CAR_Public/160812.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, August 12, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 161




                            Headlines


307 W. 82ND ST: Sued in N.Y. Ct. Over Failure to Repair Apartment
3M COMPANY: Shapiro, Pacific Holistic Sue Over Dental Crowns
ABILITY INC: Faces "Zwicker" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
ADVANCE STORES: Court Narrows Claims in "Bradix" Suit
AIR SERV: Faces "Williams" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA

ALL COAST: Faces "Adams" Suit in Tex. Alleging Violations of FLSA
AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL: Court Allows Discovery in "Nelson"
ASPIRO AB: "Baker-Rhett" Class Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
AUSTRALIA: Yarloop Residents Mull Fire Class Action
BANK OF AMERICA: Oklahoma Pension Files Antitrust Suit Over SSAs

BANK OF AMERICA: Quinn, Cohen Named Class Action Lead Counsel
BERMAN & RABIN: Court Grants Preliminary Approval of "Tripp" Deal
BEST BUY: Court Grants Plaintiff's Request to Seal Documents
BIOTHRIVE SCIENCES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Legal Services Fee
BLUE ROSE: Doesn't Properly Pay Waiters, "Polistico" Suit Claims

BOROUGH OF HIGHLAND PARK: Court Dismisses Suit as Time-Barred
BP PLC: 5th Circuit Set to Hear Oral Argument in Class Action
BUCKEYE LENDING: Order Granting Relief From Judgment Reversed
CALIFORNIA: $3,168 in Costs Attributable to Plaintiff Adcock
CALIFORNIA: Court Narrows Claims in "Bruce" Suit

CALIFORNIA: Court Denies Motion to Intervene in Inmates' Suit
CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION: Zehentbauer Suit Stays in Federal Court
CHESAPEAKE OPERATING: Must Defend Against Zehentbauer Suit
CHRYSLER: 6th Circuit Set to Hear Oral Arguments in Class Action
CHRYSLER FINANCIAL: 2nd Cir. Affirms Arbitration Ruling in "Gaul"

CHRYSLER GROUP: Widow Fights Motion to Dismiss Jeep Wrangler Case
COMPREHENSIVE SECURITY: "Allison" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
CONEXEM SOFTWARE: Sued in Cal. Over License and Service Agreement
CONTAINER STORE: Court Denies Motion to Enforce Arbitration
CORPORATE RESOURCE: Court Narrows Claims in Suit v. D&Os

DALLAS CENTRAL: Bent Tree Tower Sues Over "Erroneous" Appraisal
DANA CORP: Settlement of Suit v. D&Os Has Preliminarily Approval
DANA MOTOR: Ohio App. Court Affirms Summary Judgment Ruling
DANIEL RAKOFSKY: "Buckius" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
DELANO FARMS: Bid to Reopen Discovery in "Arredondo" Denied

DS SERVICES: Faces "Loo" Suit in Ore. Alleging Violation of FLSA
ECO-CLEAN MAINTENANCE: Herrera Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
EKF DIAGNOSTICS: Court Dismisses "Sartin" Junk Fax Suit
ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS: "Abikhalil" Asserts Labor Code Breach
FALLANGHINA LLC: Court Wants "Gonzalez" Complaint Revised

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS: "Richardson" Class Claims Reinstated
FIFA: "Palivos" Suit Over 2014 World Cup Ticket Prices Dismissed
FMA ALLIANCE: Court Drops Romeo, Keeps Motz as Plaintiff
FORJAS TAURUS: Settlement of Suit Over Defective Guns Approved
FTS USA: Court Denies 2nd Summary Judgment Bid in "Thomas" Case

FUNSAN K CORP: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GINN DEVELOPMENT: Dismissal of Plaintiffs' Claims Upheld
GODADDY.COM LLC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Ventures Edge Suit
GUY'S DRUM: Faces "Paniagua" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Min. Wage Law
HARBOR HOMEOWNERS: Class Certification Order Upheld in Duhon Suit

HASAKI RESTAURANT: Mei Seeks Overtime Compensation Under FLSA
IMAGE FIRST: Court Denies Motion to Compel Discovery Response
ITAL PIZZA: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
JAY PEAK: EB-5 Visa Program Investor Class Actions Ongoing
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Arbitration Bid

JEVIC HOLDING: 3rd Cir. Affirms SCPI Summary Ruling in "Czyzewski"
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Grants Discovery Bid in Part
JP MORGAN: "Hernandez" Lawsuit Goes to Trial
JULIA PLACE: Court Won't Reconsider Ruling in "Reyes" Suit
KBC NURSING: Does Not Properly Pay Health Aides, Action Claims

KENAN ADVANTAGE: Can't Bar Counsel From Filing Duplicative Suit
KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Jackson" Securities Class Action
L&J WASTE: Faces "McFadden" Suit Under FLSA, Md. Wage Payment Law
LEAPFROG: California Judge Tosses Investors' Securities Suit
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Court Sends MSPA's Suit to Florida State Court

LIFE TIME FITNESS: Court Throws Out "Roth" Suit
LOS ALAMOS, CA: McLin Calls for Smart Meter Class Action v. DPU
LTD FINANCIAL: Court Grants Motion for Judgment on Pleadings
MACY'S WEST: Court Sends "Narez" Suit to Arbitration
MAERSK LINE: Wins Summary Judgment in "Joyce" Wages Suit

MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: $23.5MM Settlement Has Initial Approval
MDL 1203: No Matrix A Benefits for Winn Estate, Court Says
MDL 1566: Response to Bid to Expedite Briefing Due Today
MDL 1566: Court Denies Objection to Magistrate Judge's Orders
MDL 2328: Court Grants Pool et al.'s Summary Judgment Bid

MEDICREDIT INC: Wins Dismissal of "Kreger" Robocall Suit
METALS USA: Court Grants Class Certification in "Wilson" Suit
MIDWAY RENT A CAR: Arbitration Ruling on Individual Claims Upheld
MISSISSIPPI: Airport Authority May Intervene in "Stallworth" Suit
MJB HOLDING: Faces "Chananya" Suit Over Fiduciary Duties Breach

MONEY STORE: 2nd Cir. Affirms Decertification of "Mazzei" Suit
MORGAN STANLEY: Denial of Class Certification in "Adkins" Upheld
NAOMI SHU: "Muye" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Insurance Companies May Delay Concussion Claims
NEUBERGER BERMAN: Faces "Bekker" Suit Alleging Violation of ERISA

NIANTIC INC: Faces Pokemon Go Privacy Class Action in Canada
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss "Langley" Suit
NUTRO COMPANY: Court Approves Attorneys' Fees, Incentives
OAK LAWN, IL: Sued Over Unlawful Residency Requirements
OBESITY RESEARCH: Judgment on Attorney Fee & Incentives Reversed

PAT'S PIZZERIA: Insurer Not Liable, Appeals Court Says
PEAK CAMPUS: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says
PENNSYLVANIA: Order Granting Summary Judgment Bids Upheld
PHILADELPHIA, PA: 4 Officials Added in Forfeiture Defendants List
PINGTAN MARINE: Court Dismisses "Fila" Securities Suit

PINNACLE FOODS: Faces "Biffar" Lawsuit Over Sale of Muffin Mix
PREFFERED FREEZER: Settlement in "Altnor" Overtime Case Approved
PRINCE ST: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
PUBLICIS: Settles Sex Discrimination Class Action for $3 Million
PVH CORP: Court Rules on Bid to Decertify Paycard Suit

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED: Sued in Cal. Over Gender Discrimination
QUICK LANE: Faces Mich. Suit for "Violation" of Federal Labor Law
REACHLOCAL INC: Faces "Casey" Suit Over Proposed Sale to Gannett
RECOVERY SYSTEMS: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Brock" Suit Says
REGIS CORP: Court Grants Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement

REMINGTON: Expert Says Settlement Proposal "Designed to Fail"
RENO, NV: RHA Sued Over Failure to Pay Employees Overtime Wages
SAFE-GUARD PRODUCTS: Wins Dismissal of WVCCPA Claims
SAN DIEGO SUPERIOR COURT: Petition for Writ of Mandate Denied
SANFORD HEALTH: Dismissal of "Limberg" Lawsuit Upheld

SCHLUMBERGER TECH: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
SCHLUMBERGER TECH: Wins Summary Judgment in "Kubischta" Suit
SCHWEBEL BAKING: Court Grants Conditional Certification in "Boyd"
SERRA NISSAN: Faces "Bettis" Suit Alleging Violations of RICO Act
SMOKE BBQ: "Mendieta" Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage Under FLSA

SPRINT CORP: Settlement in "Bui" Suit Has Final Approval
STRATEGIC EQUITY: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
STURGEON SERVICES: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
SYMANTEC CORP: Bid for Appeal Bond Granted in Part
SYSCO CORP: Court Grants in Part Motion for Judgment on Pleadings

THRIVE MARKET: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Properly Pay Workers
TORTORICE & BRADY: Faces "Weekly" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
TOYO DENSO: Lee Oldsmobile Claims Price Fixing of Window Switches
TRANSUNION: Parties in Tradeline Litigation to Attend Mediation
TRANSUNION: Continues to Defend Suit Over OFAC Alert Service

TRANSUNION: Continues to Defend "Henderson" Suit in E.D. Va.
TRUXX OUTFITTERS: Faces "Harvey" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Battle Over $100MM Settlement Faces Impasse
UNILEVER: Sued Over Plastic Found in Ice Cream Product
UNITED AIRLINES: Wins Summary Judgment in "Ward" Wage Suit

VALLEY STATE PRISON: Court Dismisses Amended "Hackett" Complaint
VARITRONICS LLC: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Bais Yaakov Suit
VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Court Narrows Claims in "Youngers" Suit
VOLCANO CORP: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Stockholder Suit
VOLKSWAGEN AG: S. Korean Euro 5 Vehicle Owners Call for Refund

WASHINGTON: Sex Offenders Mull Class Action v. SCC Over Water
WEATHERFORD U.S.: Court Preliminarily Approves "Vega" Settlement
WELLS FARGO: Court Denies Petition to Dismiss "Tucker" Dispute
WENDY'S: MCUL Joins Credit Card Data Breach Class Action
WORLDWIDE ELECTRIC: Faces "Horton" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law

XYTEX CORP: Bid to Dismiss Same-Sex Couple's Suit Put on Hold
ZALE DELAWARE: Court Denies Bid to Decertify "Tapia" Case


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: M. Slayen Dropped as Defendant in "Floyd"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Dismisses "Shelly"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Wines" Remanded to Delaware State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: June 28 Decision in NYCAL Vacated
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Non 3rd-Party Claims in "Oliver" Remanded

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Westinghouse Wins Summary Judgment in "Norberg"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Circ. Affirms G-I Holdings' Plan Order
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Remands St. Paul Coverage Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling on Fireman Widow's Fatal Claim Remanded
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magistrate Recommends Summary Judgment Grant

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duty of Care Can Extend Beyond Spouse, Ct. Says
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Prosecutions Difficult Due to Defense
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aussie Guards Says No Time to Stop Imports
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Punitive Damaged Claims OK'd to Proceed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IR Minister Says Fibres Found in Hospitals

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dura Debris Pile Soon To Be Cleaned-up
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ayrshire Beaches Searched for Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Biz Fined GBP100K After Unsafe Asbestos Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Testing Underway in 68 Buildings in Sydney
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Royal Hobart Hospital Scare Prompts Audit Call

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Philly Asbestos Filings Off 2015's Pace
ASBESTOS UPDATE: High Level Asbestos Found at School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Another Asbestos Scare at Royal Hobart Hosp.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CJ Orders Removal of Asbestos from Court Roof
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Umi St. Families To Be Displaced Due to Cleanup

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thornlie Resident Finds Asbestos in Fence
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Risk Does Not Decline Over Time
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Accused of Exposing Workers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Fears as WorkSafe Proposes Cut
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Confirmed at Tasmania's Biggest Hosp.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coventry Bldg Burns Exposing Firefighters


                            *********


307 W. 82ND ST: Sued in N.Y. Ct. Over Failure to Repair Apartment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NILESH ZACHARIAS and PREETA SINHA, the Plaintiffs, v. 307 W. 82ND
ST. HOUSING CORP and WILLIAM COLA VITO INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 156030/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., July 20, 2016), seeks
money judgment in favor of Plaintiffs against the Defendant in the
amount of $200,000.00, or, alternatively, a full abatement of rent
and all costs incurred by Plaintiffs in an amount to be determined
by the Court.

The Defendants had been allegedly given notice of but has
continuously refused to rectify the following conditions that
exist in and relating to the Apartment, including but
not limited to: (i) repair of the walls of the second floor
bedroom; (ii) repair of the flooring in the second floor bedroom;
(iii) repair of the ceiling in the second floor bedroom; (iv)
failure to repair water damage in the second floor
bedroom.

The Defendant is a proprietary lessor of the buildings known as
and located at 307 and 309 West 82nd Street, New York, New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allison M. Furman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF
          ALLISON M. FURMAN, P.C.
          260 Madison Avenue, 15th floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 684 9400


3M COMPANY: Shapiro, Pacific Holistic Sue Over Dental Crowns
------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD SHAPIRO and PACIFIC HOLISTIC DENTAL, INC., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. 3M COMPANY, CASE
0:16-cv-02606-PJS-BRT (UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF
MINNESOTA, August 2, 2016), arises from hundreds of thousands of
allegedly defective dental crowns that Defendant 3M Company, and
through its subsidiary division 3M ESPE, marketed and sold to
dentists around the country.

3M Company is a technology company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
     Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
     Amanda M. Williams, Esq.
     David A. Goodwin, Esq.
     Eric S. Taubel, Esq.
     GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
     120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: (612) 333-8844
     Fax: (612) 339-6622
     E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
             dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
             awilliams@gustafsongluek.com
             dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
             etaubel@gustafsongluek.com

        - and -

     John R. Parker Jr., Esq.
     Christian A. Kurpiewski, Esq.
     CUTTER LAW P.C.
     401 Watt Avenue,
     Sacramento, CA 95864
     Phone: (916) 290-9400
     Fax: (916) 588-9330
     E-mail: jparker@cutterlaw.com
             ckurpiewski@cutterlaw.com

        - and -

     Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
     Amy E. Keller, Esq.
     WEXLER WALLACE LLP
     55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 346-2222
     Fax: (312) 346-0022
     E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
             aek@wexlerwallace.com


ABILITY INC: Faces "Zwicker" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Theodore Zwicker, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Ability Inc., Anatoly Hurgin, and Avi Levin,
Case No. 1:16-cv-05940-PAE (S.D.N.Y., July 25, 2016), alleges that
the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.

Ability Inc. is a holding company that operates through its
wholly-owned subsidiaries Ability Computer & Software Industries,
Ltd., and Ability Security Systems Ltd., which provide advanced
interception, geolocation and cyber intelligence tools to serve
the needs of security and intelligence agencies, military forces,
law enforcement agencies, and homeland security agencies
worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
      New York, NY 10168
      Telephone: (212) 682-5340
      Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
      E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com

         - and -

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


ADVANCE STORES: Court Narrows Claims in "Bradix" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susie Morgan of United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana grants, in part, the motion to
dismiss the case captioned, WALTER BRADIX, IV, Plaintiff, v.
ADVANCE STORES COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Section "E"(3), Defendant,
Case No. 16-4902 (E.D. La.).

Plaintiff alleges that he is a former employee of Defendant. In
March 2016, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was duped in an
internet "phishing-type attack in which an outside party posing as
an employee of Defendant convinced an employee to provide a file
containing information about certain individuals who worked for
Defendant during 2015. Plaintiff alleges the information included
employee names, 2015 gross wages, social security numbers and the
state in which the given employee pays income taxes.

On April 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed the "Class Action Petition and
Demand for Jury Trial" in the Civil District Court for the Parish
of Orleans. The petition alleges that Defendant's conduct with
regards to the phishing-type attack constituted negligence, gross
negligence, a breach of Defendant's fiduciary duty, and an
invasion of privacy under Louisiana law. In the petition,
Plaintiff asserts that the class he seeks to represent "could
theoretically be 75,000 strong."

On May 10, 2016, Defendant removed the action to this Court,
asserting that removal was proper and that the Court has federal
subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act
(CAFA). Defendant asserts that all requirements for subject matter
jurisdiction under CAFA have been satisfied, because the minimal
diversity exists, there are at least 100 putative class members,
and the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. Defendant
further asserts that none of CAFA's removal exceptions apply.

In the motion, Defendant moved to dismiss the class-action
petition for lack of standing and for failure to state a claim
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

In her Order and Reasons dated July 5, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/4xgxoe from Leagle.com, Judge Morgan granted in part
motion to dismiss in so far as the Court concludes that Plaintiff
lacks Article III standing to bring the suit in federal Court and
denied in so far as to the Court remanded the action for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.

Walter Bradix, IV is represented by Marc R. Michaud, Esq. --
mmichaud@patrickmillerlaw.com -- PATRICK MILLER LLC

Advance Stores Company is represented by R. Patrick Vance, Esq. --
pvance@joneswalker.com -- Michael B. Miller, Esq. --
mmiller@joneswalker.com -- Robert J. Baehr, Esq. --
rbaehr@joneswalker.com -- and Tyler J. Rench, Esq. --
trench@joneswalker.com -- JONES WALKER


AIR SERV: Faces "Williams" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
TARONALD WILLIAMS and others similarly situated, v. AIR SERV
CORPORATION, and ANNA ORTIZ, an individual, Case 0:16-cv-61851-KMW
(S.D. Fla., August 2, 2016), was filed under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

AIR SERV CORPORATION -- http://www.airservcorp.com/-- provides
cargo, cleaning, ground transportation, passenger, and security
services to the aviation industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALL COAST: Faces "Adams" Suit in Tex. Alleging Violations of FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM ADAMS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. ALL COAST, LLC, Case 4:16-cv-02300 (S.D. Tex., August
2, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

All Coast own and operates a fleet of liftboats for the offshore
oil and gas market in the Gulf of Mexico.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Melissa Moore, Esq.
     Curt Hesse, Esq.
     MOORE & ASSOCIATES
     Lyric Center
     440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
     Houston, TX 77002
     Phone: (713) 222-6775
     Fax: (713) 222-6739


AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL: Court Allows Discovery in "Nelson"
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan Richard Nelson of the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota affirmed in part and reversed
in part a magistrate judge's May 13, 2016 Order in the case
captioned, Charles P. Nelson and Darlene F. Nelson, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 13-
cv-607 (SRN/SER) (D. Minn.).

Plaintiffs Charles and Darlene Nelson have maintained a "Gold
Star" insurance policy through Defendant on their home since 2004.
Initially, the Nelsons alleged, as part of a proposed class
action, that Defendant overcharged Gold Star policyholders on
their premiums because it used exaggerated replacement cost
assessments to justify excessive insurance coverage on properties.
They now maintain that Defendant failed to adjust its insurance
coverage amount for some policies even after learning that the
properties' replacement costs were lower, resulting in
policyholders paying inflated premiums for the excessive coverage.

As part of their discovery, Plaintiffs served numerous requests
for production (RFPs) on Defendant in August of 2014. Initially,
Defendant made a limited production of documents subject to a
series of boilerplate objections about the breadth of these
requests and the burden of responding. Plaintiffs challenged
Defendant's objections to their discovery requests and brought a
motion to compel Defendant to supplement its previous disclosures
(the First MTC) which focused on the production, or lack thereof,
of documents related to Millennium, Millenium Automated Property
System (MAPS), and communications between Defendant and
Millennium. Plaintiffs continued to believe that Defendant's
discovery responses, especially related to the MAPS data, were
incomplete and filed their Second Motion to Compel (the Second
MTC). To obtain the information they believed was missing,
Plaintiffs sought access to all documents and information related
to MAPS, all email correspondence between Defendant and
Millennium, and an order that Defendant provide additional
information about the extent of its discovery responses or
supplementation to those responses.

Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau issued on May 13, 2016, an order
denying the second motion to compel (MTC). In relevant part, Judge
Rau found Plaintiffs' requested relief to be untimely and unduly
burdensome in relation to the potential benefit of such discovery.
Important to the present matter, the May 13 Order addressed only
Plaintiffs' requests in the Second MTC and made no mention of the
mainframe database. Judge Rau acknowledged the parties' competing
sampling proposals, but rejected them because "these proposals are
complicated and will assuredly lead to yet more discovery about
discovery -- something the Court will not further sanction in the
case.

Plaintiffs' specific objections relate to Judge Rau's denial of
their Second Sampling Proposal and fall into three categories.
First, Plaintiffs explain that their requested discovery related
to the mainframe database is timely. Second, Plaintiffs argue that
discovery related to the mainframe database is not unduly
burdensome for Defendant to produce, especially considering its
importance to Plaintiffs' claims. Third, Plaintiffs allege that
the May 13 Order misstated the record and relied on incorrect
assumptions to deny Plaintiffs' requested relief for email
sampling and discovery concerning the mainframe database.

In her Order dated July 18, 2016 available at https://is.gd/wFfFvi
from Leagle.com, Judge Nelson found that the Magistrate Judge
erred in denying Plaintiffs' discovery requests related to the
mainframe database on the basis that they were untimely and
affirmed the denial of Plaintiffs' request to sample Defendant's
emails and the ruling regarding discovery related to Millenium and
MAPS.

Charles P. Nelson and Darlene F. Nelson are represented by Bert
Black, Esq. -- BBlack@SchaeferHalleen.com -- and Lawrence P.
Schaefer, Esq. -- LSchaefer@SchaeferHalleen.com -- SCHAEFER
HALLEEN LLC -- Elizabeth R. Odette, Esq. -- erodette@locklaw.com
-- Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. -- rkshelquist@locklaw.com -- and
Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. -- rapeterson@locklaw.com
-- LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP

American Family Mutual Insurance Company is represented by Aaron
D. Van Oort, Esq. -- aaron.vanoort@FaegreBD.com -- Cicely R.
Miltich, Esq. -- cicely.miltich@FaegreBD.com -- Deborah A.
Ellingboe, Esq. -- deborah.ellingboe@FaegreBD.com -- and Larry E.
LaTarte, Esq. -- larry.latarte@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE BAKER
DANIELS LLP


ASPIRO AB: "Baker-Rhett" Class Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Justin Baker-Rhett,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Kanye West d/b/a Tidal and Aspiro AB, Case No. 4:16-cv-02013, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
California Northern to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Foley Square). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-05801-GHW to the proceeding.

The Defendants own and operate a technology company that provides
subscription-based lossless music streaming services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Logan, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
      San Francisco, CA 94107
      Telephone: (415) 212-9300
      Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
      E-mail: tlogan@edelson.com

The Defendant Kanye West is represented by:

      Andrew Harrison Bart, Esq.
      JENNER & BLOCK LLP
      919 Third Avenue, 37th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 891-1645
      Facsimile: (212) 891-1699
      E-mail: abart@jenner.com

         - and -

      Kenneth K. Lee, Esq.
      Christina Avedissian, Esq.
      JENNER & BLOCK LLP
      633 West 5th Street, Suite 3500
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 239-5152
      Facsimile: (213) 239-5162
      E-mail: klee@jenner.com

The Defendant Aspiro AB is represented by:

      Ashley Lynn Shively, Esq.
      Robert D. Phillips Jr., Esq.
      Thomas A. Evans, Esq.
      REED SMITH LLP
      101 2nd St., Suite 1800
      SF, CA 94105
      Telephone: (415) 543-8700
      Facsimile: (415) 391-8269
      E-mail: ashively@reedsmith.com
              RPhillips@ReedSmith.com
              tevans@reedsmith.com


AUSTRALIA: Yarloop Residents Mull Fire Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Claire Moodie, writing for ABC, reports that more than 100
residents from the fire-ravaged West Australian town of Yarloop
have met with lawyers to discuss a possible class action.

