter to the
Technical Committee for the Amiantos Asbestos Mine which, after a
thorough consideration decided to accept the British Bases'
request.

The technical committee comprises the GSD, the Water Development
Department, the Department of Forests, the Town and Housing
Department, the Department of Environment, the Department of
Labour Inspection, and the Ministry of Health.

The British Bases were also informed of the standard disposal
tariff per cubic metre (EUR16).

In its statement, the department noted that the burial of
asbestos-containing materials at the Amiantos mine was authorized
by the cabinet on November 26, 2009. The decision concerned the
asbestos waste generated during the period 2009-2019.

Following the agreement of the Technical Committee for the
Amiantos Asbestos Mine, the GSD asked the British Bases to provide
further details on the total amount of waste it would seek to bury
on an annual basis.

On May 5, 2016, the bases responded with an estimate of around 30
to 40 containers.

The GSD said it subsequently requested precise numbers so as to be
able to properly evaluate the matter.

To date, however, the British Bases have not filed a formal
disposal request, the GSD said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allens Pay Out Over Asbestos-related Death
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bedford Today reported that a widow has finally gained
compensation of GBP228K for her late husband's asbestos-related
death, 50 years after he was exposed to the substance.

Richard Atkins was an apprentice and engineer at APE Allen, part
of Queens Engineering Works, when he was exposed to the asbestos
in the 1960s.

Decades later he died from mesothelioma, a condition related to
asbestos exposure. And his wife Mary's struggle for compensation
meant tracing a former colleague all the way to New Zealand who
remembered the exposure to asbestos and gave a statement.

Mary Atkins' solicitor Brigitte Chandler, said: "As the exposure
to asbestos took place more than 50 years ago it had been
initially difficult to find witnesses.

"However we were able to trace a former colleague of Mr Atkins to
New Zealand who remembered the exposure to asbestos and gave a
statement. This forced the company to accept liability."

Mr Atkins was involved in the installation and service work on
ships and at pumping stations dealing with diesel engines,
turbines and pipes. He worked on ships at Camellaird, Birkenhead
and in Portsmouth.

WH Allen Sons and Company first came to Bedford in 1893, and was a
major employer as well as one of the most recognisable parts of
the Queens Park landscape.

Although the company no longer exists in its current form its name
can still be found throughout town, not least Allen Park which was
previously owned by the firm and ran as a sports facility for
staff.

Ms Chandler, who works for Swindon law firm Charles Lucas &
Marshall, added:

"Asbestos was widely used in boiler and engine rooms on ships.

"Quite often the work involved removing small amounts of asbestos.
"Developing asbestos disease can take up to 70 years from the
point of exposure. Mrs Atkins was able to bring a claim for
damages due to her husband's pain and suffering and her loss of
income.

"Many people may have forgotten they were exposed to asbestos,"
said Brigitte Chandler.

"If anyone develops chest pains they should seek medical advice."

Asbestos claims relating to the former works are the
responsibility of Rolls Royce. The company was not available for
comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Business Group Joins Union in Asbestos Alarm
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Burrell, writing for The Australian, reported that a major
business group has joined trade unions to demand the Turnbull
government act urgently to stop Chinese building products laced
with deadly asbestos entering the country.

As Immigration Minister Peter Dutton prepares to release an
independent review of the government's management of asbestos
imports, the Australian Industry Group called for a strong
enforcement regime that extends from border control to points of
sale and building sites.

The call for action came after the Australian Border Force halted
21 containers from Chinese-owned company Yuanda Australia at the
border after its building materials at two major construction
sites were found to contain asbestos.

The ABF also executed warrants at Yuanda's offices in Sydney and
Brisbane and seized digital and physical evidence.

It emerged that the incomplete $1.2 billion Perth Children's
Hospital and the 1 William Street office tower in Brisbane had
been contaminated with asbestos because of products supplied by
Yuanda.

The Perth site had white asbestos, or chrysotile, in some of its
Yuanda-made roof panels, while the Brisbane tower was found to
have asbestos-tainted gaskets.

Yuanda Australia managing director Paul Dawson said the company's
products had been tested for asbestos at 11 of the 67 other sites
it has supplied in Australia. All of the tests conducted by an
independent company had been negative.

Mr Dawson said Yuanda would soon test the remaining sites.

Ai Group chief executive Innes Wilcox said the discovery of
asbestos in Perth and Brisbane highlighted the inadequacy of the
approach to ensuring the safety and quality of goods sold in
Australia.

He said the group complained in 2013 of big shortcomings in the
surveillance, audit checking, testing and conformance of building
products in Australia.