The residents packed into the bowling club in the town, 129
kilometers south of Perth, to discuss their legal rights with
lawyers from Slater and Gordon.

It is understood they were asked not to speak to the media about
the case and to fill out forms expressing interest in the law firm
investigating legal action over the fire.

Two people died and 181 properties were destroyed in the blaze
that hit Yarloop and surrounds in early January.

One resident, who asked not to be named, described the mood at the
meeting as "positive" but another said there was still a lot of
anger and frustration over how the fire and subsequent clean-up
had been handled.

Slater and Gordon, which is also representing residents from the
Margaret River and Parkerville fires, said the Ferguson report
into the Yarloop fire had left unanswered questions.

"Our message to the community was that there were areas which we
were interested in investigating further if there was enough
interest from the community itself in going down that path,"
lawyer Rachel Cosentino said.

"We'll be talking to community members about what happened over
the course of the days of the fire.

"Judging from the turn-out at the meeting, we expect that there
will be a large component of the community who will want to know
more about what their legal rights are."

The firm said in a statement it was exploring avenues to recover
compensation for uninsured losses, pointing to what it called "key
failures" by authorities handling the fire.

Chairman of the Yarloop Residents Advisory Council Tony Toop said
residents simply wanted to understand all the legal options
available to them.

"We just need the ability to be able to exercise our rights to ask
questions and get some clarity on some questions that were left
unanswered after the Ferguson's report," he said.

"We're just looking at all avenues to help put our community back
together."

Legal case would have 'a very good chance'

The town's post-master, Ron Sackville, spoke to the ABC before the
meeting and said he would join a class action to try to recoup the
tens of thousands of dollars he would lose as a result of the
fire.

Mr. Sackville said he lost 90 per cent of his paying customers
overnight.

Even since some residents have moved back to the town, the
population is still only about 80, compared to more than 500
before the fire.

The 71-year-old who stayed to defend his home on the night of the
fire, believes a legal case would have "a very good chance", given
the deficiencies highlighted in the report by former Victorian
country fire boss, Euan Ferguson.

"I saw what happened, very graphically," Mr. Sackville said.

"The few crews that we had here were local crews and were on their
own.

"They didn't have a chance.  They did what they could.  They saved
a lot of places.

"But with more help I think the town wouldn't have been as damaged
as it was.

The Lord Mayors' distress relief fund has been a savior for many
of the worst-affected residents and farmers, distributing nearly
$7 million to 520 people.

Mr. Sackville has appealed against a rejection of his application.

"The farmers are a small business and they've received assistance
to help with their damage," he said.

"But for some reason or other they don't regard our business as
being something that needs assistance.

Perth Lord Mayor Lisa Scaffidi released a statement, saying the
fund had four categories of assistance -- for property owners,
renters, rural properties and for next of kin of those who died in
the fire.

She said it would be unrealistic to expect donations to cover the
cost of commercial enterprises designed as profit-making
businesses.

Ms. Scaffidi said businesses could seek assistance from the WA
Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements.


BANK OF AMERICA: Oklahoma Pension Files Antitrust Suit Over SSAs
----------------------------------------------------------------
OKLAHOMA POLICE PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of
itself, and, in a representative capacity, on behalf of all those
similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION; BANK OF
AMERICA, N.A.; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INC.; CREDIT
AGRICOLE S.A.; CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK;
CREDIT AGRICOLE SECURITIES (USA) INC.; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES
(USA) LLC; CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG; CREDIT SUISSE AG; CREDIT SUISSE
INTERNATIONAL; DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES, INC.; DEUTSCHE BANK AG;
NOMURA HOLDINGS, INC.; NOMURA INTERNATIONAL PLC; NOMURA SECURITIES
INTERNATIONAL, INC.; HIREN GUDKA; AMANDEEP SINGH MANKU; SHAILEN
PAU; BHARDEEP SINGH HEER; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS NOS. 1-100, Case
1:16-cv-06133 (S.D.N.Y., August 2, 2016), was  brought under the
Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, and the common
law of Unjust Enrichment, for, inter alia, treble damages,
disgorgement and restitution, and costs of suit, for Defendants'
alleged combination and conspiracy to restrain trade in Supra-
sovereign, Sub-sovereign and Agency bonds, from at least January
1, 2010 through April 27, 2014.

BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION -- https://www.bankofamerica.com/ --
is a financial institution in the U.S.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
     SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
     707 Broadway, Suite 1000
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 233-4565
     Fax: (619) 233-0508
     E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com

        - and -

     David R. Scott, Esq.
     Amanda F. Lawrence, Esq.
     SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
     156 South Main Street
     P.O. Box 192
     Colchester, CT 06415
     Phone: (860) 537-5537
     Fax: (860) 537-4432
     E-mail: david.scott@scott-scott.com
             alawrence@scott-scott.com

        - and -

     Donald A. Broggi, Esq.
     Peter A. Barile III, Esq.
     J. Alex Vargas, Esq.
     SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
     The Helmsley Building
     230 Park Ave., 17th Floor
     New York, NY 10169
     Phone: (212) 223-6444
     Fax: (212) 223-6334
     E-mail: dbroggi@scott-scott.com
             pbarile@scott-scott.com
             avargas@scott-scott.com

        - and -

     Michael J. Guzman, Esq.
     KELLOGG HUBER HANSEN TODD EVANS & FIGEL, PLLC
     1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400
     Washington, D.C. 20036
     Phone: (202) 326-7900
     Fax: (202) 326-7999
     E-mail: mguzman@khhte.com

        - and -

     J. Gerard Stranch IV, Esq.
     BRANSTETTER STRANCH & JENNINGS PLLC
     223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
     Nashville, TN 37203
     Phone: (615) 254-8801
     Fax: (615) 250-3937
     E-mail: gerards@BSJFirm.com

        - and -

     Thomas J. Undlin, Esq.
     ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
     800 LaSalle Avenue Suite 2800
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: (612) 349-8500
     E-mail: TUndlin@RobinsKaplan.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Quinn, Cohen Named Class Action Lead Counsel
-------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Daniels, writing for Law360, reports that a New York
federal judge on Aug. 3 named Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP co-lead interim counsel
in a proposed class action accusing Bank of America Corp., Goldman
Sachs Group Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and other major financial
institutions of rigging the market for interest-rate swaps.

The suit filed in November 2015 by the Public School Teachers'
Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago, a longtime client of Cohen
Milstein, accuses more than a dozen financial institutions of
failing to open up interest rate swaps, a derivative method based
on speculation over interest rates, to exchange trading. Eight
applicants for lead counsel were filed on July 22.

U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer said that Cohen Milstein
and Quinn Emanuel, who filed a joint application to serve as co-
lead counsel, are best suited to represent the plaintiffs because
of the time and energy they've already invested in the case.

While all the applicants are impressive, Judge Engelmayer said,
court procedure requires the court to consider the work counsel
has done identifying or investigating the potential claims.  The
Chicago pension fund is Cohen Milstein's longtime client, the
judge said, and Quinn Emanuel spent close to $1 million on six
months of interviews and research leading up to the case.

"Although the court has no doubt that the other counsel seeking
leadership positions also invested a degree of time and energy
investigating the claims of their clients before filing their
complaints, the court's assessment is that the efforts undertaken
by Quinn Emanuel and Cohen Milstein were more generative and
exceeded the investigative work of the other applicants by an
order of magnitude," the order said.

Additionally, Tera Group Inc. and Javelin Capital Markets LLC sent
the court letters supporting Quinn Emanuel and Cohen Milstein's
application attesting to their fitness to lead, Judge Engelmayer
wrote.

Carol Gilden of Cohen Milstein said her team enjoys working
closely with Quinn Emanuel on the case.  Together, the team is
formidable, she said.

"What we are looking to accomplish here is to really bring
exchange trading to the interest rate swaps market and to really
recover damages for those end users, for institutions, for pension
funds, municipalities and others who were harmed by this conduct
and ultimately paid higher transaction costs," Ms. Gilden said.

Judge Engelmayer also named Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Kellogg Huber Todd Evans & Figel PLLC and Susman Godfrey LLP as
support firms that can be "on-call" at lead counsel's discretion.
Given the complexity of the case and the number of distinct
defendants, more help may be needed, he said.

"The court is mindful of the high stakes and complexity of the
litigation and that it may take unexpected turns," he wrote.
"There is value in having a support network of pre-designated law
firms at the ready whom interim co-lead counsel can deploy, at
interim co-lead counsel's discretion, to help shoulder such
burdens."

Dan Brockett -- danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com -- of Quinn Emanuel
said they appreciated having support firms available, given the
litigation that lies ahead.

"Our law firm did a tremendous amount of work in developing this
case and even identifying it," he said.  "It's not the normal
circumstances where a government investigation or public news was
the catalyst for this case. We really developed this the old-
fashioned way, you could say."

Mr. Brockett and Ms. Gilden said a consolidated amended complaint
will be filed in early September.

Judge Engelmayer's order named Adam S. Hakki --
ahakki@shearman.com -- and Richard F. Schwed --
rschwed@shearman.com -- of Shearman & Sterling LLP and Kenneth A.
Gallo -- kgallo@paulweiss.com -- and Julia Tarver-Mason Wood --
jwood@paulweiss.com -- of Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison
LLP as liaison counsel for the defendants for the purpose of
facilitating court communication, the order said.

JPMorgan, Bank of America, HSBC Bank PLC, Barclays PLC  and
Deutsche Bank AG declined to comment on Aug. 3.  Attorneys for the
financial institutions did not immediately respond to requests for
comment.

The plaintiffs are represented by Daniel L. Brockett, Sascha N.
Rand -- sascharand@quinnemanuel.com -- Steig D. Olson, Daniel
Cunningham -- danielcunningham@quinnemanuel.com -- David LeRay --
davidleray@quinnemanuel.com -- Miles H. Plant --
milesplant@quinnemanuel.com -- William R. Sears and Jeremy D.
Andersen -- jeremyandersen@quinnemanuel.com -- of Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, J. Douglas Richards --
drichards@cohenmilstein.com -- Michael Eisenkraft --
meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com -- and Carol V. Gilden --
cgilden@cohenmilstein.com -- of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
and Joseph M. Burns and William W. Leathem of Jacob Burns Orlove &
Hernandez.

Bank of America and Merrill Lynch and their affiliates are
represented by Shearman & Sterling LLP.  Barclays PLC and its
affiliates are represented by Latham & Watkins LLP.  BNP Paribas
Sais represented by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP.  Citigroup
Inc. and its affiliates are represented by Paul Weiss Rifkind
Wharton & Garrison LLP.  Credit Suisse Group AG and its affiliates
are represented by Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP. Deutsche Bank and
its affiliates are represented by Jones Day.

Goldman Sachs and its affiliates are represented by Winston &
Strawn LLP and Sullivan & Cromwell LLP.  JPMorgan and its
affiliates are represented by Covington & Burling LLP. Royal Bank
of Scotland PLC and its affiliates are represented by Davis Polk &
Wardwell LLP.  UBS AG and its affiliates are represented by Katten
Muchin Rosenman LLP.  ICAP Capital Markets LLC is represented by
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP. Tradeweb Markets LLC is represented by
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.  HSBC Bank PLC and its affiliates
are represented by Mayer Brown LLP.  Morgan Stanley and its
affiliates are represented by Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP.

The case is Public School Teachers' Pension and Retirement Fund of
Chicago v. Bank of America Corp. et al., case number 1:15-cv-
09319, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.


BERMAN & RABIN: Court Grants Preliminary Approval of "Tripp" Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, MARY TRIPP, Plaintiff, v. BERMAN & RABIN,
P.A. and VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-
2646-DDC-GEB (D. Kan.), District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree of the
United States District Court for the District of Kansas granted
plaintiff Mary Tripp's unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval
of Class Action Settlement and motion to approve the form and
manner of notice to class members and set a schedule governing
notice and final settlement approval.

Velocity purchases portfolios of consumer receivables and
liquidates them through debt collection processes.  Berman is a
Kansas law firm specializing in recovering consumer debts.  On
January 29, 2014, Berman sent plaintiff a form debt collection
letter on behalf of Velocity. Plaintiff filed a class action
lawsuit, seeking to represent two classes of persons. The first
class received debt collection letters from Berman, containing
language nearly identical to that in plaintiff's debt collection
letter. The second class received similar debt collection letters
from Berman on behalf of Velocity. Plaintiff contends that
defendants' failure to specify whether each recipient's debt
included attorney's fees and, if so, the amount of those fees
violates two provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA).

On January 16, 2015, plaintiff filed an amended motion for class
certification. The court granted that motion on September 29,
2015.

On January 15, 2016, plaintiff filed her unopposed motion asking
the court to approve the parties' class action settlement
preliminarily. In it, plaintiff asserts that "after discovery,
contested class certification proceedings, and a formal mediation
with Magistrate Judge Gwynne E. Birzer, the parties were able to
reach a settlement that resolves the claims of plaintiff and the
Settlement Classes."

Defendants have agreed to pay $6,500 into a common settlement fund
to satisfy the claims of both settlement classes. Each class
member who submits a claim form will receive a pro rata share of
the settlement fund. Also, defendants will pay separately: (1) the
costs of preparing and sending individual notice to class members;
(2) the costs of publishing additional notice, if necessary; (3)
the costs associated with handing and disbursing the settlement
fund; and (4) $2,000 to plaintiff, as class representative.

Plaintiff contends that this separate payment is not an "incentive
award" compensating her for service to the classes. Instead,
plaintiff asserts that she "will only receive the maximum
statutory damages recoverable for an individual plaintiff under
the FDCPA, or $1,000 from each defendant."

Plaintiff asks the court to: (1) approve preliminary the parties'
proposed settlement agreement; (2) approve the form and manner of
notice set out in plaintiff's motion; and (3) adopt a proposed
notice and settlement approval schedule.

In his Memorandum and Order dated July 6, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/nkEGUQ from Leagle.com, Judge Crabtree concluded
that the parties negotiated the proposed settlement fairly and
honestly.

Mary Tripp is represented by:

      Alan J. Stecklein, Esq.
      Michael H. Rapp, Esq.
      CONSUMER LEGAL CLINIC LLC
      748 Ann Ave
      Kansas City, KS 66101
      Tel: (913)371-0727

           - and -

      Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
      Michael S. Hilicki, Esq.
      KEOGH LAW, LTD.
      55 W Monroe St #3390
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312)726-1092

Berman & Rabin, P.A. and Velocity Investments, LLC are represented
by David E. Larson, Esq. -- delarson@martinpringle.com -- and Lora
M. Jennings, Esq. -- lmjennings@martinpringle.com -- MARTIN,
PRINGLE, OLIVER, WALLACE & BAUER, LLP


BEST BUY: Court Grants Plaintiff's Request to Seal Documents
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Troy L. Nunley of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California granted Plaintiff's Request
to Seal Documents in the case captioned, CHAD HERRON,
individually, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. BEST BUY STORES, LP, a Virginia limited
partnership, Defendant, Case No. 2:12-CV-02103-TLN-CKD (E.D.
Cal.).

Plaintiff seeks to seal documents and file redacted versions of
the declaration of Gene J. Stonebarger in Support of Plaintiff's
amended motion for class certification and the exhibits attached
thereto, the declaration of Colin B. Weir and the exhibits
attached thereto.

In his Order dated July 19, 2016 available at https://is.gd/PNs0Rr
from Leagle.com, Judge Nunley found good cause appearing granted
Plaintiff's request and ordered the Plaintiff to file redacted
versions of the Declaration of Gene J. Stonebarger in Support of
Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Class Certification and the
exhibits attached, the Declaration of Colin B. Weir and the
exhibits attached in the public record consistent with the Order
within seven days from the date of the Order.

Chad Herron is represented by Demetrius Xavier Lambrinos, Esq. --
dlambrinos@cpmlegal.com -- and Anne Marie Murphy, Esq. --
amurphy@cpmlegal.com -- COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP; Gene
Joseph Stonebarger, Esq. -- gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com --
Elaine Wing Ling Yan, Esq. -- eyan@stonebargerlaw.com -- and
Richard David Lambert, Esq. -- rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com --
STONEBARGER LAW

Best Buy Stores, LP is represented by Jill S. Casselman, Esq. --
Jcasselman@RobinsKaplan.com -- and Michael Aaron Geibelson, Esq.
-- Mgeibelson@RobinsKaplan.com -- ROBINS KAPLAN LLP


BIOTHRIVE SCIENCES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Legal Services Fee
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kaspers & Associates Law Offices, LLC v. John O. ("Jack") Devries
V, James ("Jim") Horan, Biothrive Sciences, Inc., Biothrive
Sciences Limited, LLC, and John Wicks, Case No. 2016CV278162 (Ga.
Super. Ct., July 27, 2016), arises from the Defendants' failure to
pay K&A's fees and expenses for legal services rendered by K&A to
the Defendants pursuant to an open account agreement which was
reduced to writing and thereby converted into two legally
enforceable written contractual agreements.

The Defendants own and operate a manufacturing company of
nutraceuticals and vitamins.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William F. Kaspers, Esq.
      Tyler B. Kaspers, Esq.
      KASPERS & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES, LLC
      75 14th Street, Suite 2130
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Telephone: (404) 888-3740
      Facsimile: (404) 888-3737
      E-mail: bill@kasperslaw.com
              tvler@kasperslaw.com


BLUE ROSE: Doesn't Properly Pay Waiters, "Polistico" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Polistico, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Blue Rose Cafe, Inc. d/b/a Candle Cafe and Grill, and
Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. BC628021 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 25,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to properly
pay Non-exempt Waiters for all time worked, including at least the
state-mandated minimum wages.

The Defendants own and operate Candle Cafe and Grill restaurant in
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, 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


BOROUGH OF HIGHLAND PARK: Court Dismisses Suit as Time-Barred
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Katharine S. Hayden of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey granted a motion to dismiss
the case captioned, LOUISE M. WILLIAMS and ELIE FEUERWERKER,
Plaintiffs, v. BOROUGH OF HIGHLAND PARK, Defendant, Civil No. 15-
6879 (KSH) (CLW) (D.N.J.).

Plaintiffs are residents of the Borough who allege they have been
injured financially by the Borough's sidewalk policies and
practices. Specifically, they allege that a Borough ordinance
requiring that residents maintain sidewalks in good repair
violates their due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment
and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, as well as the New Jersey Civil Rights
Act, N.J.S.A. 10:6-1 et seq. They also bring a claim for
restitution and unjust enrichment for fines imposed under the
offending ordinance.

The complaint states that in 2014, four residents brought suit
against the Borough in state court seeking to enjoin enforcement
of the ordinance imposing a fine and perform the work for non-
compliance with the Borough notice to perform maintenance or
repairs within 30 days, and Judge Travis Francis granted a
preliminary injunction on September 12, 2014. Shortly thereafter,
in November 2014, the Borough amended the ordinance and adopted a
six-month moratorium on its enforcement.

In the motion, the Borough argues that the Court should dismiss
plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine.

In her Opinion dated June 29, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/1CtHKc from Leagle.com, Judge Hayden found that
plaintiffs' Sec. 1983 claims are barred by the applicable two-year
statute of limitations and declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. Because the
Court has determined that plaintiffs' Sec. 1983 claims are time-
barred, it need not address the Borough's arguments that those
claims are insufficient as a matter of law.

Louise M. Williams And Elie Feuerwerker are represented by Elliot
David Ostrove, Esq. -- e.ostrove@epsteinstrove.com -- and Vahbiz
P. Karanjia, Esq. -- v.karanjia@epsteinstrove.com -- EPSTEIN
OSTROVE LLC

Borough Of Highland Park is represented by Donald A. Klein, Esq.
-- dklein@weinerlesniak.com -- WEINER LESNIAK LLP


BP PLC: 5th Circuit Set to Hear Oral Argument in Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Iafolla, writing for Reuters, reports that the 5th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral argument in BP PLC's bid
to block a proposed class action accusing the oil company of
deceiving participants of its employee retirement savings plan who
bought and held BP stock before and after the 2010 Deepwater
Horizon disaster.  The case focuses on the "more harm than good"
standard for stock-drop claims brought under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act from the Supreme Court's 2015
ruling in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer.  The case has drawn
amicus briefs from the U.S. Labor Department, Securities and
Exchange Commission, AARP Inc, National Employment Lawyers
Association and American Benefits Counsel.  The case is Whitley v.
BP, 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 15-20282.  For Whitley:
Thomas McKenna of Gainey, McKenna & Egleston, Arvind Khurana of
Milberg, Ronald Kravitz of Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah.  For
BP: Paul Ondrasik of Steptoe & Johnson and Richard Pepperman of
Sullivan & Cromwell.


BUCKEYE LENDING: Order Granting Relief From Judgment Reversed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Mike Yarbrough of the Ohio Court of Appeals reversed the
trial court's judgement granting motion for relief from judgment
in the case captioned, Michelle Mancuso, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, Appellee, v. Buckeye Lending Solutions,
LLC, et al., Appellants, Case No. E-15-021 (Ohio App.).

On July 10, 2014, Mancuso filed a complaint against Buckeye
Lending Solutions, LLC and Checksmart Financial, LLC, asserting
individual claims for violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales
Practices Act (OCSPA), invasion of privacy, and intentional
infliction of emotional distress.

Mancuso's claims stemmed from a dispute that arose in late-April
2014 after she borrowed money from appellants under a short-term
loan. When Mancuso was unable to repay the debt on the due date,
she requested an extension of time. Appellants allegedly "refused
her request and began to harass her over the telephone both at
home and at her workplace, making excessive telephone calls
repeatedly throughout the day."

In addition to her individual claims, Mancuso also brought a claim
against appellants for violations of the OCSPA on behalf of a
class defined as "All persons who obtained loans from Checksmart
stores in Ohio at any time from July 11, 2012 to the present, who,
while they were in default of payment, were subjected to repeated
telephone calls from [appellants] for the purposes of collecting
or attempting to collect on debts owed or purportedly owed to the
Defendants."

Mancuso filed a motion for relief from judgment under Civ.R.
60(B)(5), seeking to lift the trial court's stay, and relief from
the court's order compelling arbitration. In her motion, Mancuso
argued that she was entitled to relief from the trial court's
order because the court failed to address the class claims and the
enforceability of the class action waiver contained in the
arbitration agreement.

On March 3, 2015, the trial court granted, in part, Mancuso's
Civ.R. 60(B) motion. In its decision, the court found that the
motion was timely filed under the circumstances. The court also
found that Mancuso was entitled to relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(5),
and that she had a meritorious claim to present.

On appeal, Buckeye asserts that the trial court's March 3, 2015
Order was contrary to the Ohio Rule of Civil and Appellate
Procedure, and violated the Federal Arbitration Act by refusing to
enforce a valid and binding Arbitration Agreement and that the
motion should have been denied because the two arguments raised in
the motion do not warrant relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(5) as they
could have been raised on appeal or in opposition to appellants'
motion to stay the proceedings.

In his Decision and Judgment dated July 29, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/3MXzYq from Leagle.com, Judge Yarbrough found that
the trial court abused its discretion when it granted Mancuso's
motion for relief from judgment because Mancuso has not
demonstrated grounds for relief under Civ.R. 60(B).

Michelle Mancuso is represented by Dennis E. Murray, Sr. Esq. --
dms@murrayandmurray.com -- and Donna J. Evans, Esq. - MURRAY &
MURRAY

Buckeye Lending Solutions, LLC, et al. are represented by John P.
Gilligan, Esq. -- John.Gilligan@icemiller.com -- and Steven D.
Forry, Esq. -- steven.forry@icemiller.com -- ICE MILLER LLP


CALIFORNIA: $3,168 in Costs Attributable to Plaintiff Adcock
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, MARTHA BERNDT, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants, Civil
No. 03-CV-03174-NJV (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas
of the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California ruled that $3,168.21 is the cost attributable to
Plaintiff Shelly Adcock.

The case was filed as a putative class action in 2003.  Adcock
joined the case on July 5, 2005, with the filing of the Fourth
Amended Complaint.

The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification was denied by Judge
Hamilton on March 20, 2012, and the case proceeded with the ten
named Plaintiffs.

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

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

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

In the motion, Plaintiff Adcock petitions the court to disallow
certain costs as unrecoverable under the law. She asserts that the
purpose of the above provision was to ensure that none of the
Defendants' costs attributable to a settling party could be
charged to a non-settling party.

Defendants argue that the settlement agreements contemplate that
each of the ten Plaintiffs is responsible for 1/10 of the joint
costs incurred in the case from its inception until each Plaintiff
was dismissed, settled, or received an unfavorable jury verdict.
They argue that all of the Plaintiffs are also responsible for
100% of the costs related to their own case.

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

Martha Berndt, et al. are represented by:

      Pamela Yvette Price, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF PAMELA Y. PRICE
      7677 Oakport Avenue, Ste. 1120
      Oakland, CA94621
      Tel:(510)877-0024

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

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


CALIFORNIA: Court Narrows Claims in "Bruce" Suit
------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California granted in
part Defendants' summary judgment in the case captioned, VINCENT
C. BRUCE, Plaintiff, v. JEANNE WOODFORD, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 1:07-CV-00269-BAM PC (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Vincent C. Bruce (Plaintiff) is a state prisoner
proceeding pro se in the civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 1983. The action currently proceeds on Plaintiff's claims
against Defendants Adams, Hense, Ward, Clark, Fulks, Wan,
Frauenheim, Lloren, Field and Tripp for retaliation in violation
of the First Amendment; Defendants Adams, Hense, Ward, Clark,
Fulks, Wan, Lloren, Field and Tripp for violation of the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and Defendants Adams,
Schottgen and Field for failing to provide Plaintiff with adequate
clothing in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Plaintiff argues that the uncontested facts show that his
placement in administrative segregation, retention there, and
transfer to California Correctional Institution were done by
Defendants Adams, Hense, Ward, Clark, Fulks, Wan, Frauenheim,
Lloren, Field, and Tripp in retaliation for him exercising his
First Amendment rights. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that he was
penalized for: (1) participating in, and assuming a leadership
role, in the hunger strike, including by helping to organize the
hunger strike, contacting the media, obtaining outside support,
advocating for the hunger strike, acting as a spokesperson for the
participants, and attempting to organize a picket of the prison;
(2) presenting grievances; (3) jailhouse lawyer activities,
including providing legal assistance to inmates and by
representing inmates as a Men's Advisory Council (MAC)
representative.

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 56, arguing that the undisputed facts show
that they did not violate Plaintiff's constitutional rights, and
show that they are protected by qualified immunity. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56. Plaintiff opposed the motion, and also filed a cross-motion
for summary judgment on all of his claims.

In her Order dated July 22, 2016 available at https://is.gd/FcEp6a
from Leagle.com, Judge McAuliffe held that Plaintiff has
sufficiently raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding
whether Defendants Adams, Fulks, and Clark retaliated against him
for his participation in the hunger strike by having him placed in
administrative segregation, in violation of the First Amendment
which preclude summary judgment of the claims.  The Court granted
summary judgment in favor of the Defendants as to Hense, Ward,
Wan, Frauenheim, Lloren, Field, or Tripp finding that there is no
triable claim against them.  The Court said summary judgment is
properly granted to Defendants Adams, Hense, Ward, Clark, Fulks,
Wan, Lloren, Field, and Tripp on Plaintiff's claim that they
failed to provide fair notice of prohibited conduct before
taking/enforcing disciplinary action, and to Defendant Field on
Plaintiff's claim for failing to act as an impartial fact finder,
in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.

Derral G. Adams, et al. are represented by:

      Suzanne Berry Antley, Esq.
      OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
      PO Box 944255
      Sacramento, CA 94244-2550


CALIFORNIA: Court Denies Motion to Intervene in Inmates' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Troy L. Nunley of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California denied a motion to
intervene in the case captioned, ROBERT MITCHELL, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. MATTHEW CATE, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:08-CV-
01196-TLN-EFB (E.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff Class in the case is comprised of all male prisoners
who are now, or will in the future be, subjected to the CDCR's
lockdown policy. In October 2014, the parties executed a
Stipulated Settlement that resolved all of the class claims in the
case. In May 2015, the Court granted the parties' joint motion
seeking preliminary approval of the Stipulated Settlement, and
found that "it is the product of arm's-length, serious, informed,
and non-collusive negotiations between experienced and
knowledgeable counsel who have actively prosecuted and defended
this litigation." In September 2015, the parties sought final
approval of the Stipulated Settlement. The Court issued an order
granting final approval in October 2015.

The Court-approved Stipulated Settlement states that if the
Plaintiff Class contends that Defendants are not complying with
the Stipulated Settlement's terms, they must provide written
notice to Defendants and engage in a meet-and-confer process,
among other things, before seeking Court intervention.

In the motion, Dean Rodriguez seeks to intervene under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), which offers protection to
nonparties who have an interest in the property or transaction
that is the subject of the action.

In his Order dated July 19, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/pHsIgz from Leagle.com, Judge Nunley found that
Rodriguez's motion to intervene is improper for two reasons:
First, the motion is untimely; Second, Rodriguez is a class member
and thus bound by the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

Robert Mitchell, et al. are represented by Geoffrey Thomas Holtz,
Esq. -- gholtz@morganlewis.com -- and Brendan Eugene Radke, Esq.
-- brendan.radke@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP

They are also represented by:

      Donald Specter, Esq.
      Warren E. George, Jr., Esq.
      PRISON LAW OFFICE
      1917 Fifth St.
      Berkeley, CA 94710
      Tel:(510)280-2621

T. Felker, et al. are represented by:

      Christopher James Becker, Esq.
      Michelle A. Des Jardins, Esq.
      Damon Grant McClain, Esq.
      Erin B. Sullivan, Esq.
      Grant Lien, Esq.
      Julianne Mossler, Esq.
      Marisa Yee Kirschenbauer, Esq.
      OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
      950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
      Washington, DC 20530-0001
      Tel: (202)353-1555


CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION: Zehentbauer Suit Stays in Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Benita Pearson of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio denied Plaintiffs' motion to
remand their claims to the Columbiana County, Ohio Court of Common
Pleas in the case captioned, ZEHENTBAUER FAMILY LAND LP, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION, LLC, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 4:15CV2449 (N.D. Ohio).

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action in the Columbiana County,
Ohio Court of Common Pleas, seeking compensation for damages they
and class members sustained when Defendants allegedly underpaid
royalties due under certain oil and gas leases. In their
Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants breached the terms of
their oil and gas leases by deducting production and post-
production costs from royalties due to Plaintiffs and by selling
their oil products to affiliates at sub-market prices.
Defendants removed the case to this Court on November 30, 2015
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1441 and 1446, and based upon
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d), invoking the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA).

On December 28, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a remand requesting that
the Court return the case to the Columbiana County, Ohio Court of
Common Pleas. Plaintiffs argue that the parties agreed to a
dispositive forum selection clause in their leases which requires
resolution in their agreed-upon court. In opposition, Defendant
Total E&P USA, Inc. (TEPUSA) argues that the forum selection
clause contained in the agreements does not "clearly and
unequivocally" waive their right to removal and that the matter
should remain before this Court because of CAFA's preference for
federal jurisdiction. Defendants Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C.,
Chesapeake Operating, Inc., and CHK Utica, L.L.C. joined TEPUSA in
opposing to the motion.

In her Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 19, 2016 available
at https://is.gd/3jVKzB from Leagle.com, Judge Pearson held the
forum selection clause of the case nearly identical, at least
linguistically to that of Cadle's in which the Court of Appeals
found that the language did not explicitly waive Defendants' right
to removal.

Zehentbauer Family Land LP, et al. are represented by Gregory W.
Watts, Esq. -- gwatts@kwgd.com -- Scott M. Zurakowski, Esq. --
szurakowski@kwgd.com -- Terry A. Moore, Esq. - tmoore@kwgd.com --
and William G. Williams, Esq. -- wwilliams@kwgd.com -- KRUGLIAK,
WILKINS, GRIFFITHS & DOUGHERTY

They are also represented by:

      Dennis E. Murray, Jr., Esq.
      William H. Bartle, Esq.
      MURRAY & MURRAY
      111 East Shoreline Drive
      Sandusky, OH 44870-2517
      Tel: (419)624-3000

Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., et al are represented by Daniel T.
Donovan, Esq. -- daniel.donovan@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS;
Jessica Knopp Cunning, Esq. -- jkcunning@vorys.com -- Timothy B.
McGranor, Esq. -- tbmcgranor@vorys.com -- and Peter A. Lusenhop,
Esq. -- palusenhop@vorys.com -- VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR & PEASE;
Seamus C. Duffy, Esq. -- seamus.duffy@dbr.com -- and William M.
Connolly, Esq. -- scott.connolly@dbr.com -- DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH

Total E&P USA, Inc. is represented by Lydia M. Floyd, Esq. --
lfloyd@jonesday.com -- and Jeffery D. Ubersax, Esq. --
jubersax@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY


CHESAPEAKE OPERATING: Must Defend Against Zehentbauer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Benita Pearson of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio granted in part defendants'
motion for partial dismissal of the case captioned, ZEHENTBAUER
FAMILY LAND LP, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION,
LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:15CV2449 (N.D. Ohio.).

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action in the Columbiana County,
Ohio Court of Common Pleas, seeking compensation for damages they
and class members sustained when Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C.,
Chesapeake Operating, L.L.C., and CHK Utica, L.L.C.'s allegedly
underpaid royalties due under certain oil and gas leases. The
four-count Class Action Complaint alleges claims for breach of
contract (Count One), breach of contract -- implied covenants
(Count Two), breach of contract -- breach of express covenants
(Count Three), and accounting (Count Four).

Defendants removed the case to the Court on November 30, 2015
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1441 and 1446, and based upon
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d), invoking the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA).  In their Complaint,
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants breached the terms of their oil
and gas leases by deducting production and post-production costs
from royalties due to Plaintiffs and by selling their oil products
to affiliates at sub-market prices.

In the motion, Pelican and Jamestown move the Court for an order:
(a) dismissing Counts Two and Four in their entirety, and (b)
dismissing the claim for breach of express covenant to market in
Count Three.

In her Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 19, 2016, available
at https://is.gd/Pf0ImT from Leagle.com, Judge Pearson denied
dismissal of Chesapeake Operating as a defendant because
Plaintiffs have provided "further factual enhancement," which
"states a claim to relief that is plausible on its face" as to
Chesapeake Operating. The Court granted dismissal of Count II in
its entirety because Plaintiffs' leases are not silent on these
covenants, they may not state an independent claim for relief for
breach of implied covenants and Count three because Plaintiffs
have not alleged Defendants' failure to meet the standard of the
Ohio law and Count IV in its entirety because Plaintiffs in the
case at bar have not met their burden at the motion to dismiss
stage.

Zehentbauer Family Land LP, et al. are represented by Gregory W.
Watts, Esq. -- gwatts@kwgd.com -- Scott M. Zurakowski, Esq. --
szurakowski@kwgd.com -- Terry A. Moore, Esq. - tmoore@kwgd.com --
and William G. Williams, Esq. -- wwilliams@kwgd.com -- KRUGLIAK,
WILKINS, GRIFFITHS & DOUGHERTY

They are also represented by:

      Dennis E. Murray, Jr., Esq.
      William H. Bartle, Esq.
      MURRAY & MURRAY
      111 East Shoreline Drive
      Sandusky, OH 44870-2517
      Tel: (419)624-3000

Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., et al are represented by Daniel T.
Donovan, Esq. -- daniel.donovan@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS;
Jessica Knopp Cunning, Esq. -- jkcunning@vorys.com -- Timothy B.
McGranor, Esq. -- tbmcgranor@vorys.com -- and Peter A. Lusenhop,
Esq. -- palusenhop@vorys.com -- VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR & PEASE;
Seamus C. Duffy, Esq. -- seamus.duffy@dbr.com -- and William M.
Connolly, Esq. -- scott.connolly@dbr.com -- DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH

Total E&P USA, Inc. is represented by Lydia M. Floyd, Esq. --
lfloyd@jonesday.com -- and Jeffery D. Ubersax, Esq. --
jubersax@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY


CHRYSLER: 6th Circuit Set to Hear Oral Arguments in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reports that the 6th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati will hear oral arguments in
a proposed class action alleging that 2004-2008 Chrysler Pacifica
vehicles are defective because their engine cradles are prone to
rust, corrosion and perforation.  Plaintiffs say that a lower
court erroneously granted carmaker FCA US's motion for judgment on
the pleadings after finding it had no duty to owners of cars made
by Chrysler before its 2009 bankruptcy.  FCA US is a subsidiary of
Fiat Chrysler, which was created after Italian automaker Fiat
acquired Chrysler's assets following bankruptcy proceedings.  FCA
maintains that it shed liability for those defects during the
bankruptcy proceedings, although plaintiffs contend it should be
liable for latent defects that emerged after 2009.  The case is
Holland v. FCA US, 15-4367.  For plaintiffs: Sol Weiss, Larry
Coben and Paola Pearson of Anapol Weiss; Andrew List of Clark
Perdue & List; James Lowe of Lowe Eklund Wakefield. For FCA: Kathy
Wisniewski of Thompson Coburn and Christina Marshall of Miller
Canfield Paddock & Stone.


CHRYSLER FINANCIAL: 2nd Cir. Affirms Arbitration Ruling in "Gaul"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judges Dennis Jacobs, Guido Calabresi and Reena Raggi of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of
the district court compelling arbitration in the case captioned,
JEFFREY GAUL, PAULA S. GAUL, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CHRYSLER
FINANCIAL SERVICES AMERICAS LLC, DAIMLER CHRYSLER FINANCIAL
SERVICES AMERICAN LLC, DCFS TRUST, TD AUTO FINANCE LLC, successor
in interest to DaimlerChrysler, Chrysler Financial et al.,
Defendants-Appellees, EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., TRANS-
UNION LLC, EQUIFAX INC., DEILY, MOONEY & GLASTETTER LLP,
Defendants, Case No. 15-1337 (2nd Cir.).

Jeffrey and Paula Gaul, pro se, appeal the district court's
decisions compelling arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause
in the parties' car lease agreement, declining to lift the stay
after the American Arbitration Association (AAA) refused to
conduct the arbitration, and denying class certification. The
Gauls also generally challenge the constitutionality of filing
fees.

As the district court determined, the Gauls raised no issue of
fact to contest that they entered the agreement to arbitrate, or
that the scope of the agreement embraced their claims against
appellees. They signed the lease agreement, which contained a
clear, unambiguous, legible, and broad clause providing, inter
alia, that any claim or dispute which arises out of or relates to
the Lease or any resulting transaction or relationship arising out
of the Lease shall be arbitrated if either party demands
arbitration.

In a Summary Order dated July 1, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/OrSscQ from Leagle.com, the Second Circuit held that
the Gauls in effect failed to comply with the district court's
order compelling arbitration and that the Court did not abuse its
discretion in denying class certification because (1) the
litigation had been properly stayed pending arbitration; and (2)
the Gauls did not even attempt to demonstrate satisfaction of
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23.

As to their challenge to the constitutionality of filing fees, the
Second Circuit held, the Gauls lacked standing to dispute the
constitutionality of court filing fees because did not seek a
waiver for inability to pay in the district court or in the Court.

Chrysler Financal Services America, LLC, et al. are represented by
Richard C. Maider, Esq. -- rmaider@deilylawfirm.com -- and
Jonathan D. Deily, Esq. -- jdeily@deilylawfirm.com -- DEILY &
GLASTETTER LLP


CHRYSLER GROUP: Widow Fights Motion to Dismiss Jeep Wrangler Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Rozen, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that in products
liability litigation against Chrysler Group, the heirs of a man
who died in an accident while driving a Jeep Wrangler are battling
the automaker's motion to dismiss their claims as a sanction for
his widow's alleged spoliation.

In a response filed Aug. 1, Ramona Smith, the man's widow and his
other heirs who are plaintiffs in the case in East Texas federal
court, argue that a judge should deny the company's motion to
dismiss their claims.

Neither the widow nor her attorney intended to destroy the vehicle
or alter evidence in any way that would constitute bad faith or
breach of duty, the plaintiffs argue.

In its motion seeking the spoliation sanction, filed on July 8,
Chrysler argues that Mrs. Smith, whom Rebecca Brightwell of
Lufkin, Texas, currently represents, along with her first lawyer,
failed to take affirmative steps to have her insurance company
preserve the Jeep after the crash.

In response, Chrysler argued that Mrs. Smith and her lawyer failed
to inform the company of their intent to file a product liability
lawsuit related to the crash and therefore the automaker took no
steps to preserve the vehicle.

Chris Pearson -- cpearson@germer-austin.com -- of Germer Beaman &
Brown of Austin, who represents Chrysler, declined to comment on
the pending motion.

Ms. Brightwell, who represents not only Mrs. Smith but all the
plaintiffs in Smith v. Chrysler, also declined to comment.

In their complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the accident, which
took Mrs. Smith's husband's life, occurred because of a hidden
defect beneath the chassis of the Jeep Wrangler triggered a
transmission malfunction, a fire and ultimately, his fatal crash.
The widow received a notice of a recall of the vehicle after her
husband's death, the plaintiffs allege.

In their response to the spoliation motion, the plaintiffs allege
that Chrysler "attempts to misrepresent the facts in this matter
to deny" them their day in court.

They allege that Chrysler had an opportunity some seven months
prior to the insurance company selling the vehicle to inspect it.

"Chrysler knew of the fatal accident involving her husband through
notification by Mrs. Smith and that the accident involved a fire
destroying the owner's manual and warranty," the plaintiffs argue.

"A spoliation sanction in this instant would be a severe form of
punishment to the plaintiffs when efforts were made by plaintiffs
to preserve the vehicle," the heirs argue.


COMPREHENSIVE SECURITY: "Allison" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Allison, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Comprehensive Security, LLC and Loyd Poteet, Case No.
3:16-cv-01956 (M.D. Tenn., July 26, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants own and operate a security services company located
at 330 Franklin Rd #135, Brentwood, TN 37027.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Hamilton, Esq.
      PROVOST UMPHREY LAW FIRM, LLP
      4205 Hillsboro Pike, Suite 303
      Nashville, TN 37215
      Telephone: (615) 297-1932
      E-mail: mhamilton@pulf.com

         - and -

      Michelle Owens, Esq.
      AGEE & OWENS LAW
      2911 Elm Hill Pike, Suite 2
      Nashville, TN 37214
      Telephone: (615) 300-8546
      E-mail: mowens@ageeowenslaw.com


CONEXEM SOFTWARE: Sued in Cal. Over License and Service Agreement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GLC Operations, Inc., f/k/a Green Lien Collections, Inc. and
Martha Locker, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated afflicted patients v. Conexem Software, LLC, Innovative
Medical Management, Bassel Salloum, Christopher Huizar, Komron
Nouri, Brent Green, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
BC628534 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 27, 2016), arises out of the
Defendants' fraudulent, deceptive and abusive scheme to extort
money and property out of GLC and others similarly situated in the
form of licensing, servicing and other fees that were
required to be paid pursuant to a "License and Service Agreement"
and on information and belief, substantially similar licensing and
servicing agreements that Conexem entered into with other
similarly situated licensees for the use of its web-based software
and associated parasitic services that were to also be provided by
Conexem.

The Defendants operate a software company located at 4175 E La
Palma Ave #215, Anaheim, CA 92807.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael E. Reznick, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL E. REZNICK
      283 Ocho Rios Way
      Oak Park, CA 91377
      Telephone: (818) 888-5900
      Facsimile: (818) 888-5947
      E-mail: reznaeoura@aol.com
              rezlawoffice@gmail.com

         - and -

      Ronal Tym, Esq.
      THE TYM FIRM
      30526 Rainbow View Dr.
      Agoura Hills, CA 91301-1426
      Telephone: (818) 836-1428 E
      E-mail: rtvm@tymfirm.com


CONTAINER STORE: Court Denies Motion to Enforce Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton of the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts accepted and adopted the
Report and Recommendation (R&R) of Magistrate Judge M. Paige
Kelley and denied defendant's motion to enforce arbitration and
class action waivers and stay the action in the case captioned,
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND, MARK CADIGAN, MIKA PYYHKALA,
LISA IRVING, ARTHUR JACOBS, HEATHER ALBRIGHT, and JEANINE KAY
LINEBACK, Plaintiffs, v. THE CONTAINER STORE, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 15-12984-NMG (D. Mass.).

The case is a putative class action alleging discrimination in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the ADA) and the
discrimination laws of Massachusetts, New York, Texas, and
California. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that blind individuals
who shop at Defendant The Container Store's locations across the
country should have equal access to Defendant's payment methods
and loyalty programs.

Defendant has moved to compel arbitration and to stay the
litigation, contending that Plaintiffs enrolled in Defendant's
loyalty program, which requires that disputes be submitted to
arbitration. The Magistrate Judge issued an R&R recommending that
Defendant's motion to enforce arbitration and class waivers and
stay action be denied.

The Container Store, Inc. has filed objections to the Report and
Recommendation, holding that the In-Store Plaintiffs did not
receive notice that they were entering into an agreement which
would waive their right to proceed in court.

In his Memorandum and Order dated July 27, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/f3t4VM from Leagle.com, Judge Gorton found that the
agreement to arbitrate is unenforceable because Defendant retains
the unilateral right to change the terms of the arbitration
provision and that Defendant has failed to meet its burden to
demonstrate that the In-Store Plaintiffs properly consented to the
arbitration provision found in the Loyalty Program's terms and
conditions.

National Federation of the Blind, et al. are  represented by Jana
Eisinger, Esq. -- eisinger@mlgrouppc.com -- MARTINEZ LAW GROUP,
P.C. -- Jeremy Y. Weltman, Esq. -- jweltman@kcl-law.com --
KERSTEIN, COREN, LICHTENSTEIN LLP

The Container Store, Inc. is represented by Gregory F. Hurley,
Esq. -- ghurley@sheppardmullin.com -- and Michael J. Chilleen,
Esq. -- mchilleen@sheppardmullin.com -- SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER
& HAMPTON, LLP -- Howard E. Stempler, Esq. --
hstempler@sederlaw.com -- SEDER & CHANDLER


CORPORATE RESOURCE: Court Narrows Claims in Suit v. D&Os
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lorna G. Schofield United States District Court for
the Eastern District of California denied in part defendants'
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the case captioned,
STEPHEN CALFO and JANEZ DEMSAR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOHN P
MESSINA, Sr., et al., Defendants, Case No. 15 Civ. 4010 (LGS)
(S.D.N.Y.).

Purchasers of Corporate Resource Services, Inc. securities bring
the putative class action against certain CRS officers and
directors, seeking remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the Exchange Act) for the period April 26, 2012, to March
20, 2015 (the Class Period).  The Complaint alleges violations of
Sec. 10b, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sec. 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.  The crux of Plaintiffs' claim is CRS's undisclosed
$100 million material tax withholding liability.  Specifically the
Complaint alleges that CRS, through its officers and directors,
omitted material information from its SEC public filings during
the Class Period when it failed to disclose the tax withholding
liability and its implications.

Plaintiffs Stephen Calfo and Janez Demsar purchased CRS common
stock during the Class Period and allege that they were damaged
when the corrective disclosures of the withholding tax liability
were made.  As detailed in documents filed with the Court and
incorporated by reference in the Complaint, Calfo purchased 59,267
shares of CRS common stock, during the period July 14, 2014 to
February 5, 2015 at a collective purchase price of $75,004; and
Demsar purchased 9,700 shares of the stock, on July 10, 2014, for
$24,049. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of those who
purchased or otherwise acquired CRS stock during the Class Period
and were damaged upon the revelation of the corrective
disclosures.