"There is a clear need for adequately resourced, highly visible
and effective enforcement that extends from border controls, to
points of sale and to building sites.

The Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union has called for
the ABF to conduct more inspections on all imported cargo.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ausgrid, Union Spar Over Asbestos Claim
--------------------------------------------------------
Anna Hitchings, writing for The Australian Associated Press,
reported that Ausgrid has hit back at claims that it has failed to
remove asbestos from its power substations after dozens of workers
and union officials staged a protest at its head office in Sydney.

The Electrical Trades Union argues the electricity distributor has
reduced resources from its asbestos removal team and stalled the
removal of the carcinogenic substance from several substations
across the city.

Workers clad in protective suits, carrying banners and chanting
"shame, Ausgrid, shame" staged a protest outside Ausgrid's head
office in Sydney on Friday, slamming the company for breaching a
2013 agreement to get rid of the asbestos.

Ausgrid said it responded to the ETU shortly before the planned
protest began on Friday, stating the claims were untrue.

"We have investigated these matters and on the information
available to us have found they cannot be substantiated," Ausgrid
acting CEO Trevor Armstrong said.

"Over the past 12 months alone, we have audited 231 substations
and conducted asbestos surveys of 944 network sites."

Ausgrid entered into an agreement with the ETU in 2013, stating it
would remove asbestos from identified substations and audit others
with a lower risk level.

"We continue to remediate and remove asbestos from our network
where it is identified and independent expert licensed assessors
deem a risk to be present," Mr Armstrong said.

Yet ETU organiser Mark Buttigieg said this response was not good
enough and that all asbestos should be removed from substations no
matter the risk level.

"In any standard hazard assessment and risk assessment, your first
option is to engineer the hazard out, which means take it out
altogether," Mr Buttigieg said.

"In 20-30 years' time, when this (asbestos) deteriorates it
remains being a hazard in perpetuity so we want it removed from
the network altogether."

An Ausgrid spokesman told AAP that experts recommended the
distributor not remove bonded asbestos from some sites where
disturbing the substance would create a greater risk.

"We regularly test in our facilities over a five-year period and
we also do specific testing if we think there is a heightened
risk," the spokesman said.

The union says documents it has obtained reveal that between 2002
and 2012 seven electricity workers died due to asbestos and 42
were diagnosed with asbestos-related diseases, 29 of whom were
Ausgrid workers.

Mr Armstrong said the presence of asbestos in the electricity
industry continues to be Ausgrid's highest priority.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Postal Service Exposes Workers to Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------------
Postal Service employees are exposed to asbestos, mold and other
"sanitary issues" in agency buildings where birds and squirrels
sometimes run amuck, which could result in nearly $19 million in
fines, a government watchdog reported.

Most of the 20 Postal Service facilities examined by the agency's
inspector general (IG) had safety issues, security lapses or
potential Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
violations, which threaten employee and customer safety and risk
lawsuits and worker compensation fees.

"The Postal Service must improve adherence to building
maintenance, safety and security standards, and employee working
condition requirements at its retail facilities," the report said.
Management neglected "cleaning and general maintenance and
repairs" and "concerns for health, safety and security."

Such lapses could result in "OSHA fines and penalties; poor
employee morale and increased turnover; risk of injuries to
customers and employees; and related costs such as workers'
compensation claims, loss of work and productivity, and lawsuits,"
the report continued.

Specifically, 90 percent of the inspected facilities had potential
OSHA violations, such as "locked or blocked emergency exits,
asbestos and mold, improper storage of flammable materials, insect
infestation, trip hazards, and exposed electrical outlets and
switches,"  as well as "sanitary issues," the report said.

The IG found 51 potential OSHA infractions across the inspected
buildings.

"Fines typically range from $3,000 to $7,000 per violation," but
can increase up to $70,000 in certain situations, the report said.

OSHA levied $1.4 million in fines in 2015, according to the IG,
which also predicted that the Postal Service could face up to
$18.6 million in violation fines in just one region.

Postal Service managers disagreed with that estimate and
"questioned the qualifications of [IG] personnel who performed the
audits," the report said.

Additionally, at least half the inspected facilities had lighting
or appearance issues, while another 40 percent had security issues
"such as unlocked doors and vehicles" and non-functioning safes,"
the report said.

Meanwhile, two buildings "had issues with birds and squirrels
accessing facility work areas through damaged roofs," the report
continued.

The Postal Service leases or owns more than 30,000 retail
facilities across the U.S. This audit was the first in a series
focusing on Postal Service buildings' appearance, safety and
security.



                            *********

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  * * *