Defendants move to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b), 12(b)(6) and the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA).

In her Opinion and Order dated July 5, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/XWe8HC from Leagle.com, Judge Schofield held that
the Complaint sufficiently alleges violations of Sec. 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5 by Defendants R. Cassera, Messina and Golde but does
not allege such claims against the remaining Defendants because it
does not sufficiently plead that they acted with scienter.

Stephen Calfo is represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- and Justin Solomon Nematzadeh, Esq. --
jnematzadeh@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ LLP, Phillip Kim, Esq. Erica
Lauren Stone, Esq. -- estone@rosenlegal.com -- and Gonen Haklay,
Esq. -- ghaklay@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.

Janez Demsar is represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- and Justin Solomon Nematzadeh, Esq. --
jnematzadeh@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ LLP; and Gonen Haklay, Esq. --
ghaklay@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A

John P. Messina, Sr. is represented by:

       Michael Fred Bachner, Esq.
       Scott James Splittgerber, Esq.
       BACHNER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
       39 Broadway, Suite 1610
       New York, NY 10006
       Tel: (212) 344-7778

Michael J. Golde is represented by James P. Smith, III, Esq. --
jpsmith@winston.com -- DEWEY & LEBOEUF, L.L.P

Robert Cassera is represented by:

       Marc Antony Agnifilo, Esq.
       Andrea Lynn Zellan, Esq.
       BRAFMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
       767 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
       New York, NY 10017
       Tel: (212) 750 7800

James Foley is represented by Jonathan Craig Uretsky, Esq. --
uretsky@phillipson-uretsky.com -- PHILLIPSON & URETSKY, LLP


DALLAS CENTRAL: Bent Tree Tower Sues Over "Erroneous" Appraisal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In BENT TREE TOWER JOINT VENTURE LTD. (One Bent Tree Tower), v.
DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Case No: DC-16-09321, filed
August 2, 2016, in the District Court Of Dallas County, Texas, the
plaintiff alleges that Defendant(s) erroneously and unlawfully
appraised the value of its Property in violation of the
Constitution, Property Tax Code and Statutes of the State of
Texas.

Dallas Central Appraisal District -- http://www.dallascad.org/--
is an interactive site which allows searches of property tax
records.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel B. Donovan, Esq.
     Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq.
     Mazelle S. Krasoff, Esq.
     GEARY PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
     One Bent Tree Tower
     16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400
     Addison, TX 75001-6837
     Phone: (972)931-9901
     Fax: (972) 931-9208
     E-mail: ddonovan@gpd.com
             jtobin@gpd.com
             mkrasoff@gpd.com


DANA CORP: Settlement of Suit v. D&Os Has Preliminarily Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge James G. Carr of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted preliminary
approval of the settlement in the case captioned, PLUMBERS &
PIPEFITTERS NATIONAL PENSION FUND; et al, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL
J. BURNS et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:05-cv-07393-JGC (N.D
Ohio).

The Settlement Amount is $64 million.

The securities class action arising from the alleged misconduct by
the two defendants, formerly high-ranking corporate officials of
Dana Corporation of Toledo, Ohio.

The settling parties made a motion, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(e), for an order preliminarily approving the
settlement of this Litigation, in accordance with a Stipulation of
Settlement dated July 13, 2016.

In his Order dated July 19, 2016 available at https://is.gd/znMg5o
from Leagle.com, Judge Carr found that it is entirely appropriate
to issue the Order of Preliminary Approval and Notice. The Court
appointed the firm of Gilardi & Co. LLC  as claims administrator.
Plaintiffs' Counsel shall be provisionally paid $2,475,000.00
representing approximately 75% of their out-of-pocket expenses.

A Final Approval Hearing shall be held before the Court on
November 18, 2016 at 12:00 p.m.

Plumbers & Pipefitters National Pension Fund, et al. are
represented by Darren J. Robbins, Esq. -- darrenr@rgrdlaw.com --
Debra J. Wyman, Esq. -- debraw@rgrdlaw.com -- James E. Barz, Esq.
-- jbarz@rgrdlaw.com -- Laurie L. Largent, Esq. --
llargent@rgrdlaw.com -- Samantha A. Smith, Esq. --
trigs@rgrdlaw.com -- Maureen E. Mueller, Esq. --
mmueller@rgrdlaw.com  -- and  Michael J. Dowd, Esq. --
miked@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD

They are also represented by:

      Jack Landskroner, Esq.
      LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN
      1360 W 9th St #200,
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Tel: (216)522-9000

Michael J. Burns is represented by Arthur S. Linker, Esq. --
arthur.linker@kattenlaw.com -- Dean N. Razavi, Esq. --
dean.razavi@kattenlaw.com -- Joel W. Sternman, Esq. --
j.sternman@kattenlaw.com -- and Daniel A. Edelson, Esq. --
gilbert.edelson@kattenlaw.com -- KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN -- Joseph
P. Thacker, Esq. -- jthacker@trzlaw.com -- and Richard S.
Walinski, Esq. -- rwalinski@trzlaw.com -- THACKER ROBINSON ZINZ


DANA MOTOR: Ohio App. Court Affirms Summary Judgment Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Peter J. Stautberg of the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the
trial court's judgment in the case captioned, ROBIN HATHORN, and
WILLIAM BLOUNT, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DANA MOTOR CO., LLC.,
and HCHT, LLC., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. C-150363 (Ohio
App.).

Plaintiffs-appellants Robin Hathorn and William Blount filed a
class-action lawsuit against defendants-appellees Dana Motor Co.,
LLC, and HCHT, LLC., alleging violations of the Ohio Consumer
Sales Practices Act (CSPA), fraud, and breach of contract. They
also asserted a claim entitled "breach of the duty of good faith
and fair dealing."

Hathorn and Blount's claims stemmed from allegations that Dana
Motor repeatedly overcharged them, and a putative class of
thousands of individuals, for motor oil, transmission fluid,
coolant, power-steering fluid, differential fluid, washer fluid,
transfer-case fluid, and brake fluid. Hathorn and Blount further
alleged that Dana Motor repeatedly charged them and putative class
members for DriveSure Krex, and/or a BG Flush Kit even though
these products were not used in their respective automobiles.

In support of their motion for summary judgment, Dana Motor
argued, in part, that the number of quarts of motor oil listed on
Hathorn's and Blount's invoices was irrelevant because Hathorn and
Blount had each paid a preset "menu price" for a bundled service
package that included a motor oil change. the trial court entered
summary judgment in favor of Dana Motor on all claims. In
pertinent part, the trial court determined that (1) Hathorn and
Blount's CSPA claims failed because there was nothing deceptive or
unconscionable about Dana Motor's billing practices, and (2)
Hathorn and Blount's breach of contract claims were barred by the
"Voluntary Payment Doctrine."

On appeal, Hathorn and Blount argue that the trial court erred in
entering summary judgment in favor of Dana Motor.

In his Opinion dated July 27, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/e8At6I from Leagle.com, Judge Stautberg hold that
the trial court correctly concluded that there was no genuine
issue of fact concerning whether Dana Motor acted in a deceptive
manner.

Robin Hathorn, and William Blount  are represented by Randolph
Freaking, Esq. -- randy@fmr.law -- and Brian P. Gillan, Esq. --
bgillan@fmr.law -- FREAKING & BETZ, LLC  --  Mark J. Byrne, Esq.
-- mbyrne@jksmlaw.com -- KLEINMAN, SEIBEL & MCNALLY CO, L.P.A

Dana Motors, LLC is represented by James R. Matthews, Esq. --
jmatthews@kmklaw.com -- Joseph M. Callow, Esq. --
jcallow@kmklaw.com -- and William N. Minor, Esq. --
wminor@kmklaw.com -- KEATING, MEUTHING & KLEKAMP


DANIEL RAKOFSKY: "Buckius" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
ERICA BUCKIUS, the Plaintiff, v. DANIEL RAKOFSKY, P.A. and DANIEL
RAKOFSKY, Case No. CACE-16-013293 (Fla. Cir. Ct., July 20, 2016),
seeks to recover damages which exceeds $15,000.00 exclusive of
Attorneys' fees, interest and costs.

The Plaintiff brought the action as a result of Defendant's
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay
unpaid overtime compensation to Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees.

The Defendant provides special clients with legal advice,
services, advocacy, and counsel in a wide variety of matters.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allison M. Furman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF
          ALLISON M. FURMAN, P.C.
          260 Madison Avenue, 15th floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 684 9400


DELANO FARMS: Bid to Reopen Discovery in "Arredondo" Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California denied Plaintiffs'
motion for a second modification to the scheduling order in the
case captioned, SABAS ARREDONDO et al., Plaintiffs, v. DELANO
FARMS CO., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:09-CV-01247 MJS (E.D.
Cal.).

On June 17, 2009, Plaintiffs commenced this class action against
Defendants on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated.
On April 19, 2014, the parties were granted the right to proceed
with merits discovery with the specific goal of seeking
representative, statistical evidence to assist with the
presentation of claims at trial. In late 2015, Plaintiffs attempt
at a mail survey failed, and they moved for, and were granted, a
modification of the scheduling order to attempt a second survey,
this one to be conducted in person, door-to-door which also
failed.

Plaintiffs filed the motion for a second modification to the
scheduling order to enable a third survey attempt. Defendants
contend that Plaintiffs have been neither reasonable nor diligent
in their efforts and therefore are not entitled to modification of
the scheduling order.

Plaintiffs filed the motion to modify the scheduling order on May
26, 2016. The motion asks the court to reopen discovery and allow
Plaintiffs until September 2, 2016, to complete a new survey and
until September 23, 2016, to disclose expert reports.

In his Order dated July 22, 2016 available at https://is.gd/8kiBB0
from Leagle.com, Judge Seng was unable to conclude that Plaintiffs
acted reasonably and diligently in delaying their motion for
further modification of the Scheduling Order. That finding, alone,
warrants denial of their motion.

The parties are directed to submit a status report setting forth
their respective views as to how the case should proceed.

Sabas Arredondo, et al. are represented by Allen R. Ball, Esq. --
aball@ballandYorkelaw.com -- and Gregory J. Ramirez, Esq. --
gramirez@ballandyorkelaw.com -- LAW OFFICE OF BALL & YORKE --
James Engel Perero, Esq. -- jperero@mwgjlaw.com -- MYERS, WIDDERS,
GIBSON, JONES & FEINGOLD, LLP -- Jessica Arciniega, Esq. --
jarciniega@alrb.ca.gov -- WASSERMAN, COMDEN, CASSELMAN & ESENSTEN,
L.L.P. -- Mario Martinez, Esq. -- mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com --
MARTINEZ AGUILASOCHO & LYNCH APLC -- William Cooper Callaham, Esq.
-- wcallaham@wilcoxenlaw.com -- WILCOXEN CALLAHAM -- Katherine
Winder, Esq. -- kwinder@condonlaw.com -- CONDON & FORSYTH LLP

Delano Farms Company is represented by David N. Bruce, Esq. --
dbruce@sbwllp.com -- James P. Savitt, Esq. -- jsavitt@sbwllp.com
-- Miles A. Yanick, Esq. -- myanick@sbwllp.com -- and Sarah
Gohmann Bigelow, Esq. -- sgohmannbigelow@sbwllp.com -- SAVITT
BRUCE & WILLEY LLP -- William C. Hahesy, Esq. --
bill@hahesylaw.com -- LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM C. HAHESY -- Howard
A. Sagaser, Esq. -- has@sw2law.com -- SAGASER, WATKINS & WIELAND,
PC

T & R Bangi's Agricultural Services, Inc. is represented by D.
Greg Durbin, Esq. -- greg.durbin@mccormickbarstow.com -- and Laura
A. Wolfe, Esq. -- laura.wolfe@mccormickbarstow.com -- MCCORMICK,
BARSTOW, SHEPPARD, WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP

Anderson & Middleton Company is represented by William C. Hahesy,
Esq. -- bill@hahesylaw.com -- LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM C. HAHESY


DS SERVICES: Faces "Loo" Suit in Ore. Alleging Violation of FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Loo, individually, on behalf of others similarly situated,
v. DS Services of America, Inc.; Costco Wholesale Corporation; and
DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case 6:16-cv-01572-TC (D. Or., August 2,
2016), alleges failure to pay overtime compensation in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards.

DS Services of America, Inc. produces and distributes bottled
water and water filtration coolers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel S. Brome, Esq.
     NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
     One Embarcadero Center, Suite 720
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Phone: (415) 277-7235
     Fax: (415) 277-7238
     E-mail: dbrome@nka.com

        - and -

     Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
     NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
     4600 IDS Center
     80 South 8th St.
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: (612) 256-3200
     Fax: (612) 215-6870

        - and -

     Alan J. Leiman, Esq.
     LEIMAN & JOHNSON, LLC
     44 W. Broadway, Suite 326
     Eugene, OR 97401
     Phone: (541) 345-2376
     Fax: (541) 345-2377
     E-mail: alan@leimanlaw.com

        - and -

     Drew G. Johnson, Esq.
     44 W. Broadway, Suite 326
     Eugene, OR 97401
     Phone: (541) 345-2376
     Fax: (541) 345-2377
     E-mail: drew@leimanlaw.com


ECO-CLEAN MAINTENANCE: Herrera Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Osman O. Herrera and Gladys L. Amaya individually on behalf of
other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Eco-Clean
Maintenance Inc. and Arkadiusz Grabowski, individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-07744 (N.D. Ill., August 1, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages for all time worked by
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees over 40 hours in
individual work weeks pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

The Defendants operate a janitorial services company called Eco-
Clean Maintenance, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Valentin T. Narvaez, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
          6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
          Chicago, IL 60646
          Direct: 312-878-1302
          E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


EKF DIAGNOSTICS: Court Dismisses "Sartin" Junk Fax Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sarah S. Vance of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted Defendant's motion
to dismiss the case captioned, DR. BARRY SARTIN, v. EKF
DIAGNOSTICS, INC. & STANBIO LABORATORY, L.P., SECTION: R, Case No.
16-1816 (E.D. La.).

Plaintiff Dr. Barry Sartin brings the lawsuit on behalf of himself
and a proposed class of individuals and entities to whom
defendants EKF Diagnostics, Inc. and Stanbio Laboratory, L.P.
allegedly sent unsolicited fax advertisements in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk
Fax Prevention Act of 2005, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 (TCPA).  Dr. Sartin
alleges that he was the recipient of a fax advertisement sent by
Defendants on September 24, 2014.

Plaintiff seeks statutory damages and injunctive relief.  Dr.
Sartin brings his TCPA claims on behalf of himself and a proposed
class consisting of "all persons and entities, to which within
four years of the filing of this Compliant, Defendants sent
facsimile transmissions with content that discusses, describes,
promotes, products and/or services offered by Defendants, and does
not contain the opt-out notice required by 47 U.S.C. Sections
227(b)(1)(C)(iii), (b)(2)(D), (b)(2)(E), (d)(2) or 47 C.F.R. Sec.
64.1200(a)(iii)-(iv).7".

Defendants move the Court to dismiss the complaint for lack of
Article III standing, or, in the alternative, to strike its class
action allegations as insufficient to establish an ascertainable
class.

In her Order and Reasons dated July 5, 2016, available at
https://is.gd/T7o9uL from Leagle.com, Judge Vance held that the
complaint failed to allege any facts indicating that defendants'
fax caused Dr. Sartin a concrete injury in fact.

Barry Sartin is  represented by:

      George Brian Recile, Esq.
      Barry William Sartin, Jr., Esq.
      Matthew Arthur Sherman, Esq.
      Patrick R. Follette, Esq.
      Preston Lee Hayes, Esq.
      Ryan Paul Monsour, Esq.
      CHEHARDY, SHERMAN, ELLIS, MURRAY, RECILE, STAKELUM & HAYES
      One Galleria Blvd., Suite 1100
      Metairie, LA 70001
      Tel:(504) 217-2006

EKF Diagnostics, Inc. and Stanbio Laboratory are represented by
Isaac H. Ryan, Esq. -- iryan@deutschkerrigan.com -- and Robert
Emmett Kerrigan, Jr., Esq. -- rkerrigan@deutschkerrigan.com --
DEUTSCH KERRIGAN LLP; Lewis S. Wiener, Esq. --
lewis.wiener@sutherland.com -- SUTHERLAND, ASBILL & BRENNAN, LLP


ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS: "Abikhalil" Asserts Labor Code Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
LAILA ABIKHALIL v. ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS; ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS
ENTERPRISES, LLC; CENTRAL CASTING; WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT
INC.; WARNER BROS. WORLDWIDE TELEVISION DISTRIBUTION, INC.; GEP
CENCAST, LLC; GEP CENEX, LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
CASE NO: BC 628865 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles County, August 2,
2016),  was filed under Fair Employment Housing Act, and California
Labor Code.

ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS ENTERPRISES, LLC -- https://www.ep.com/ --
is a payroll and production services company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lawrence W. Freiman Esq.
     Michael J. Freiman, Esq.
     FREIMAN LAW
     100 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 700,
     Santa Monica, CA 90401
     Phone: (310) 917-1024
     Fax: (888) 835-8511
     E-mail: lawrence@freimanlaw.com
              michael@freimanlaw.com


FALLANGHINA LLC: Court Wants "Gonzalez" Complaint Revised
---------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California granted Defendants'
motion to dismiss with leave to amend in the case captioned, JOSE
GONZALEZ, Plaintiff, v. FALLANGHINA, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 3:15-cv-001074 (VLB), 3:15-cv-00425 (VLB), 3:15-cv-01156
(VLB), 16-CV-01832-MEJ (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Jose Gonzalez (Plaintiff) filed the action on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated against Defendants
Fallanghina LLC (Fallanghina), Longbranch Berkeley LLC
(Longbranch), Hal Brandel, and Walter Wright, alleging they
violated various federal and California labor and employment laws.

In his Complaint Plaintiff alleged that Defendants (1) did not pay
him or other non-exempt current and former employees overtime or
minimum wages as required by federal and California law, and (2)
did not give them meal or rest breaks as required under California
law. In doing so, Plaintiff also asserted Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) claims of unpaid overtime and unpaid minimum wage on a
collective-action basis.

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on May 17, 2016, and
subsequently, Plaintiff filed his Fist Amended Complaint, removing
the minimum wage claims and providing other allegations regarding
the overtime claims. The FAC asserts five causes of action: (1)
failure to pay overtime under the FLSA; (2) failure to pay
overtime under California Labor Code; (3) failure to provide
proper meal and rest breaks under California Labor Code; (4)
failure to make payments within the time required after
termination under California Labor Code; and (5) restitution of
unpaid overtime wages under California's Unfair Competition Law
(UCL), Business and Profession Code Sections 17200, et seq.  The
FAC does not state which Defendant(s) is allegedly liable for
which causes of action.

Defendants filed their pending Motion to Dismiss on June 21, 2016.
They move to dismiss Plaintiffs' FAC on two grounds: (1) "to the
extent that Plaintiff alleges any causes of action against the
named individual defendants Hal Brandel and Walter Wright based on
an alter ego theory, Defendants move to dismiss Hal Brandel and
Walter Wright as defendants from this action"; and (2) "to the
extent that Plaintiff alleges a cause of action for violations of
California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512 (meal and rest break
claims), Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's claim on the
grounds that Plaintiff has failed to plead any facts supporting
that cause of action." Defendants ask the Court to dismiss
Plaintiff's alter ego allegations against Hal Brandel and Walter
Wright and dismiss Plaintiff's meal and rest break claim (third
cause of action) for failure to state a claim on which relief can
be granted.

In her Order dated July 22, 2016 available at https://is.gd/KFQNpw
from Leagle.com, Judge James concluded that Plaintiff's FAC does
not meet Twombly/Iqbal standard to allege supporting facts to
establish a plausible basis for liability and that the Court does
not have enough factual information from his FAC or otherwise to
be able to assess Plaintiff's alter ego theory in general, let
alone to the extent they are specifically based on allegations of
fraud.  Given that it is unclear whether Plaintiff can allege
plausible facts supporting claims against Brandel and Wright in
some capacity, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend.

Jose Gonzalez is represented by Robert David Baker, Esq. --
rbaker@rdblaw.net -- ROBERT DAVID BAKER, INC.

Fallanghina, LLC, et al. are represented by Danton Wai-Ky Liang,
Esq. -- dliang@littler.com -- Garry George Mathiason, Esq. --
gmathiason@littler.com -- and Kai-Ching Cha, Esq. --
kcha@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON


FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS: "Richardson" Class Claims Reinstated
---------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge D. Brooks Smith of the Court of Appeals, Third
Circuit, vacated the district court's order dismissing class
claims and remanded 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, Case No. 15-2876 (3rd Cir.).

Plaintiff Sebastian Richardson, a former inmate at the United
States Penitentiary (USP) at Lewisburg, is seeking both individual
monetary damages for alleged violations of his constitutional
rights at USP Lewisburg and class-wide injunctive relief to
prevent future constitutional violations at the penitentiary.

Richardson was transferred out of USP Lewisburg after he filed an
amended class action complaint but before he moved for class
certification. The District Court, found Richardson's class
definition "untenable because it was not objectively, reasonably
ascertainable."

Richardson sought leave to appeal the District Court's denial of
class certification in his case which was granted by the Court. He
argues that the Court's resolution of Shelton controls the
decision in the case and that reversal of the District Court's
order denying class certification and remand for further
proceedings consistent with Shelton are warranted.

In his Opinion and Reasons dated July 15, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/ySSpwU from Leagle.com, Judge Smith concluded that
Richardson's class claims are not moot and he may continue to seek
class certification in the case. The Court remanded the case to
the district court for further proceedings.

Sebastian Richardson is represented by:

      Su Ming Yeh, Esq.
      PENNSYLVANIA INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT
      PO Box 128
      Lewisburg, PA 17837-0128
      Tel: (570)523-1104

Director Federal Bureau of Prisons is represented by

       Michael J. Butler , Esq.
       Office of United States Attorney
       228 Walnut Street, P.O. Box 11754,
       220 Federal Building and Courthouse
       Harrisburg, PA 17108


FIFA: "Palivos" Suit Over 2014 World Cup Ticket Prices Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, VICKI PALIVOS, et al., Plaintiff(s), v.
FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION aka "FIFA," et al.,
Defendant(s), Case No. 2:15-CV-1721 JCM (CWH)(D. Nev.), District
Judge James C. Mahan of the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada:

     -- the joint motion filed by defendants FIFA, Match
        Hospitality, Match Services, Infront, SportsMark, and
        Cartan to dismiss case for failure to state a claim is
        denied as moot.

     -- defendant FIFA's motion to dismiss for lack of personal
        jurisdiction is denied as moot.

     -- defendant Match Services' motion to dismiss for lack of
        personal jurisdiction is denied as moot.

     -- defendant Match Hospitality's motion to dismiss for lack
        of personal jurisdiction and lack of standing is granted
        in part and denied in part.

     -- defendant Infront's motion to dismiss for lack of
        personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim
        is denied as moot.

     -- plaintiffs Palivos and Kleanthis' motions for leave to
        file first amended complaint is denied.

     -- defendants FIFA, Match Hospitality, Match Services,
        Infront, SportsMark, and Cartan's joint motion for
        sanctions is denied.

     -- plaintiff Palivos and Kleanthis' complaint is dismissed
        without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

On September 8, 2015, plaintiffs Palivos and Kleanthis initiated
this lawsuit on behalf of a putative class, seeking to recover
hundreds of millions of dollars from FIFA, Match Hospitality,
Match Services, Infront, SportsMark, and Cartan for allegedly
inflating the prices of 2014 World Cup tickets. Plaintiffs raise
five claims: (1) civil RICO violation, (2) violation of section 1
of the Sherman Act, (3) violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act,
(4) violation of section 3 of the Clayton Act, and (5) unjust
enrichment and disgorgement of profits. The complaint identifies
the putative class as "all persons and entities residing in the
United States who purchased tickets to attend one or more matches
of the 2014 World Cup in Brazil via FIFA's authorized United
States sales agents offering official 'hospitality packages.'"

On April 15, 2016, after over seven months of litigation,
plaintiffs submitted a motion for leave to file a first amended
complaint. The proposed amended complaint claims that plaintiffs
bought some of their tickets at face value from FIFA and Match
Services. The plaintiffs purchased their remaining tickets at
prices above face value from vividseats.com and other undisclosed
secondary market resellers. The amended complaint also adds a new
claim, a new defendant, and a fictitious plaintiff who purchased
hospitality packages.

Before the court are four motions to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction and a joint motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim. In those motions and in subsequent reply briefs, defendants
sporadically argue that plaintiffs lack standing. Plaintiffs filed
for leave to amend in order to correct false statements and cure
the standing problem. Additionally, defendants filed a motion for
sanctions, claiming plaintiffs have made gross factual errors and
mischaracterized the law.

In his Order dated July 27, 2016 available at https://is.gd/1yLuXC
from Leagle.com, Judge Mahan found that granting plaintiffs' leave
to amend the complaint would result in undue delay and that
plaintiffs have not suffered the "injury in fact" of being forced
to pay above face value for 2014 World Cup tickets through the
purchase of hospitality packages. The court did not find
plaintiffs' conduct to be so egregious as to warrant sanctions.

Vicki Palivos and George Kleanthis are represented by Martin A.
Little, Esq. -- mal@juww.com -- and Michael R. Ernst, Esq. --
mre@juww.com -- JOLLEY URGA WIRTH WOODBURY & STANDISH -- William
A. Lemkul, Esq. -- lemkul@morrissullivanlaw.com -- MORRIS,
SULLIVAN & LEMKUL LLP

Federation Internationale Football Association is represented by
Michael Carlinsky, Esq. -- michaelcarlinsky@quinnemanuel.com --
Steig D. Olson, Esq. -- steigolson@quinnemanuel.com -- and Sami H.
Rashid, Esq. -- samirashid@quinnemanuel.com -- QUINN EMANUEL
URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP -- Patricia K. Lundvall, Esq. --
lundvall@mcdonaldcarano.com -- and Kristen T. Gallagher, Esq. --
kgallagher@mcdonaldcarano.com -- MCDONALD CARANO WILSON LLP

Match Hospitality AG is represented by David T. Gluth, II, Esq. --
dgluth@gordonrees.com -- and Robert S. Larsen, Esq. --
rlarsen@gordonrees.com -- GORDON & REES LLP

Infront Sports & Media is represented by Andrew C. Finch, Esq. --
afinch@paulweiss.com -- Daniel H. Levi, Esq. --
dlevi@paulweiss.com -- H. Christopher Boehning, Esq. --
cboehning@paulweiss.com -- and Thomas C. Rice, Esq. --
trice@paulweiss.com -- PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON
LLP -- Raleigh C. Thompson, Esq. -- rct@morrislawgroup.com -- and
Rosa Solis-Rainey, Esq. -- rsr@morrislawgroup.com -- MORRIS LAW
GROUP

Sportsmark Management Group, Ltd. is represented by Joshua H.
Epstein, Esq. -- jepstein@dglaw.com -- DAVIS & GILBERT LLP;
W. West Allen, Esq. -- WAllen@howardandhoward.com -- HOWARD &
HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC


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

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

The Defendant moves under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) to dismiss the
claims asserted by Romeo and Motz for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. Defendant argues that because Romeo and Motz failed
to disclose their putative FDCPA claims against FMA on their
bankruptcy petitions, those claims now belong to the respective
bankruptcy estates, which, through their trustees, are the only
parties with standing to enforce them.

The Defendant also sought to dismiss the complaint in its entirety
on the alternative ground that the equitable doctrine of judicial
estoppel bars the Plaintiffs' claims. Finally, contending that the
Plaintiffs commenced this action in bad faith for the primary
purpose of harassing FMA, the Defendant seeks an award of
attorneys' fees and costs under section 1692k of the FDCPA.

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

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

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

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


FORJAS TAURUS: Settlement of Suit Over Defective Guns Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Patricia A. Seitz of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida granted final approval
of the class action settlement in the case captioned, CHRIS P.
CARTER, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FORJAS TAURUS S.A., TAURUS INTERNATIONAL
MANUFACTURING, INC., and TAURUS HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 1:13-CV-24583-PAS (S.D. Fla.).

In 2013, Plaintiff was a deputy with the Scott County, Iowa
Sherriff's Department. His service weapon was a personally-owned
Taurus PT140 Millennium PRO pistol.  Plaintiff alleges that, while
pursuing a suspect, his Taurus pistol fell from its holster,
dropped to the ground, and discharged on impact. After retaining
attorney Todd Wheeles, Plaintiff filed his initial complaint on
December 20, 2013. After several months of discovery, Plaintiff
filed his First Amended Complaint on September 22, 2014, asserting
statutory, tort, and warranty-based claims arising from alleged
safety defects in the Class Pistols.

The focus of the class action is nine polymer striker-fired Taurus
models of firearms alleged to have two defects that cause
unintentional discharge when dropped or when the safety is on. The
specific models are: PT-111 Millennium; PT-132 Millennium; PT-138
Millennium; PT-140 Millennium; PT-145 Millennium; PT-745
Millennium; PT-24/7; PT-609; and PT-640 (collectively, Class
Pistols). The Class is comprised of approximately 955,796 members.

During discovery, the parties engaged in more than 90 hours of
arm's-length mediation and settlement negotiations over the course
of several months, including six in-person mediation sessions with
mediator Rodney Max of Upchurch Watson White & Max. Also in
attendance were Plaintiff's forensic accountant, Forjas Taurus's
CFO from Brazil, Taurus International Manufacturing, Inc.'s CEO,
and a Portuguese translator with Brazilian business experience and
a law degree, retained by Plaintiff's counsel specifically to
facilitate mediation. That session resulted in a second
settlement, which Defendants' boards approved.

The parties' valuation expert Dr. Andrew Safir estimated the total
value of the Settlement if every Class Member were to make a claim
to be $239 million. Assuming only a more conservative 10% to 25%
overall claim rate based on the amount of media exposure, public
awareness of the defects, ease in making a claim, and lifetime
duration of the enhanced warranty, Dr. Safir estimated that the
Settlement value ranges from $29.9 million to $73.6 million,
excluding claims administration and attorneys' fees, which
Defendants will pay separately from the Class recovery.

Specifically, Dr. Safir determined that the value of the enhanced
warranty is between $20.9 million to $52.3 million. In reaching
this figure, he included the average shipping costs of $64.85 to
and from the customer and estimated the weighted average value of
the replacement firearms to be $235. He excluded the incidental
repair costs, such as the $35 labor fee, because no repair
currently exists. As to the cash payout, Dr. Safir estimates a
$9.0 million to $21.3 million value, which includes an estimated
$158 to $170 per customer payout and one-way shipping for purposes
of returning the Class Pistol. Separate and apart from Class
recovery, the parties also agreed that Defendants would pay up to
$9 million in attorneys' fees to Class Counsel and a $15,000
incentive fee to Plaintiff, if approved by the Court.

The Settlement also provides that the attorneys' fees will be paid
in equal $3 million installments over a three-year period,
beginning one year after the Effective Date and paid annually
thereafter. All costs of providing notice to the Settlement Class,
processing Claim Forms, making settlement payments, and otherwise
administering the Settlement will be paid by Defendants separate
and apart from the Class Members' benefits under the Settlement.
These costs are estimated to be $1.5 million to $2 million.

In her Order dated July 22, 2016 available at https://is.gd/z35gxB
from Leagle.com, Judge Seitz certified the settlement pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and (b)(3). Class Counsel's Motion for
Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Service Award is granted. The fees are
to be paid in three annual installments. In consideration for this
fee, Class Counsel shall continue to respond to Class Members'
issues and questions, and assist in resolving issues with the
claims administration process.

Chris P. Carter is represented by David L. Selby, II, Esq. --
dselby@baileyglasser.com -- Eric B. Snyder, Esq. --
esnyder@baileyglasser.com -- John W. Barrett, Esq. --
jbarrett@baileyglasser.com -- Marc Raymer Weintraub, Esq. --
mweintraub@baileyglasser.com -- and Patricia M. Kipnis, Esq. --
pkipnis@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP -- Todd
Wheeles, Esq. -- twheeles@mhhlaw.net -- MORRIS, HAYNES, HORNSBY &
WHEELES -- Carol Lynn Finklehoffe, Esq. --
finklehoffe@leesfield.com -- Ira H. Leesfield, Esq. --
leesfield@leesfiled.com -- and Thomas B. Scolaro, Esq. --
scolaro@leesfield.com -- LEESFIELD LEIGHTON & PARTNERS

Forjas Taurus, S.A. and Taurus International Manufacturing Inc.
are represented by John R. Autry, Esq. -- autry!gsrlaw.com -- John
Patrick Marino, Esq. -- jmarino@sgrlaw.com -- John F. Weeks, IV,
Esq. -- jweeks@sgrlaw.com -- Timothy A. Bumann, Esq. --
tbaumann@sgrlaw.com -- and David A. Mobley, Esq. --
dmobley@srlaw.com -- SMITH, GAMBRELL, RUSSELL, LLP


FTS USA: Court Denies 2nd Summary Judgment Bid in "Thomas" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Robert E. Payne of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied
Defendant's second motion for summary judgment in the case
captioned, KELVIN M. THOMAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FTS USA, LLC,
et al., Defendants, Civil No. 3:13-CV-825 (E.D. Va.).

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

After the court certified the proposed classes, the parties
conducted limited post-certification discovery. The Court granted
leave for Defendants to file a second motion for summary judgment
limited to these two issues:

     a. Class Representative Kelvin Thomas' understanding of
        the Employment Release Form that he signed at the time
        he applied for employment with FTS USA, LLC; and

     b. Plaintiffs' damages.

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

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

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

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


FUNSAN K CORP: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marcos Narciso Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Funsan K. Corp. d/b/a Beacon Wines &
Spirits, C.Y. New Corp. d/b/a Mitchell's Wines & Liquor Store, Chi
Young Chung, and Kyong Suk Yi, Case No. 1:16-cv-05828 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 21, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a wine shop located at 2120
Broadway, New York, NY 10023.

Marcos Narciso Martinez is a pro se plaintiff.


GINN DEVELOPMENT: Dismissal of Plaintiffs' Claims Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan and Circuit Judges Gerald Bard
Tjoflat and Robin S. Rosenbaum, sitting in a three-judge panel of
the Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, affirmed the district
court's dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice in the case
captioned, GORDON LAWRIE, et al., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GINN
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No.
14-14758 (11th Cir.).

Plaintiffs-Appellants in the case include individuals who
purchased real estate in several planned residential developments
conceived by Defendants-Appellees Ginn Development Company, LLC
(Ginn), and Lubert-Adler Partners, L.P. (Lubert-Adler), during the
real-estate boom of the mid-2000s. Plaintiffs have alleged that
their purchases have since lost significant value.

Plaintiffs filed a class-action civil complaint alleging that the
Defendants and the banks violated provisions of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962
(RICO), as well as several state laws. Plaintiffs amended their
complaint once on their own initiative, but the district court
dismissed that First Amended Complaint for failing to satisfy the
pleading standards of Rules 8 and 9(b), Fed. R. Civ. P.

In the Plaintiffs' filed their Third Amended Complaint (TAC)
operative action which alleges that (1) Defendants conducted an
enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity -- namely
mail fraud and wire fraud -- in violation of RICO (Count I); (2) a
RICO conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(d); and (3)
Defendants' "agreement to artificially inflate the value of
properties through numerous acts of fraud and misrepresentations
with intent to defraud which constitute a claim for civil
conspiracy.

Defendants' motions to dismiss the TAC were referred to the
magistrate judge, who recommended the dismissal with prejudice of
Plaintiffs' claims. Among other bases, the magistrate judge
justified his recommendation on grounds that Plaintiffs failed
once again "to meaningfully connect any specific fraudulent
conduct to any specific damages suffered by any specific
Plaintiff."

On appeal, Plaintiffs argue that they adequately pled their fraud-
premised RICO and civil conspiracy claims.

In the Per Curiam dated July 28, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/DLaQpt from Leagle.com, Judges Kaplan, Tjoflat and
Rosembaum hold that the Plaintiffs' RICO claim lack of specificity
condemns Plaintiffs' conspiracy claims, which are ultimately
premised on the same fraudulent conduct and therefore demand the
same level of detail in pleading.

GINN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, et al. are represented by John P.
MacNaughton, Esq. -- bmacnaughton@ecjlaw.com  -- ERVIN COHEN AND
JESSUP LLP -- Jacob Justin Payne, Esq. David Andrew Greene, Esq.
-- kgreene@chavezbreault.com -- CHAVEZ AND BREAULT -- Lawrence
Hugh Kunin, Esq. Alan Michael Grunspan, Esq. Kim M. Watterson,
Esq.

Gordon Lawrie, et al. are represented by Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
-- jmeltzer@ktmc.com -- KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER CHECK LLP


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

GoDaddy is an internet-domain name registrar. With the permission
of Microsoft, GoDaddy began selling Office 365 through its website
in early 2014 through subscription services. On or about November
13, 2014, Plaintiff Venture Edge Legal PLLC, viewed and purchased,
through GoDaddy's website, the Office 365 Business Premium plan
for $89.88 for a one-year term with an automatic annual renewal
rate of $179.88 per year. Plaintiff alleges GoDaddy failed to
disclose that its version of the Office 365 Business plan does not
offer the same services and features as the Office 365 Business
Premium plan sold by Microsoft.

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

Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
claim.

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

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

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


GUY'S DRUM: Faces "Paniagua" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Min. Wage Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
JULIO PANIAGUA, on behalf of himself and all other employees
similarly situated, known and unknown, v. GUY'S DRUM SERVICE,
INC., an Illinois corporation, SHARON VARADI, individually, and
CAROL MARHSALL, individually, Case: 1:16-cv-07812 (N.D. Ill.,
August 2, 2016), arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance, and
Chicago Municipal Code.

Guys Drum Service Inc. offers transportation service.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Paul Luka, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF PAUL LUKA P.C.
     120 S. State Street, Suite 400
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 971-7309
     E-mail: paul@lukapc.com


HARBOR HOMEOWNERS: Class Certification Order Upheld in Duhon Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Roland L. Belsome of the Louisiana Court of Appeals affirmed
the trial court's judgment granting the motion to confirm class
certification in the case captioned, WENDY DUHON, ET AL. v. HARBOR
HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL, Civil No. 2015-CA-0852 (La.
App.).

The Harbor View Condominium Complex in New Orleans sustained wind
and water damages after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The
Association, through its volunteer Board of Directors (the Board),
manages the complex. The Board is composed of individual
condominium owners.

On August 4, 2006, Ms. Duhon filed a class action lawsuit against
the Association and other defendants alleging that the Association
was at fault for various damages relating to the repair of the
complex. Specifically, Ms. Duhon claimed that the Association: (1)
unlawfully entered individual condominium units without
authorization, destroying and damaging their contents; (2)
negligently failed to administer and supervise the rebuilding
process, resulting in a delay in the repairs; (3) unlawfully
increased the insurance deductible on the policy covering the
complex without the required notice and approval from the
condominium owners. Ms. Duhon later amended the suit to add State
Farm, the Association's insurer, as a defendant.

By judgment rendered on February 25, 2014, the trial court granted
Ms. Duhon's motion for class certification on two of the
plaintiff's three claims: the Association's breaches of duty
regarding the delay in repair and increase of the insurance
deductible. On February 26, 2015, the court granted Ms. Duhon's
motion to voluntarily dismiss all uninsured claims. Thereafter,
the court addressed the issue of class of class certification that
had been remanded. By judgment rendered May 29, 2015, the trial
court, again, granted the motion for class certification.

Defendants, Harbor Homeowners' Association, Inc. (the Association)
and its insurer, State Farm and Casualty Company (State Farm),
appeal the trial court's judgment granting plaintiff Wendy Duhon's
Motion to Confirm Class Certification.

In her Opinion dated June 30, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/Uotn9S from Leagle.com, Judge Belsome found that the
trial court was manifestly erroneous in determining that the
prerequisite was met for the purposes of class certification.

Wendy Duhon is represented by:
      Anthony David Irpino, Esq.
      IRPINO LAW FIRM
      2216 Magazine St
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Tel: (504)525-1500

Harbor Homeowners' Association, et al. are represented by John
Elliott Unsworth, Jr., Esq. -- junsworth@hmhlp.com -- HAILEY
McNAMARA HALL LARMANN & PAPALE, L.L.P.


HASAKI RESTAURANT: Mei Seeks Overtime Compensation Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
MEI XING YU, individually and on behalf all other employees
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HASAKI RESTAURANT, INC.,
SHUJI YAGI, KUNITSUGU NAKATA, HASHIMOTO GEN, John Doe and Jane Doe
No. 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06094 (S.D.N.Y., August
1, 2016), seeks to recover damages for overtime compensation for
all hours worked over 40 each workweek, as a result of Defendants'
willful and intentional violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and the New York Labor Law.

Hasaki is a no-reservations Japanese restaurant that's been
serving sushi & cooked items since 1984.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jian Hang, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-18 39th Ave., Suite
          1003 Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353 8588
          E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


IMAGE FIRST: Court Denies Motion to Compel Discovery Response
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California denies Plaintiff's
motion to compel discovery response in the case captioned, KYLE L.
CAMPANELLI, Plaintiff, v. IMAGE FIRST UNIFORM RENTAL SERVICE,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-04456-PJH (N.D. Cal.).

The case is putative class action based on the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and the California Labor Code. Plaintiff Kyle
Campanelli was formerly employed by an ImageFIRST entity as a
delivery person from March 2014 to March 3, 2015. The complaint
names three ImageFIRST companies as defendants: (1) ImageFIRST
Uniform Rental Service, Inc. (IF Uniform); (2) ImageFIRST
Healthcare Laundry Specialists, Inc. (IF Healthcare); and (3)
ImageFIRST of California, LLC (IF California). Campanelli alleges
that he worked over 40 hours a week but was denied meals and rest
periods, and was never paid overtime compensation required under
the FLSA and California law. Campanelli seeks to represent all
similarly situated ImageFIRST delivery persons.

Campanelli brought the motion to compel IF Uniform to provide
further answers to interrogatories and requests for production of
documents, and a Rule 26 conference to commence discovery on the
answering defendants.

Campanelli's discovery requests seek general information on the
"relationships" between the three defendants, purportedly relevant
to his "joint employer" and "single enterprise" theories of
personal jurisdiction.  For example, Campanelli seeks discovery on
whether IF Uniform and the other defendants have common directors
or common ownership.

In his Order dated July 1, 2016 available at https://is.gd/OJu3T1
from Leagle.com, Judge Hamilton concluded that it was proper for
IF Uniform to refuse to answer these requests, or to limit their
scope to the critical issue: whether IF Uniform, itself, has
contacts with California because Campanelli's discovery requests
were therefore outside of the scope of the court's March 30 Order
which permitted to seek discovery into IF Uniform's own specific
contacts with California, if any, that give rise to the case. It
was further proper for IF Uniform to limit its responses to the
date range of September 28, 2011 to the present, as that
corresponds to the applicable four year statute of limitations.

Kyle L. Campanelli is represented by Brian J. Malloy, Esq. --
bjm@brandilaw.com -- THE BRANDI LAW FIRM

Campanelli is also represented by:

      David C. Feola, Esq.
      HOBAN & FEOLA, LLC
      730 17th St #405,
      Denver, CO 80202
      Tel: (303)674-7000

Image First Uniform Rental Service, Inc. is represented by Eric
Meckley, Esq. -- eric.meckley@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP

Image First Healthcare Laundry Specialists, Inc. and Image First
of California, LLC are represented by Eric Meckley, Esq. --
eric.meckley@morganlewis.com -- and Kathryn M. Nazarian, Esq. --
kate.nazarian@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS AND BOCKIUS


ITAL PIZZA: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Olman Hernandez, Henry Jimenez, and Elmer Orlando Canales,
individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v.
Ital Pizza Corp. d/b/a La Piazza; Anthony Branchinelli; Louis
Branchinelli; Fortunato Nicotra; Carol Ann Nicotra; Marco Nicotra;
and any other related entities, Case No. 605718/2016 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., July 27, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
minimum wage, spread of hours compensation, and unlawfully
retained gratuities pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate La Piazza restaurant in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, PC
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Telephone: (516) 873-955


JAY PEAK: EB-5 Visa Program Investor Class Actions Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Ellen Sheng, writing for Forbes.com, reports that it seems like a
win-win.  Foreign investors put in much-needed capital to develop
projects and create jobs in the U.S., earning a green card in the
process.  For many it is a winning proposition, but for others the
EB-5 program has led investors to Ponzi schemes, broken promises
and missing capital.

Increasingly, foreign investors are fighting back.  Some very
successful projects have come out of EB-5 investments -- Hudson
Yards in Manhattan is a fine example -- several high profile fraud
cases that are playing out in courts now highlighting weak
oversight of the program.

The EB-5 is a controversial federal program grants green cards to
"alien entrepreneurs" provided they invest a minimum $500,000 in a
U.S. commercial enterprise that creates at least 10 jobs.

The most followed EB-5 fraud case is Jay Peak Resort in Vermont,
which has been accused of securities fraud and misuse of more than
$200 million raised from investors.  The Securities and Exchange
Commission earlier this year filed a civil lawsuit against Jay
Peak alleging that the owner and chief executive of the resort
"systematically looted" more than $50 million from foreign
investors in a "massive eight-year fraudulent scheme." The Jay
Peak case now has several class action suits involving hundreds of
investors.

"Jay Peak was one of the original grandfather regional centers
that was a very vocal proponent of the program.  For this to
happen, it's kind of a black eye," said Samuel Newbold --
snewbold@BMKLLP.com -- attorney at Barst Mukamal & Kleiner in New
York, which is representing some investors in the Jay Peak case.

A Few Bad Apples

Other cases currently in court include one in Seattle in which a
local developer who raised $125 million from foreign investors has
been accused of taking $17.6 million for his own personal use.  In
Los Angeles, the SEC filed civil fraud charges against a doctor
turned developer and his associate who are accused of misspending
more than $10 million meant to build a nursing home.

Last year in South Dakota, a group of 35 Chinese investors came
together to sue the state of South Dakota as well as Joop Bollen,
a former official who ran the EB-5 program, for $18.5 million.

And in a twist, Korean investors sued Justin Moongyu Lee, a Los
Angeles-based money manager and his firm for fraud, then also sued
Lee's bank, Wilshire Bank.  Although Wilshire Bank was not
involved in the EB-5 project directly, the investors said the bank
was complicit in the scam and should have done something to
prevent Lee from defrauding them.  The plaintiffs are suing for
fraud, negligence and breach of contract.

"There are people now calling for a moratorium or just stop [the
program] altogether because of fraud," said Mr. Newbold.

Rapid Growth

Since its introduction in 1992, the EB-5 has become the most
popular residency program in the world, issuing a maximum 10,000
green cards a year.  About 90% of applications are from China.
With roughly one third of the 10,000 annual green cards issued to
investors (others are issued to their family members), that means
the program raises about $1.67 billion a year.

The USCIS estimates that at least $8.7 billion has been invested
in the U.S. economy and an estimated 35,150 jobs created through
the EB-5 program since 2012.

Though it's been around a while, the EB-5 program really only
gained popularity after the financial crisis when it became hard
for businesses to get traditional bank financing.  Since then, the
number of regional centers -- U.S. endorsed centers that sponsor
EB-5 investment projects -- has mushroomed.  There were 867
regional centers as of July 5, according to the U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services, up from 588 at the end of fiscal year
2014 and 11 at the end of 2007.

"As you have more and more regional centers coming online, we're
seeing more and more frequently centers that are not fully
complying," said Reaz Jafri -- reaz.jafri@withersworldwide.com --
partner at Withers, a law firm focused on the high net worth
individuals.


JEFFERSON CAPITAL: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Arbitration Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, CHRISTINA BAZEMORE, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendant-Appellant, Case No.
15-12607 (11th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Defendant's
motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, albeit on
different grounds than those reached by the district court.

In 2005, plaintiff Christina L. Bazemore applied on the Internet
for a credit card issued by First Bank of Delaware (FBD). She
charged several items on the card but failed to pay in full. In
2008, Jefferson Capital System, LLC (JSC) acquired all right,
title and interest to Ms. Bazemore's account. Eventually, Ms.
Bazemore sued JSC for an alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (the FDCPA).

JSC moved to compel arbitration in reliance on an arbitration
clause said to have been contained in a cardholder agreement
between Ms. Bazemore and its predecessor-in-interest. The district
court concluded that Ms. Bazemore's claim was outside the scope of
the arbitration clause and therefore denied JSC's motion.

The Court review de novo the district court's denial of a motion
to compel arbitration and JSC's appeal pursuant to 9 U.S.C.
Section 16(a).

The Hon. Lewis A. Kaplan, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of New York, sitting by designation, wrote the
Second Circuit's decision.  In his Order dated July 5, 2016
available at https://is.gd/vIrH9q from Leagle.com, Judge Kaplan
held that JSC failed to establish the existence of any agreement
between Ms. Bazemore and FBD beyond the agreement to pay whatever
charges Ms. Bazemore incurred by using the credit card.

Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC is represented by Daniel L.
Delnero, Esq. -- delnerod@ballardspahr.com -- BALLARD SPAHR LLP --
Wendi Fassbender, Esq. -- wfassbender@sessions.legal -- and Bryan
C. Shartle, Esq. -- bshartle@sessions.legal -- SESSIONS, FISHMAN,
NATHAN & ISRAEL -- Paul J. Catanese, Esq. --
pcatanese@mcguirewoods.com -- and -- David Luther Hartsell, Esq.
-- dhartsell@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIREWOODS-

Christina Bazemore is represented by David E. Hudson, Esq. --
dhudson@hullbarrett.com -- Christopher A. Cosper, Esq. --
ccosper@hullbarrett.com -- and George Gostin Robertson, Esq. --
grobertson@hullbarrett.com -- HULL BARRETT


JEVIC HOLDING: 3rd Cir. Affirms SCPI Summary Ruling in "Czyzewski"
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed
the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment to
Sun Capital Partners, Inc., on Casimir Czyzewski et al.'s claim
that SCPI and debtors Jevic Transportation, Inc., Jevic Holding
Corp., and Creek Road Properties, LLC were a "single employer"
under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

The WARN Act provides "[a]n employer shall not order a plant
closing or mass layoff until the end of a 60-day period after the
employer serves written notice of such an order" to each affected
employee.  "[I]ndependent contractors and subsidiaries which are
wholly or partially owned by a parent company are treated as . . .
a part of the parent or contracting company" -- that is, as a
single employer -- "depending upon the degree of their
independence from the parent."

The appeals case is CASIMIR CZYZEWSKI; MELVIN L. MYERS; JEFFREY
OEHLERS; ARTHUR E. PERIGARD; DANIEL C. RICHARDS, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellants, v. JEVIC
TRANSPORTATION, INC.; JEVIC HOLDING CORP; CREEK ROAD PROPERTIES,
LLC; SUN CAPITAL PARTNERS, INC.; JOHN DOES 1-10, No. 14-4331 (3rd
Cir.), relating to IN RE: JEVIC HOLDING CORP., et al., Debtors.

A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's July 27, 2016 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/Pkg6aV from Leagle.com.

                    About Jevic Transportation

Based in Delanco, New Jersey, Jevic Transportation Inc. --
http://www.jevic.com/-- provided trucking services.  Two
affiliates -- Jevic Holding Corp. and Creek Road Properties-- have
no assets or operations.  Jevic et al. sought Chapter 11
protection (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 08-11008) on May 20, 2008.

Domenic E. Pacitti, Esq., and Michael W. Yurkewicz, Esq., at Klehr
Harrison Harvey Branzburg & Ellers, in Wilmington, Del.,
represented the Debtors.

The U.S. Trustee for Region 3 appointed five creditors to
serve on an Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.  Robert J.
Feinstein, Esq., Bruce Grohsgal, Esq., and Maria A. Bove, Esq., at
Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP, in Wilmington, Del., represent
the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.

Before filing for bankruptcy, the Debtors initiated an orderly
wind-down process.  As a part of the wind-down process, the
Debtors ceased substantially all of their business and
terminated roughly 90% of their employees.  The Debtors continue
to manage the wind-down process in an attempt to deliver all
freight in their system and to retrieve their assets.

When the Debtors sought protection from their creditors, they
estimated assets and debts between $50 million and $100 million.
At Oct. 31, 2010, the Debtor had total assets of $425,000, total
liabilities of $12.2 million, and a stockholders' deficit of
$11.8 million.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Grants Discovery Bid in Part
-----------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California granted in part
Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery in the case captioned,
JOANN MARTINELLI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON and McNEIL
NUTRITIONALS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-CV-1733-MCE-EFB
(TEMP) (E.D. Cal.).

The matter was before the court on June 22, 2016, for hearing on
plaintiff's motion to compel discovery which seeks discovery
"dating back to mid-2008."  Attorney Annick Persigner appeared on
behalf of the plaintiff and attorneys Ronie Schmelz and Amanda
Villalobos appeared on behalf of the defendants.

Defendants, however, "object to producing information that is
beyond the appropriate statute of limitations applicable to
Plaintiff's state law claims. Specifically, defendants contend
that the statute of limitations for plaintiff's claims extends
only to 2011 and object to producing discovery for periods prior
to that.

In his Order dated July 28, 2016 available at https://is.gd/QEIgFr
from Leagle.com, Judge Brennan found that defendants' argument
unpersuasive and orders defendants to respond to plaintiff's
request for production of documents number 4 and that defendants'
argument that "consumer research and marketing materials unrelated
to Benecol's trans-fat label statements are not relevant to class
certification" is well taken.

JoAnn Martinelli is represented by Annick Marie Persinger, Esq. --
apersinger@bursor.com -- Frederick J. Klorczyk, Esq. --
fklorczyk@bursor.com -- Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq. --
ltfisher@bursor.com -- Neal J. Deckant, Esq. --
ndeckant@bursor.com -- and Yeremey Olegovich Krivoshey, Esq. --
ykrivoshey@bursor.com -- BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.

Johnson & Johnson and McNeil Nutritionals, LLC are represented by
Amanda Villalobos, Esq. -- amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com --
TUCKER ELLIS LLP


JP MORGAN: "Hernandez" Lawsuit Goes to Trial
--------------------------------------------
District Judge Jonathan Goodman of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida denied in large part
Defendant's motion for summary judgment in the case captioned,
MARCO J. HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 14-24254-CIV-GOODMAN (S.D. Fla.).

On April 11, 1996, Plaintiff obtained a loan with a principal
balance of $86,250.00 from Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation,
secured by a mortgage on his property at 540 Brickell Key Drive,
1103, Miami, Florida 33131.  Plaintiff stopped paying his mortgage
in November 2010. Plaintiff stopped making his mortgage payments
because Chase charged the cost of lender-placed flood insurance
policies to Plaintiff's mortgage account, which increased the
amount of his monthly mortgage payments to an amount he could not
afford to pay.

Plaintiff originally filed the action against J.P. Morgan Chase
Bank N.A. (Chase) for (1) violating the error resolution
procedures established by the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act (RESPA) and for (2) negligence. However, the court dismissed
those claims without prejudice and allowed Plaintiff "one final
opportunity to state a claim" in a Third Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint on January 3, 2016. In
the Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiff re-alleged one claim from
the previous complaints -- (1) the RESPA violation -- and added
two new claims: (2) tortious interference with a business
relationship and (3) violation of a fiduciary duty.

Chase moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint on
three grounds: (1) Chase fully complied with its RESPA
obligations; (2) Plaintiff failed to adequately plead that any
alleged damages were caused by an alleged RESPA violation; and (3)
Plaintiff's new claims are barred by a class action settlement in
which Plaintiff was allegedly a class member. The Undersigned
denied that motion to dismiss primarily because of Chase's
reliance on extrinsic documents that the Court could not rely upon
without transforming the motion to dismiss into a summary judgment
motion.

Chase moves for summary judgment and a motion to strike
inadmissible evidence that Plaintiff submitted in opposition to
the summary judgment motion.

In his Order dated July 22, 2016 available at https://is.gd/z5gRD2
from Leagle.com, Judge Goodman denied in part the summary judgment
finding that Chase's lack of foundation to support the testimony
of Jeffrey Nack and Tameria Hudson is noteworthy because Chase
filed a motion to strike evidence submitted by Plaintiff in
opposition to the summary judgment motion for an alleged lack of
foundation. The Court granted in part, finding that because
Plaintiff did not timely opt out of the Clements class and then
proceeded to accept the benefits of class membership, he is, in
fact, a Clements Settlement Class Member and therefore has, in
accordance with the Settlement Agreement, released "all claims
actually made or that could have been made on behalf of Settlement
Class Members based on the facts asserted in the Consolidated
Amended Complaint through the date this Settlement Agreement is
executed."

Marco J Hernandez is represented by:

      Ashley Renee Eagle, Esq.
      Chad Ari Klosky, Esq.
      Jeffrey N. Golant, Esq.
      Christina Nicole Zanakos, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY N. GOLANT
      1000 W. McNab Rd #150
      Pompano Beach, FL 33069
      Tel:(954)942-5720

J.P. Morgan Chase Bank N.A. is represented by Matthew Joseph
McGuane, Esq. -- mjm@lklsg.com -- LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN SCHNEIDER
+ GROSSMAN LLP; Susan Capote, Esq. -- scapote@wargofrench.com --
and Diana Castiov, Esq. -- DCastiov@wargofrench.com -- WARGO
FRENCH LLP


JULIA PLACE: Court Won't Reconsider Ruling in "Reyes" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Carl J. Barbier of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied Plaintiffs Nicole
Reyes's and Mike Sobel's motion for reconsideration in the case
captioned, NICOLE REYES, ET AL. v. JULIA PLACE CONDOMINIUMS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL., SECTION: "J" (3), Case No.
12-2043 (E.D. La.).

The case is a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiffs Nicole
Reyes and Mike Sobel on behalf of themselves and other condominium
owners at various properties throughout New Orleans against their
respective condominium associations as well as Steeg Law LLC
(Steeg). Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have engaged in
debt collection practices that violate state and federal law. On
May 23, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify three classes
of condominium owners.

On August 20, 2015, the Court certified a narrowed version of the
usury class, divided into two subclasses. Specifically, the Court
certified "a class of past and present condominium owners who have
paid allegedly usurious late fees. The class shall be divided into
two subclasses, one seeking monetary relief and another seeking
injunctive relief for purported violations of the usury law."

On January 8, 2016, the case was realloted and randomly assigned
to the section of the court. Since that time, the parties have
filed several motions. On June 7, 2016 the Court issued an Order &
Reasons holding that "All claims against Rotunda asserted in this
lawsuit have been eliminated. The Court's class definitions
exclude Rotunda completely based on the Court's previous finding
that Rotunda did not collect usurious fees within the two-year
period. In addition, the Court's previous rulings eliminated the
claims against Rotunda under the FDCPA and the LCA. Thus no claims
against Rotunda remain. Accordingly, Rotunda is entitled to
summary judgment."

Plaintiffs filed the Motion for Reconsideration on June 24, 2016
challenging the Court's June 7, 2016 Order on Rotunda's Second
Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that (1) the Court either
ignored or failed to consider the affidavit of J. Brian Kelley;
(2) that "the only reason Rotunda was granted summary judgment
before class certification was because the district court did not
consider plaintiffs' opposition as timely; (3) that Judge North
later agreed that subsequent evidence against Rotunda could be
presented which would allow the plaintiffs to defeat summary
judgment; and (4) that there are no procedural rules which bar
them from presenting the affidavit of Mr. Kelley to oppose
Rotunda's present motion.

In his Order and Reasons dated July 19, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/2JtJ7K from Leagle.com, Judge Barbier found that
Defendants' reasons for seeking reconsideration are based on
evidence and arguments previously heard and considered by the
Court, and the Court's previous ruling was not based on an
erroneous view of the law or an erroneous assessment of the
evidence.

Nicole Reyes, et at. are represented by Todd G. Crawford, Esq. --
tcrawford@frfirm.com -- George J. Fowler, III, Esq. --
fow@frfirm.com -- and John Steven Garner, Esq. --
jgardner@frfirm.com -- FOWLER RODRIGUEZ

MESA Underwriters Specialty Insurance Company is represented by:

      Paula Marcello Wellons, Esq.
      Jonathan B. Womack, Esq.
      TAYLOR, WELLONS, POLITZ & DUHE, APLC
      515 Poydras St., Suite 1900
      New Orleans, LA 70112
      Tel:(504)525-9888

Mills Row Condominiums Homeowners Association, Inc. and Carondelet
Place Condominiums Owners Association  are represented by
Elizabeth A. Roussel, Esq. -- elizabeth.roussel@arlaw.com -- and
Justin Boron, Esq. -- justin.boron@arlaw.com -- ADAMS & REESE, LLP

Lofts Condominiums Homeowners Association, Inc. is represented by:

      John William Waters, Jr., Esq.
      Ernest Lynwood O'Bannon, Esq.
      Kristin Grace Mosely-Jones, Esq.
      BIENVENU, FOSTER, RYAN & O'BANNON
      1010 Common St
      New Orleans, LA 70112
      Tel: (504)310-1500

Julia Place Condominium Association, Inc. is represented by Ethan
N. Penn, Esq. -- enp@mmpfirm.com -- and Amanda Huling Aucoin, Esq.
-- aha@mmpfirm.com -- MUSGRAVE, MCLACHLAN & PENN, LLC


KBC NURSING: Does Not Properly Pay Health Aides, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leandra Hamilton, et al. v. KBC Nursing Agency & Home Health Care,
Inc., Premium Select Home Care, Palisades Healthcare Partners,
Inc. d/b/a Asap Services, Case No. 5483 (D.C. Super. Ct., July 27,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay home
health aides the living wage and a failure to provide paid sick
leave.

The Defendants own and operate a home care agency based at 7412
Georgia Avenue Northwest Unit 1 in Washington, DC.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sara L. Faulman, Esq.
      Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq.
      WOODLEY & McGILLIVARY LLP
      1101 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 1000
      Washington, DC 20005
      Telephone: (202) 833-8855
      E-mail: slf@wmlaborlaw.com
              gkm@wmlaborlaw.com


KENAN ADVANTAGE: Can't Bar Counsel From Filing Duplicative Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thelton E. Henderson of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California denied Petitioners'
motion to enjoin Respondent's counsel and/or their client(s),
including but not limited to, James Patrick Souza Jr., from filing
and/or prosecuting duplicative claims or actions, or in the
alternative, to stay such claims or actions in the case captioned,
KAG WEST, LLC, et al., Petitioners, v. PATRICK MALONE, Respondent,
Case No. 15-CV-03827-TEH (N.D. Cal.).

The action, as well as the related action Malone v. KAG West, LLC,
et al., No. 15-CV-04262-TEH, concerns Respondent Patrick Malone's
various wage and hour claims against Petitioners KAG West, LLC and
the Kenan Advantage Group.  The Court granted Petitioners' Motion
to Compel Arbitration on November 3, 2015.  The Court noted that
Respondent did not challenge the validity of the Arbitration
Agreement at issue, and that the parties had agreed that the
Arbitration Agreement delegated threshold questions to the
arbitrator by incorporating the American Arbitration Association
Rules.

The Court stayed all of Respondent's claims pending a decision by
the arbitrator, and noted that if the arbitrator decided that the
PAGA claims are not arbitrable, those claims would be stayed
pending arbitration of Respondent's other claims due to their
derivative nature. The matter is currently in arbitration, and a
hearing regarding the threshold issues of clause construction
regarding class and representative arbitration was held on June
29, 2016.

In the instant motion, Petitioners seek to enjoin an action filed
by Respondent's counsel on May 4, 2016 in Alameda County Superior
Court, on behalf of Plaintiff James Patrick Souza, Jr. Mr. Souza's
claim is a "PAGA only" action, raises the exact same violations,
facts and theories as Respondent's complaint, and is governed by
the same Arbitration Agreement as Respondent's claims.

In his Order dated July 22, 2016 available at https://is.gd/0sqQYq
from Leagle.com, Judge Henderson found that no exception to the
Anti-Injunction Act applies, holding that petitioners have the
right to have a federal court decide the Malone case, but they do
not have the right to have every issue in that case decided by the
federal court, regardless of the validity of the state court's
jurisdiction to consider the issue in another proceeding. The
Court in its discretion, declined to enjoin Mr. Souza's state
court proceeding.

KAG West, LLC and The Kenan Advantage Group, Inc. are represented
by Brian Lee Johnsrud, Esq. -- bjohnsrud@chjllp.com -- Patrick
Michael Sherman, Esq. -- psherman@chjllp.com -- Stephen N. Yang,
Esq. -- syang@chjllp.com -- and Victoria R. Carradero, Esq. --
VCarradero@chjllp.com -- CURLEY, HURTGEN & JOHNSRUD LLP

Patrick Malone is represented by Michael Scott Morrison, Esq. --
ALEXANDER KRAKOW + GLICK LLP; Michael Hagop Boyamian, Esq. --
mike.falveylaw@gmail.com -- and Thomas Walker Falvey, Esq. --
tom.falvery@gmail.com -- LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS W. FALVEY


KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Jackson" Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TERRELL JACKSON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, V. KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS, INC., GREGORY P.
MADISON, and SCOTT A. HOLMES, Case 1:16-cv-06131 (S.D.N.Y., August
2, 2016), is a purported class action on behalf of persons and
entities that acquired Keryx securities between February 25, 2016,
and August 1, 2016, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act.

Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company
focused on marketing therapies for patients with renal disease.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
     New York, NY 10168
     Phone: (212) 682-5340
     Fax: (212) 884-0988
     E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com

        - and -

     Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
     Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
     Casey E. Sadler, Esq.
     Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 201-9150
     Fax: (310) 201-9160


L&J WASTE: Faces "McFadden" Suit Under FLSA, Md. Wage Payment Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALPHONSO MCFADDEN 2824 E. Chase Street Baltimore, Maryland 21213
Resident of Baltimore City v. L&J WASTE RECYCLING, LLC 222 N.
Calverton Road Baltimore, Maryland 21223 Serve: Resident Agent
Paul W. Gardner, II, Esquire 10 N. Calvert Street Suite 735
Baltimore, Maryland 21202 And LENZIE M. JOHNSON, III 222 N.
Calverton Road Baltimore, Maryland 21223 And LENZIE M. JOHNSON,
JR. 410 E. 21st Street Baltimore, Maryland 21218, Case 1:16-cv-
02744-ELH (D. Md., August 2, 2016), was filed under the Federal
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the
Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.

L&J Waste Recycling, LLC is a full service waste management and
recycling company, which is locally owned and operated in
Baltimore, Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     George E. Swegman, Esq.
     Benjamin L. Davis, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
     36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
     Baltimore, MD 21201
     Phone: (410) 244-7005
     Fax: (410) 244-8454
     E-mail: gswegman@nicholllaw.com
             bdavis@nicholllaw.com


LEAPFROG: California Judge Tosses Investors' Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, The Recorder, reports that U.S. District Judge Edward
Chen of the Northern District of California on Aug. 2 dismissed
the suit, spearheaded by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, in part
because he found LeapFrog executives had left enough wiggle room
in statements about future risks.

"First, many of these statements are too vague to induce reliance
by a reasonable investor," Judge Chen wrote in his order.
"Multiple courts in this district have refused to find material
falsity where a statement was so 'vague' as to be
'nonactionable.'"

Part of what drove the stock drops for LeapFrog in 2014 and 2015
was overhanging inventory, the plaintiffs alleged.  They argued
that LeapFrog executives masked the extent of the overhang and the
problems it would pose for future sales.

Some of the allegedly false statements included comments such as
this one by LeapFrog CFO Raymond Arthur: "There will probably be
some cost associated with the clearance [of pockets of inventory],
but I don't think it's going to be incredibly significant."

In addition to finding those kind of comments too vague to rely
on, Judge Chen also ruled that LeapFrog, represented in the
securities suit by Morrison & Foerster, had at other times given
clear warning to investors about the inventory problem.

"These disclosures put the alleged misleading statements about
carryover inventory in context," Judge Chen wrote.  "They
substantially mitigate the potentially misleading nature of the
challenged statements."

The judge also skewered the plaintiffs' allegations that LeapFrog
lied to investors about the launch date for its "LeapTV" product,
which was slated for September 2014.  The product didn't actually
ship until mid-October, hitting store shelves the month after.

Judge Chen said the plaintiffs hadn't provided support for claims
that LeapFrog executives knew there would likely be a delay and
misled investors.  "Moreover, the sparse allegations plaintiffs do
provide contradict plaintiffs' theory.  For example, plaintiffs
allege that 'for much of 2014 no one at the company knew when it
would launch,'" he added.  "If 'no one at the company,' which
logically includes defendants, knew when LeapTV would ship, then
how could defendants know LeapTV would miss its ship date?"

The suit alleged that, once the market learned of the challenges
facing LeapFrog's earnings, its stock started skidding out,
including a 35 percent drop on Jan. 22, 2015.

Robbins Geller is getting a chance to revise its complaint, but
clearly will have a hard time making the hurdle.  "Although the
court is skeptical that plaintiffs can amend to assert valid
claims," Chen concluded, "it will afford plaintiffs one last
opportunity to amend."


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Court Sends MSPA's Suit to Florida State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Darrin P. Gayles of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida granted a motion to
remand the case captioned, MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, Plaintiff, v.
LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 16-
20271-CIV-GAYLES/TURNoFF (S.D. Fla.).

The action is one of many Plaintiff MSPA Claims 1, LLC
(Plaintiff), as assignee of Florida Healthcare Plus (FHCP), has
brought against several automobile insurance companies, including
Defendant Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company (Defendant). In
all of the actions, Plaintiff seeks to recover payments FHCP made
to medical providers for treating its enrollees' injuries from
automobile accidents. In each action, the injured enrollee was
covered by both FHCP under a Medicare Advantage (MA) Plan and by
the various defendants under a no-fault insurance policy pursuant
to Florida's personal injury protection (PIP) law.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, as the primary payer, is
obligated to pay the $10,000 PIP policy limit for their enrollees'
car accident injuries. In its Original Complaint, filed in the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida,
Plaintiff set forth four claims: (1) Breach of Contract for
Failure to Pay PIP Benefits (Direct Right of Recovery Pursuant to
42 C.F.R. Sec. 411.24(e)), (2) Breach of Contract for Failure to
Pay PIP Benefits (Conventional Subrogation), (3) Breach of
Contract for Failure to Pay PIP Benefits (or in the Alternative,
Equitable Subrogation), and (4) Breach of Contract for Failure to
Pay PIP Benefits (Conventional Subrogation Arising from Third
Party Beneficiary Rights).

On January 22, 2016, Defendant removed the action from state court
asserting that the Court has original and diversity jurisdiction.
Specifically, Defendant argued that Plaintiff's claims fall under
the Medicare Act and/or that the parties are diverse and the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Plaintiff has moved to
remand.

In his Order and Reasons dated July 14, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/2xREUE from Leagle.com, Judge Gayles held that the
removal was improper, finding that Defendant has not established
that Plaintiff's state law claims raise a disputed or substantial
federal issue and it has not met its burden in establishing that
the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

MSPA Claims 1, LLC is represented by Arlenys Perdomo, Esq. --
aperdomo@msprecovery.com -- Brian Phillip Cournoyer, Esq. --
bcouroyer@msprecovery.com -- Christine Marie Lugo, Esq. --
clugo@msprecovery.com -- Eric Michael Fresco, Esq. --
emfresco@msprecovery.com -- and Frank Carlos Quesada, Esq. --
fcquesada@msprecovery.com -- MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM

It was also represented by:

      Gino Moreno, Esq.
      Rebecca Rubin-del Rio, Esq.
      Gustavo Javier Losa, Esq.
      JOHN H. RUIZ, P.A.
      4182 SW 74th Ct
      Miami, FL 33155
      Tel: (305)614-2222

Liberty Mutual Insurance is represented by David Barry Krouk, Esq.
-- dkrouk@butler.legal -- and Matthew John Lavisky, Esq. --
mlavisky@butler.legal -- BUTLER WEIHMULLER KATZ CRAIG LLP


LIFE TIME FITNESS: Court Throws Out "Roth" Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge John R. Turnheim of the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota granted defendants'
motion to dismiss the case captioned, JENNIFER ROTH, Plaintiff, v.
LIFE TIME FITNESS, INC., LTF CLUB OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC., LTF
CLUB MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, and LTF YOGA COMPANY, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 15-3270 (JRT/HB) (D. Minn.).

Plaintiff Jennifer Roth was a group fitness instructor at one of
defendants' Life Time Fitness's health clubs. From 2009 to 2013,
Roth worked as a group fitness instructor at a Life Time location
in Beachwood, Ohio, where she taught spinning classes. She alleges
in the action that Life Time was unjustly enriched when it did not
pay her but required her to attend certain events, curate a music
playlist for her classes, and arrive before and stay after her
classes. Roth seeks to represent a class of similarly situated
group fitness instructors.

Roth's complaint alleges 23 counts against Life Time: Count 1 is
an unjust enrichment claim under Minnesota law for Life Time's
conduct as it relates to all group fitness instructors in all
states. Counts 2 through 23 are unjust enrichment claims brought
under each respective state's law pertaining to that respective
state's class. Roth requests monetary relief, as well as costs and
attorneys' fees.

Defendants move to dismiss the action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1)
and 12(b)(6).

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 14, 2016 available
at https://is.gd/QKbPFF from Leagle.com, Judge Turnheim found that
Roth has failed to plead facts sufficient to state a claim because
her complaint is vague as to her employment relationship with Life
Time.

Jennifer Roth, Plaintiff, represented by Alan L. Rosca, Esq. --
PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE, A Prof. Law Corp. --
Brant D. Penney, Esq. -- b.penney@rwblawfirm.com -- and Garrett D.
Blanchfield, Jr., Esq. -- g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com -- and
Roberta A. Yard, Esq. -- r.yard@rwblawfirm.com -- REINHARDT
WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD

Roth is also represented by:

      J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
     HUDSON, MALLANEY, SHINDER & ANDERSON P.C.
     5015 Grand Ridge Dr #100
     West Des Moines, IA 50265
     Tel: (515)223-4567

Life Time Fitness, Inc. et al. are represented by Brian T.
Benkstein, Esq. -- Brian.Benkstein@jacksonlewis.com -- Elizabeth
S. Gerling, Esq. -- Elizabeth.Gerling@jacksonlewis.com -- Eric R.
Magnus, Esq. -- MagnusE@jacksonlewis.com --and L. Dale Owens, Esq.
-- OwensD@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON LEWIS LLP


LOS ALAMOS, CA: McLin Calls for Smart Meter Class Action v. DPU
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arin McKenna, writing for lamonitor.com, reports that at its  July
20 meeting, the Los Alamos County Board of Public Utilities (BPU)
voted 4-1 against an opt-out option for Smart Meters. Stephen
McLin voted against the motion.

According to the Department of Public Utilities staff report,
distributed energy resources such as roof-top solar are changing
the face of the industry, and new options such as micro-grids,
distributed energy resource management technologies and demand
response programs for managing peak electricity demand more
efficiently and economically are on the horizon.

Rate structures are also changing to provide options such as
demand/response, time-of-use metering and value of solar tariffs
(which credits customers for home solar generation).

Smart Meters, which allow two-way communication between the
utility and the customer, are central to implementing those
changes.

DPU plans to replace all electric meters with Smart Meters in
FY2018.  Gas and water meters will also be replaced with remotely
read meters.

"When we get to the full deployment of these radio reads in our
system, our plan is to not have meter readers at all anymore," DPU
Manager Tim Glasco told the board.  "So that begs the question of
what do we do if someone has strong feelings about having a radio
transmitter on their meters at their house?"

DPU staff estimates that approximately 100 out of 8,000 households
would opt out, based on how many opted out of a Smart Meter study
on Barranca and North mesas.

According to Mr. Glasco, the main concern for those opting out are
possible health impacts from having RF transmissions near their
home.  Mr. Glasco noted that numerous studies have failed to
demonstrate any adverse health effects.

The other major concern is that someone could access data from the
customer's meter.  The staff report points out that Smart meters
"have extremely advanced data encryption and security protocols"
and that there is no evidence that anyone has hacked into a smart
meter data transmission and used the information for nefarious
purposes.

Vice Chair Andrew Fraser was concerned that current law identifies
utility billing as public records that must be released upon
request, and that someone could use that information to determine
when a customer is home.

Staff estimates that maintaining a half-time meter reader who
would have to travel to widely spaced households and manually
enter data into the system would cost an average of $20 per month
per opt-out customer.  They recommended that those customers
shoulder that cost if the board allowed an opt-out option.

Based on his initial calculations, Deputy Utilities Manager for
Finance and Administration Robert Westervelt does not anticipate
that eliminating meter readers would significantly reduce the
customer service fees, since other services such as billing and
recovering the initial cost for the meters are encompassed in
those fees.

Mr. McLin demanded that the department provide a cost/benefit
study.

"Where is the cost savings for the customer? It's all for the
department's benefit," Mr. McLin said.  "And we're sitting here
talking about rate increases for water and for gas (gas rates are
actually expected to lower), and I'm telling you you're electrical
rates are going to skyrocket if you let these meters go through.

"I'm strongly against making these things mandatory.  You're
risking a class action lawsuit, I think, against the utilities
department for not letting customers be able to opt out and pay
whatever the department determines is a cost."

Mr. McLin supported his statement about skyrocketing costs by
providing his estimate of that: $9 million to replace all 8,000
meters, based on an arbitrary figure of $500 per meter and $500
per installation.  He said he did not know what the actual cost
would be.

According to Mr. Westervelt, the average Smart Meter costs $140
(non-Smart Meters average $120).  He noted that the cost of gas
and water meters combined was less that the cost of the electric
meter.

Johnson asked Mr. Glasco if rates were likely to go up because of
the Smart Meters.

"We do not anticipate that, no," Mr. Glasco responded.
Board Member Kathleen Taylor noted some potential savings for
customers.

"When you have Smart Meters, you can have time-of-use rates, you
can have demand rates, you can use that to try to tailor demands
on the system so that you don't have to have the wild fluctuations
in usage, and that should help to lower the cost of electricity
for everyone," Ms. Taylor said.  "So I think that they have many
benefits."

"All I'm asking is show me the dollars, where we get the cost
savings. Prove it to me," Mr. McLin said.

Mr. Westervelt confirmed that there were potential benefits for
the customer, although he was unable to provide a dollar amount.
The idea is to provide customers with a suite of rate options so
they can choose the one that would save them the most money.

Mr. Westervelt noted additional benefits such as leak detection
and allowing a prepay option.

Only those with the two-way communication of Smart Meters could
take advantage of those options.

"The primary reason to do this is for benefit to the customer base
in total," Mr. Westervelt said.  "The benefit to the utility is
that we can provide better, more cost effective service to our
customers."

Mr. McLin suggested reducing the opt-out cost by allowing
customers to read their own meters, with DPU staff confirming
those readings with quarterly meter readings.  Mr. Glasco replied
that most customers can read gas and electric meters but not
water.

Mr. McLin also challenged charging opt-out customers a service fee
when the board voted against charging home solar customers a Cost
of Service fee in 2014, deciding that the entire rate structure
for maintaining electrical infrastructure needed to be revisited.
Citizens opposing that fee argued that rooftop solar provides
cost-saving benefits to customers at large.

Mr. McLin then asked at what rate new meters failed, noting that
his meters are nearly 30 years old.  According to Mr. Glasco, the
lifespan for both batteries and water meters is 20 years and gas
meters are 30 years.

Mr. McLin made a motion to table the item until a cost/benefit
analysis was provided, which failed for lack of a second.  He then
turned to the audience and said, "I hope the customers out there
are taking note of who is in favor of this and who is not," Mr.
McLin said.  "I would really like to see a class action lawsuit
against this, I really would."

Johnson called him to order.

Although both Mr. Fraser and Johnson expressed some reservations
about requiring every customer to have a Smart Meter, Mr. McLin
was the only one who voted against the motion.

"I think Mr. McLin's points about forcing people to do this are
compelling, and I'm somewhat split on voting to force someone to
go over to the Smart Meters," Johnson said.

"However, I also think it's a little unfair to the department to
have to cater to a small subset of customers.  I think it will
ultimately be a dwindling subset of customers, and we're going to
have to cross this bridge eventually when you get down to 20 or 10
or however many folks are left.  There are going to be some people
who are forced to switch over."


LTD FINANCIAL: Court Grants Motion for Judgment on Pleadings
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Freda L. Wolfson of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey granted Defendant's motion
for judgment on the pleadings in the case captioned, ROBERT
SCHAEFER, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WALKER BROS.
ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 15-1058
(7th Cir.).

The putative class action, brought by Plaintiff Alexis Cohen
(Plaintiff or Cohen) pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA), challenges Defendant LTD Financial
Services, LP's (Defendant or LTD) business practice with regard to
its debt collection letters. Under Plaintiff's theory of
liability, Defendant failed to inform consumers that by accepting
and making monthly installment payments on a debt, which had been
barred from suit under the applicable statute of limitations,
would, under New Jersey law, revive the statute of limitations.
Such a failure, Plaintiff claims, violates FDCPA under Sections
1692e, 1692e(10) and 1692(f).

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant engaged in deceptive and unfair
practices in violation of FDCPA by failing to inform Plaintiff
that by choosing Payment Plan 2 would restart the statute of
limitations. In fact, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant regularly
collects or attempts to collect outdated debt, but fails to
disclose to consumers "the fact that monthly payments will reset
the debt."  With those allegations, Plaintiff asserts two causes
of action under the FDCPA: 1) violation of Sec. 1692e(10) for
using false or deceptive means to collect a debt; and 2) violation
of Sec. 1692f for using unfair or unconscionable means to collect
a debt.

In the motion, Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings of
the Amended Complaint.

In her Opinion dated July 14, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/EL30O8 from Leagle.com, Judge Wolfson held that in
Count I nothing that Plaintiff has alleged in the Debt-Collection
letter was false, deceptive, or misleading regarding the potential
legal status of the Advantage Assets, Inc. (ASII) debt and in
Count II Plaintiff failed to state a claim under Sec. 1692f.

Alexis Cohen is represented by Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. --
Ari@MarcusZelman.com -- and Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. --
Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com -- MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC

LTD Financial Services, LP is represented by Richard J. Perr, Esq.
-- rperr@finemanlawfirm.com -- and Monica M. Littman, Esq. --
mlittman@finemanlawfirm.com -- FINEMAN, KREKSTEIN & HARRIS, PC


MACY'S WEST: Court Sends "Narez" Suit to Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lucy H. Koh of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California granted Defendant's motion to
compel arbitration and vacated the motion hearing and case
management conference set for August 4, 2016 in the case
captioned, YULIE NAREZ, Plaintiff, v. MACY'S WEST STORES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-00936-LHK (N.D.Cal.).

Plaintiff was hired by Defendant as a retail store employee on
November 23, 2013. As part of Plaintiff's hiring paperwork,
Plaintiff received a copy of a Solutions InSTORE Early Dispute
Resolution (SIS) brochure describing Defendant's arbitration
agreement policy and Plaintiff signed an acknowledgement of
receipt of the SIS brochure. Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit
in state court on January 25, 2016. Plaintiff seeks to represent a
class of Defendant's employees and alleges Defendant violated
various provisions of the California Labor Code by failing to pay
all applicable wages and overtime and for failing to provide
statutorily mandated meal and rest breaks. Plaintiff additionally
seeks to bring a PAGA claim against Defendant.

The case was removed to federal court on February 25, 2016 and on
On May 6, 2016, Defendant filed the motion to compel arbitration.

The sole argument advanced in Plaintiff's opposition to
Defendant's motion to compel arbitration is that the parties did
not enter into an arbitration agreement because the SIS program to
which Plaintiff agreed when Defendant hired Plaintiff was binding
only upon employees hired on or after June 1, 2014, and thus not
binding upon Plaintiff who was hired on November 23, 2013.

In her Order and Judgment dated July 28, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/e9yquL from Leagle.com, Judge Koh concluded that
Plaintiff agreed to an SIS program that included an arbitration
clause binding upon Plaintiff and that since Plaintiff did not opt
out of arbitration within 30 days of Plaintiff's date of hire,
Plaintiff is bound by the arbitration agreement in Defendant's SIS
program.

Yulie Narez is represented by Larry W. Lee, Esq. --
lwlee@diversitylaw.com -- and Kristen Michelle Agnew, Esq. --
kagnew@diversitylaw.com -- DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.; Dennis
Sangwon Hyun, Esq. -- dhyun@hyunlegal.com -- HYUN LEGAL APC;
William Lucas Marder, Esq. -- bill@polarislawgroup.com -- POLARIS
LAW GROUP, LLP

Macy's West Stores, Inc. is represented by Shirley Diane Deutsch,
Esq. -- sdeutsch@earthlink.net -- SCHWARTZ AND DEUTSCH, LLP


MAERSK LINE: Wins Summary Judgment in "Joyce" Wages Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Esther Salas of the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey granted summary judgment in favor
of defendant in the case captioned, JAMES L. JOYCE, Plaintiff, v.
MAERSK LINE, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 13-5566 (ES) (D.N.J.).

Plaintiff James Joyce is a member of the Seafarer's International
Union with whom Defendant Maersk negotiated a Collective
Bargaining Agreement (CBA) known as the Standard Freightship
Agreement 2012. Plaintiff signed an "Articles of Agreement" in
which Plaintiff bound himself to serve as an abled bodied seaman
aboard the M/V MAERSK OHIO from September 18, 2012, until December
18, 2012. On October 7, 2012, Plaintiff was discharged from the
ship for medical reasons and repatriated to the United States from
a port in Spain. Under the CBA, Plaintiff was entitled to receive
unearned wages "for the remaining period of his contract after
discharge from the vessel."

On September 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed a proposed class action
complaint, alleging that portions of the CBA governing unearned
wages and maintenance payments violated general maritime law and
the Shipowners' Liability Convention. On August 8, 2014, Plaintiff
filed an Amended Complaint which asserts that Defendant is liable
for additional maintenance and unearned wage payments beyond the
amount set forth in the CBA, because the portions of the CBA
setting those amounts allegedly violate general maritime law and
the Shipowners' Liability Convention.

In the motion, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's argument fails as
a matter of law and that Plaintiff failed to present any evidence
of the cost of living in his region or his actual expenses for
room and board during the relevant period.

In her Opinion dated June 30, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/GmtHIL from Leagle.com, Judge Salas granted summary
judgment in favor of the defendant holding that (1) Plaintiff
failed to present any evidence of the cost of living in his region
or his actual expenses for room and board during the relevant
period; (2) Plaintiff's argument that the CBA improperly limited
unearned wages to base pay is futile; and (3) Plaintiff failed to
show a period of illness beyond the contract term which could
entitle him to additional unearned wages under the SLC.

James L. Joyce is represented by:

      Patrick Francis Flanigan, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF PATRICK FLANIGAN
      Swarthmore, PA
      Tel: (610)628-0539

Maersk Line, LTD. is represented by John J. Walsh, Esq. --
walsh@freehill.com -- FREEHILL, HOGAN, & MAHAR


MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: $23.5MM Settlement Has Initial Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California granted Plaintiffs'
unopposed motion renewing the parties' request for preliminary
approval of a class action settlement and the parties' motion to
file under seal a confidential supplemental agreement in the case
captioned, KEITH THOMAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MAGNACHIP
SEMICONDUCTOR CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-01160-JST
(N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs bring the federal securities class action against
MagnaChip Semiconductor, Inc. (MagnaChip), "several of its current
and former senior executive officers and audit committee
directors, underwriters, and Avenue Capital Management II, L.P.,
which was MagnaChip's majority and controlling shareholder," for
violations of sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.

Plaintiffs allege that "Defendants violated the federal securities
laws by (a) issuing materially false and misleading statements
regarding MagnaChip's business, prospects, operations and
financial results; (b) failing to disclose the inadequacy of its
internal controls and procedures over financial reporting; and (c)
engaging in a wide-ranging scheme to materially inflate
MagnaChip's reported results."

On June 26, 2015, Plaintiffs filed the operative Third Amended
Complaint (TAC). Five sets of Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs' TAC. On December 11, 2015, the parties informed the
Court that they had reached a settlement with respect to all
claims raised against all Defendants except for Avenue Capital.
MagnaChip has agreed to pay $23,500,000.

The parties filed a second Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Partial Class Action Settlement, which identifies the changes the
parties have made to account for these four deficiencies. In
addition, they have filed a Motion to File Under Seal a
confidential supplemental agreement to the proposed settlement.

In his Order dated July 18, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/TDgQIr from Leagle.com, Judge Tigar held that
Plaintiffs have demonstrated that certification of the putative
class for settlement purposes is appropriate under Rule 23 and
that the parties have sufficiently addressed all deficiencies, and
therefore that the proposed settlement should be preliminarily
approved.

The Court appointed Lead Plaintiff Keith Thomas and named
plaintiffs Richard Hayes and Herb Smith are appointed as class
representatives, Thomas's counsel as class counsel and Strategic
Claims Services as Claims Administrator. Final Approval Hearing
Fairness Hearing  is set on November 21, 2016 at 2:00 p.m.

Richard Hayes and  Keith Thomas  are represented by Jeremy A.
Lieberman, Esq. -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Louis C. Ludwig, Esq.
-- lludwig@pomlaw.com -- Marc Ian Gross, Esq. -- mgross@pomlaw.com
-- Michael J. Wernke, Esq. -- mwernke@pomlaw.com -- and Patrick V.
Dahlstrom, Esq. -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ LLP --
Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Lesley F.
Portnoy, Esq. -- lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- and Robert Vincent
Prongay, Esq. -- GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP -- Laurence M. Rosen,
Esq. -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- and Phillip C. Kim, Esq. --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. -- Sunny September
Sarkis, Esq. -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP

Magnachip Semiconductor Corp., et al. are represented by Daniel J.
Kramer, Esq. -- dkramer@paulwiess.com -- Jacqueline P. Rubin, Esq.
-- lrubin@paulweiss.com -- Robert N. Kravitz, Esq. --
rkravitz@paulweiss.com -- and Meredith A. Arfa, Esq. --
marfa@paulweiss.com -- PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
-- John C. Tang, Esq. -- jtang@jonesday.com -- and Kelsey Israel-
Trummel, Esq. -- ktrummel@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY

Barclays Capital Inc., et al. are represented by Matthew
Rawlinson, Esq. -- matt.rawlinson@lw.com -- James E. Brandt, Esq.
-- james.brandt@lw.com -- and Jason C. Hegt, Esq. --
jason.hegt@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS LLP


MDL 1203: No Matrix A Benefits for Winn Estate, Court Says
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Harvey Bartle, III of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania affirmed the AHP
Settlement Trust's denial of the Winn Estate's claim for Matrix A
benefits in the case captioned, IN RE: DIET DRUGS
(PHENTERMINE/FENFLURAMINE/DEXFENFLURAMINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: SHEILA BROWN, et al. v.
AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Case No. 1203, Civil Action
No. 99-20593 (E.D. Pa.).

The Estate of Nina M. Winn (Estate), a representative claimant
under the Diet Drug Nationwide Class Action Settlement Agreement
(Settlement Agreement) with Wyeth, seeks benefits from the AHP
Settlement Trust (Trust). In January 2015, Nina M. Winn (Ms. Winn)
submitted a Green Form to the Trust, signed by the attesting
physician, Marta C. Sayers, M.D.

Based on an echocardiogram dated December 2, 2002, Dr. Sayers
attested in Part II of the Green Form that Ms. Winn suffered from
moderate mitral regurgitation and had surgery to repair or replace
the aortic and/or mitral valve(s) following the use of Pondimin(R)
and/or Redux(TM). Based on such findings, the Estate would be
entitled to Matrix A-1, Level III benefits in the amount of
$740,956.

In or around May, 2015, the Trust forwarded the claim for review
by Zuyue Wang, M.D., F.A.C.C., F.A.S.E., one of its auditing
cardiologists. In audit, Dr. Wang concluded that there was no
reasonable medical basis for the attesting physician's finding
that Ms. Winn did not have aortic stenosis as defined by the
Settlement Agreement. Specifically, Dr. Wang calculated Ms. Winn's
aortic valve area as 0.7 cm2 by the Continuity Equation, which is
less than the one square centimeter threshold established by the
Settlement Agreement. In addition, Dr. Wang concluded that Ms.
Winn's echocardiogram demonstrated the presence of mitral annular
calcification.

Based on the auditing cardiologist's findings, the Trust issued a
post-audit determination that the Estate was entitled only to
Matrix B-1, Level III benefits. The Estate disputed this final
determination and requested that the claim proceed to the show
cause process established in the Settlement Agreement.  The Estate
argues that it adequately challenged the auditing cardiologist's
findings as to aortic stenosis and mitral annular calcification
and states that, "rather than submit additional evidence in that
regard, Claimant feels confident resting on Dr. Sayers' findings
and submits that Dr. Sayers had a reasonable medical basis.

In his Memorandum dated July 19, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/JE45ow from Leagle.com, Judge Bartle, III concluded
that the Estate has not met its burden of proving that there was a
reasonable medical basis for finding that Ms. Winn did not have
aortic stenosis as defined by the Settlement Agreement or mitral
annular calcification.

Vivian Naugle and Quintin Layer are represented by Arnold Levin,
Esq. -- Alevin@LFSBLaw.com -- and Michael D. Fishbein, Esq. --
MFishbein@LFSBLaw.com -- LEVIN FISHBEIN SEDRAN & BERMAN; Dianne M.
Nast, Esq. -- dnast@nastlaw.com -- NASTLAW LLC; Gene Locks, Esq.
-- glocks@lockslaw.com -- LOCKS LAW FIRM; Mark W. Tanner, Esq. --
mtanner@feldmanshepherd.com -- FELDMAN, SHEPHERD, WOHLGELERNTER;
Richard S. Wayne, Esq. -- rswayne@strausstroy.com -- STRAUSS &
TROY; Sol H. Weiss, Esq. -- ssweiss@anapolwiess.com -- ANAPOL
WEISS

Joan S. Layer is represented by Sol H. Weiss, Esq. --
ssweiss@anapolwiess.com -- ANAPOL WEISS

American Home Products Corporation is represented by Andrew A.
Chirls, Esq. -- achirls@finemanlawfirm.com -- FINEMAN KREKSTEIN &
HARRIS PC; Kevin A. Cline, Esq. -- kevin.cline@aporter.com --
ARNOLD & PORTER LLP; Leslie Anne Benitez, Esq. --
lbenitez@gordonrees.com -- GORDON & REES LLP; Edward F. Hanover,
III, Esq. -- ehanover@reedsmith.com --  Louis W. Schack, Esq. --
lschack@reedsmith.com -- and Milind M. Shah, Esq. -
mshah@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP


MDL 1566: Response to Bid to Expedite Briefing Due Today
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert Jones of the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada granted Plaintiff's motion for
clarification in the case captioned, In re WESTERN STATES
WHOLESALE NATURAL GAS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. SINCLAIR OIL CORP.,
Plaintiff, v. ONEOK ENERGY SERVICES CO., L.P., Defendant, Case No.
2:03-CV-01431-RCJ-PAL, MDL No. 1566, No. 2:06-CV-00282-RCJ-PAL (D.
Nev.).

The consolidated cases arise out of the energy crisis of 2000-
2002. Plaintiffs (retail buyers of natural gas) allege that
Defendants (natural gas traders) manipulated the price of natural
gas by reporting false information to price indices published by
trade publications and engaging in wash sales. In 2003, the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) transferred
seven class action cases from various districts in California to
this District under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 as Multidistrict
Litigation (MDL) Case No. 1566, assigning Judge Pro to preside.

Since then, the JPML has transferred in several more actions from
various districts throughout the United States. Between 2003 and
2015, Judge Pro ruled on many motions to remand, to dismiss, and
for summary judgment. He also approved several class settlements.
Several parties settled on their own. One or more of the cases
have been to the Court of Appeals twice and to the Supreme Court
once.

In 2007, the Court of Appeals reversed several dismissals under
the filed rate doctrine and remanded for further proceedings. In
2013, the Court of Appeals reversed several summary judgment
orders, ruling that the Natural Gas Act did not preempt state law
anti-trust claims and that certain Wisconsin- and Missouri-based
Defendants should not have been dismissed for lack of personal
jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari as to
preemption under the Natural Gas Act and affirmed. The case was
soon thereafter reassigned to this Court when Judge Pro retired.
The Court granted three motions to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction.

Defendant moved for summary judgment in Case No. 2:05-cv-1331
(District of Kansas Case No. 2:05-cv-2389), arguing that the
claims were precluded or released under a settlement agreement
reached in a consolidated class action brought in the Southern
District of New York, In re Natural Gas Commodity Litigation
(Southern District of New York Case No. 03-cv-6186 or "the NYMEX
Case"). The Court ruled that the plaintiff there had via the
settlement agreement in the NYMEX Case released Defendant from the
claims brought in the '1331 Case. Defendant has filed a motion for
summary judgment, making the same argument here, i.e., that
Plaintiff released Defendant from the claims brought in the '282
Case via the settlement agreement in the NYMEX case.

Plaintiff has responded by asking the Court to clarify the
briefing due dates, noting that the Magistrate Judge has ordered
responses to dispositive motions to be filed by December 8, 2016
unless the undersigned rules differently.

Defendant has asked the Court in its motion for summary judgment
to expedite briefing on the motion, arguing that the issue is a
pure matter of law and no further discovery is required to brief
it.

In his Order dated July 22, 2016 available at https://is.gd/xMcR3b
from Leagle.com, Judge Jones agreed with the clarification motion
of Plaintiff.  A response to the Motion for Summary Judgment is
due within 21 days of the entry of this Order into the electronic
docket, and replies are due within 14 days thereafter.

Auila, Inc., et al. are represented by Amy Irene Washburn, Esq. --
awashburn@kmksc.com -- MANN & KAILAS -- Melinda Anne Bialzik, Esq.
-- mbialzik@kmksc.com -- KOHNER, MANN & KAILAS, S.C. -- Susan G.
Kupfer, Esq. -- skupfer@glancylaw.com -- and Sylvie K. Kern, Esq.
-- kernantitrustglobal@gmail.com -- GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG --
Michael John Miguel, Esq. -- mmiguel@kasowitz.com -- MCKOOL SMITH
HENNIGAN PC -- Nitin Reddy, Esq. -- nreddy@sidley.com -- SIDLEY
AUSTIN LLP -- Orrin L. Harrison, III, Esq. --
oharrison@getrial.com -- GRUBER HURST JOHANSEN HAIL SHANK

Multiut Corporation is represented by Alan J. Mandel, Esq. -- ALAN
J. MANDEL, LTD. -- Amy Irene Washburn, Esq. -- awashburn@kmksc.com
-- and Anne Bialzik, Esq. -- mbialzik@kmksc.com -- KOHNER, MANN &
KAILAS -- Ira P. Gould, Esq. -- GREENBERG TRAURING, LLP -- Michael
John Miguel, Esq. -- mmiguel@kasowitz.com -- MCKOOL SMITH HENNIGAN
PC -- Nitin Reddy, Esq. -- nreddy@sidley.com -- SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
-- Orrin L. Harrison, III, Esq. -- oharrison@getrial.com -- GRUBER
HURST JOHANSEN HAIL SHANK

Cantera Natural Gas, Inc., et al. are represented by Mark E.
Haddad, Esq. -- mhaddad@sidley.com -- SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP -- Bradley
C. Weber, Esq. -- bweber@goodwinprocter.com -- LOCKE LORD LLP --
and Orrin L. Harrison, III, Esq. -- oharrison@getrial.com --
GRUBER HURST JOHANSEN HAIL SHANK

CMS Enterprises Group, Inc. is represented by Bradley C. Weber,
Esq. -- bweber@goodwinprocter.com -- LOCKE LORD LLP -- Orrin L.
Harrison, III, Esq. -- oharrison@getrial.com -- GRUBER HURST
JOHANSEN HAIL SHANK

Coral Energy Resources, LP is represented by Bruce A. Schultz,
Esq. -- mschultz@swlaw.com -- SNELL & WILMER LLP -- James Richard
Eiszner, Esq. -- reiszner@shb.com -- and Lori Renee Schultz, Esq.
-- lschultz@shb.com -- SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP -- Joshua D.
Lichtman, Esq. -- joshua.lichtman@nortonrosefulbright.com --
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP -- Roxanna A. Manuel, Esq. --
rm@kupfersteinmanuel.com -- KUPFERSTEIN MANUEL LLP -- Joel B.
Kleinman, Esq. -- JKleinman@BlankRome.com -- BLANK ROME LLP --
Mark R. Robeck, Esq. -- mrobeck@kelleydrye.com -- KELLEY DRYE &
WARREN LLP -- Orrin L. Harrison, III, Esq. --
oharrison@getrial.com -- GRUBER HURST JOHANSEN HAIL SHANK -- Stacy
L. Williams, Esq. -- swilliams@lockelord.com -- LOCKE LORD LLP


MDL 1566: Court Denies Objection to Magistrate Judge's Orders
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert C. Jones of the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada denied Defendants' objections to the
Magistrate Judge's Order in the case captioned, In re WESTERN
STATES WHOLESALE NATURAL GAS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. ARANDELL CORP.
et al., Plaintiffs, v. XCEL ENERGY INC. et al., Defendants.
REORGANIZED FLI, INC., Plaintiff, v. WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC. et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:03-cv-01431-RCJ-PAL, MDL No. 1566, No.
2:07-cv-01019-RCJ-PAL., 2:05-cv-01331-RCJ-PAL (D. Nev.).

The consolidated cases arise out of the energy crisis of 2000-
2002. Plaintiffs (retail buyers of natural gas) allege that
Defendants (natural gas traders) manipulated the price of natural
gas by reporting false information to price indices published by
trade publications and engaging in wash sales.

The Court granted three motions to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction but later reconsidered. The Court granted summary
judgment to CenterPoint Energy Services, Inc. in Case No. 2:07-cv-
1019 (Western District of Wisconsin Case No. 2:07-cv-76) because
there was no evidence it had engaged in any culpable activity. The
Court granted summary judgment to Oneok, Inc. and Oneok Energy
Services Co., LP in Case No. 2:05-cv-1331 (District of Kansas Case
No. 2:05-cv-2389) because the claims against it had been released
via settlement agreement in a consolidated class action brought in
the Southern District of New York.

Several Defendants have objected to the Magistrate Judge's order
denying them leave to amend their answers to plead a new theory of
federal preemption. Another group of Defendants has objected to
the Magistrate Judge's order compelling them to produce certain
attorney-client privileged information.

In the motion, Defendants argue the Magistrate Judge erred in
refusing to permit them to amend their answers to plead field
preemption of state antitrust claims. Defendants argue that in
their latest amended answers in November 2015, Defendants omitted
their preemption defenses for the first time because the Supreme
Court had ruled in April 2015 that the Natural Gas Act did not
preempt the state antitrust laws at issue under field preemption.
Defendants argue that the Supreme Court ruled based only one
particular theory of field preemption, not on the theory they wish
to plead.

In his Order dated July 22, 2016 available at https://is.gd/db64y4
from Leagle.com, Judge Jones found that the Magistrate Judge did
not abuse her discretion by refusing to permit Defendants to plead
the new theory after having removed all field preemption defenses
from their latest answers. As to Defendants' objection to the
Magistrate Judge's ruling that they waived the attorney-client and
work-product privileges in part as to certain attorney notes by
previously turning them over to a federal investigative task
force, the Court found that the ruling was not clearly erroneous
or contrary to law.

Auila, Inc., et al. are represented by Amy Irene Washburn, Esq. --
awashburn@kmksc.com -- MANN & KAILAS; Melinda Anne Bialzik, Esq.
-- mbialzik@kmksc.com -- KOHNER, MANN & KAILAS, S.C.; Susan G.
Kupfer, Esq. -- skupfer@glancylaw.com -- and Sylvie K. Kern, Esq.
-- kernantitrustglobal@gmail.com -- GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG;
Michael John Miguel, Esq. -- mmiguel@kasowitz.com -- MCKOOL SMITH
HENNIGAN PC; Nitin Reddy, Esq. -- nreddy@sidley.com -- SIDLEY
AUSTIN LLP; Orrin L. Harrison, III, Esq. -- oharrison@getrial.com
-- GRUBER HURST JOHANSEN HAIL SHANK

Multiut Corporation is represented by Alan J. Mandel, Esq., ALAN
J. MANDEL, LTD.; Amy Irene Washburn, Esq. -- awashburn@kmksc.com
-- and Anne Bialzik, Esq. -- mbialzik@kmksc.com -- KOHNER, MANN &
KAILAS; Ira P. Gould, Esq., GREENBERG TRAURING, LLP; Michael John
Miguel, Esq. -- mmiguel@kasowitz.com -- MCKOOL SMITH HENNIGAN PC;
Nitin Reddy, Esq. -- nreddy@sidley.com -- SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP; and
Orrin L. Harrison, III, Esq. -- oharrison@getrial.com -- GRUBER
HURST JOHANSEN HAIL SHANK

Cantera Natural Gas, Inc., et al. are represented by Mark E.
Haddad, Esq. -- mhaddad@sidley.com -- SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP -- Bradley
C. Weber, Esq. -- bweber@goodwinprocter.com -- LOCKE LORD LLP; and
Orrin L. Harrison, III, Esq. -- oharrison@getrial.com -- GRUBER
HURST JOHANSEN HAIL SHANK

CMS Enterprises Group, Inc. is represented by Bradley C. Weber,
Esq. -- bweber@goodwinprocter.com -- LOCKE LORD LLP -- Orrin L.
Harrison, III, Esq. -- oharrison@getrial.com -- GRUBER HURST
JOHANSEN HAIL SHANK

Coral Energy Resources, LP is represented by Bruce A. Schultz,
Esq. -- mschultz@swlaw.com -- SNELL & WILMER LLP; James Richard
Eiszner, Esq. -- reiszner@shb.com -- and Lori Renee Schultz, Esq.
-- lschultz@shb.com -- SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP; Joshua D.
Lichtman, Esq. -- joshua.lichtman@nortonrosefulbright.com --
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP -- Roxanna A. Manuel, Esq. --
rm@kupfersteinmanuel.com -- KUPFERSTEIN MANUEL LLP; Joel B.
Kleinman, Esq. -- JKleinman@BlankRome.com -- BLANK ROME LLP; Mark
R. Robeck, Esq. -- mrobeck@kelleydrye.com -- KELLEY DRYE & WARREN
LLP; Orrin L. Harrison, III, Esq. -- oharrison@getrial.com --
GRUBER HURST JOHANSEN HAIL SHANK; and Stacy L. Williams, Esq. --
swilliams@lockelord.com -- LOCKE LORD LLP


MDL 2328: Court Grants Pool et al.'s Summary Judgment Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, IN RE: POOL PRODUCTS DISTRIBUTION MARKET
ANTITRUST LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO ALL CASES, SECTION:
R(2), Case No. 2328 (E.D. La.), Defendants Pool Corporation, SCP
Distributors LLC, and Superior Pool Products moved for summary
judgment on direct purchaser plaintiffs' claim of attempted
monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act and on indirect-
purchaser plaintiffs' related state-law claims.  District Judge
Sarah S. Vance of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana grants the motion because plaintiffs have
failed to satisfy their burden on summary judgment as to the
existence of a national geographic market and Pool's dangerous
probability of succeeding in monopolizing that market.

A copy of the Court's Order and Reasons dated July 1, 2016, is
available at https://is.gd/FLX6Aq from Leagle.com.

The case is an antitrust case that direct-purchaser plaintiffs
(DPPs) and indirect-purchaser plaintiffs (IPPs) filed against Pool
and the Manufacturer Defendants. Pool is the country's largest
distributor of products used for the construction and maintenance
of swimming pools (Pool Products). The Manufacturer Defendants are
the three largest manufacturers of Pool Products in the United
States: Hayward Industries, Inc. (Hayward), Pentair Water Pool and
Spa, Inc. (Pentair), and Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc. (Zodiac).

DPPs have filed two consolidated amended complaints -- the first
on June 29, 2012 and the second on June 21, 2013 -- each of which
defendants moved to dismiss. Following the Court's orders on those
motions, DPPs were left with these claims: (1) a Section 1 claim
under the per se rule involving a horizontal agreement between the
Manufacturer Defendants and Pool to fix free freight minimums; (2)
three Section 1 claims under the rule of reason involving three
separate vertical conspiracies (one between Pool and each
Manufacturer Defendant) to exclude Pool's competitors; and (3) a
Section 2 attempted monopolization claim against Pool.

IPPs filed three amended complaints, the most recent on July 16,
2013.  Following the Court's order on defendants' motion to
dismiss IPPs' state-law claims, IPPs were left with the following
claims: (1) California Unfair Competition Law and rule of reason
Cartwright Act claims involving three vertical conspiracies (one
between Pool and each Manufacturer Defendant); (2) Arizona
Antitrust Act claims involving three vertical conspiracies and a
claim of attempted monopolization against Pool; (3) Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claims involving three
vertical conspiracies and a claim of attempted monopolization
against Pool; and (4) Missouri Merchandising Practice Acts claims
based on defendants' alleged anticompetitive agreements to exclude
Pool's rivals and Pool's attempted monopolization.  Each of these
claims was allowed to proceed to the extent it was predicated on a
national market.

On January 27, 2016, the Court granted summary judgment on DPPs'
horizontal conspiracy claims.  On April 29, 2016, the Court
granted summary judgment on DPPs' vertical conspiracy claims and
IPPs' related state-law claims of vertical conspiracy.

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel is represented by:

       Russ M. Herman, Esq.
       HERMAN, HERMAN, KATZ & COTLAR, LLP
       820 O'Keefe Ave.
       New Orleans, LA 70113
       Tel: (504) 581-4892

Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel is represented by:

       Thomas J. H. Brill, Esq.
       LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS H. BRILL
       8012 State Line Road, Suite 102
       Leawood, KS 66208
       Tel: (913) 677-2004

Plaintiffs' Steering Committee is represented by Arnold Levin,
Esq. -- arnoldlevin@verizon.net -- LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN &
BERMAN; Daniel W. Krasner, Esq. -- krasner@whafh.com -- WOLF,
HALDENSTEIN, ADLER, FREEMAN & HERZ, LLP; Douglas G. Thompson, Esq.
-- dthompson@finkelsteinthompson.com -- FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP,
Jay L. Himes, Esq. -- jhimes@labaton.com -- LABATON SUCHAROW, LLP;
Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. -- lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com -- NUSSBAUM
LAW GROUP, P.C.; Matthew B. Moreland, Esq. --
mmoreland@bcnellaw.com -- BECNEL LAW FIRM, LLC; Richard J.
Arsenault, Esq. -- rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com -- NEBLETT, BEARD &
ARSENAULT; Ronald J. Aranoff, Esq. -- Aranoff@bernlieb.com --
BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP; Russ M. Herman, Esq., HERMAN, HERMAN, KATZ
& COTLAR, LLP; and Vincent J. Esades, Esq. --
vesades@heinsmills.com -- HEINS, MILLS & OLSON, PLC

Plaintiffs' Executive Committee is represented by Jay L. Himes,
Esq. -- jhimes@labaton.com -- LABATON SUCHAROW, LLP; Robert N.
Kaplan, Esq., KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP; Ronald J. Aranoff, Esq.
-- Aranoff@bernlieb.com -- BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP; and Russ M.
Herman, Esq., HERMAN, HERMAN, KATZ & COTLAR, LLP

Defendants' Liaison Counsel is represented by William Bernard
Gaudet, Esq. -- william.gaudet@arlaw.com -- ADAMS & REESE, LLP

Defendants' Lead Counsel is represented by David H. Bamberger,
Esq. -- david.bamberger@dlapiper.com -- and Katherine M. Ruffing,
Esq. -- katie.ruffing@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER, LLP

Manufacturer Defendants' Liaison Counsel is represented by Wayne
J. Lee, Esq. -- wlee@stonepigman.com -- STONE, PIGMAN, WALTHER,
WITTMANN, LLC


MEDICREDIT INC: Wins Dismissal of "Kreger" Robocall Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Virginia M. Hernandez-Covington of the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted
Defendant Medicredit Inc.'s motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim the case captioned, SEAN KREGER, Plaintiff, v. MEDICREDIT,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-1481-T-33JSS (M.D. Fla.).

Plaintiff Sean Kreger began receiving telephone calls from
Medicredit. These calls were placed using an automatic telephone
dialing system. In total, Medicredit called Kreger's telephone at
least eighteen times. Medicredit did not have Kreger's express
consent to make the calls, and the calls were not placed for
emergency purposes.

Kreger initiated the action in state court on May 16, 2016, for a
violation of Restrictions on Use of Telephone Equipment, 47 U.S.C.
Sec. 227; known as the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Medicredit then removed to this Court, based on federal question
jurisdiction, on June 9, 2016.

In the motion, Medicredit argues Kreger fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted because res judicata bars
Kreger's claim. Specifically, Medicredit argues Kreger's claim is
precluded by the final order and judgment entered in Prater v.
Medicredit, Inc., Case No. 4:14-CV-00159-ERW, 2015 WL 8331602,
which incorporated and approved a class-action settlement
agreement. Kreger counters that Medicredit failed to meet the
requisites of res judicata and that Medicredit did not provide
practicable notice of the class action.

A copy of the Court's Order dated July 19, 2016, is available at
https://is.gd/6jwgy0 from Leagle.com.

Sean Kreger is represented by:

      Michael Andrew Ziegler, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL A. ZIEGLER
      13575 58th St N #129,
      Clearwater, FL 33760
      Tel:(727)538-4188

Medicredit, Inc. is represented by William Jason Cantrell, Esq. --
william.cantrell@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH
SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.


METALS USA: Court Grants Class Certification in "Wilson" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California granted the motion for
class certification in the case captioned, JAMES WILSON, an
individual, and JACK WHITE, an individual, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. METALS USA,
INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1-100, inclusive,
Defendant, Case No. 2:12-CV-00568-KJM-CKD (TEMP) (E.D. Cal.).

James Wilson and Jack White purchased roof tiles manufactured by
Dura-Loc Roofing Systems Limited. They allege those tiles were
defectively designed because over time, as the tiles were exposed
to air and sunlight, they lost their color. Because Dura-Loc gave
them a written warranty promising the tiles were "UV resistant,"
Wilson and White allege violations of California Commercial Code
section 2313. They bring the action against Metals USA, Inc., the
alleged successor to Dura-Loc's liability.

Allan Reid, allegedly a former Dura-Loc executive, moved to
dismiss the claim against him for lack of personal jurisdiction
and the court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend.

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, omitting Reid as a
defendant and advancing only claims for breach of written
warranties and violations of the CLRA and UCL.

Metals USA moved to dismiss, arguing the complaint lacked
sufficient factual allegations to make out a plausible claim for
its liability under a theory of successor liability.

The court denied the motion and Metals USA answered.

Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint by stipulation and that
pleading remains operative. The case now proceeds on two claims
for breach of express warranty, California Civil Code sections
1790 et seq. and Commercial Code section 2313, and on the
previously asserted claims for violations of the CLRA and UCL.
Metals USA is the only remaining defendant. On September 4, 2015,
plaintiffs moved for class certification of only one claim: breach
of express warranty under Commercial Code section 2313.

In the motion, Plaintiffs proposed to certify a class of "All
individuals and entities that own homes or other structures
located in the State of California on which Dura-Loc Roofing
Systems Limited's Continental, Shadow line, or Wood Shake stone
coated steel roof shingles were installed during the period of
time beginning July 1, 1996 through May 12, 2006."

In her Order dated July 1, 2016 available at https://is.gd/rtAWgd
from Leagle.com, Judge Mueller certified the class proposed by
Plaintiffs and certified the second class claim for breaches of
express warranty under California Commercial Code sections 2313.
The class excludes Metals USA and Dura-Loc and any of their
corporate parents, subsidiaries and affiliates, officers and
directors, any entity in which Metals USA or Dura-Loc has a
controlling interest, the legal representatives, successors or
assigns of any of these excluded persons or entities, and
plaintiffs' counsel in this action. The class also excludes any
person whose claims in the action have been previously released
against either Metals USA or Dura-Loc.

Plaintiffs James Wilson and Jack White are appointed as class
representatives, and Gene Stonebarger and Richard Lambert are
appointed class counsel.

James Wilson, et al. are represented by Gene Joseph Stonebarger,
Esq. -- gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com -- and Richard David
Lambert, Esq. -- rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com -- STONEBARGER LAW

Metals USA, Inc. is represented by Frank Busch, Esq. --
busch@kerrwagstaffe.com -- and Adrian J. Sawyer, Esq. --
sawyer@kerrwagstaffe.com -- KERR & WAGSTAFFE, LLP -- Bartholomew
Dalton, Esq. -- Bdalton@kilpatricktownsend.com -- KILPATRICK
TOWNSEND & STOCKTON, LLP


MIDWAY RENT A CAR: Arbitration Ruling on Individual Claims Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Presiding Judge Norman L. Epstein of the California Court of
Appeals affirmed an order denying a petition to compel arbitration
of the Plaintiff's individual claims in the case captioned, EVAN
LANDY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MIDWAY RENT A CAR, INC.,
Defendant and Respondent, Case No. B264640 (Cal. App.).

Plaintiff Evan Landy is employed by Midway as a limousine driver.
He filed a putative class action complaint against Midway on his
own behalf and for 100 similarly situated employees in March 2013.
According to the complaint, Landy and his fellow employees are
required to perform work-related duties without benefit of
statutory meal and rest periods, compensation in accordance with
straight-time and overtime pay rates, or itemized wage statements.

In addition to six causes of action for Labor Code violations and
a seventh cause of action for unlawful business practices, the
operative pleading contains an eighth cause of action for civil
penalties under the PAGA. Midway answered the operative complaint
in September 2013, and the parties commenced class action
discovery.

Midway sought to enforce an arbitration agreement contained in
Landy's employment application. Landy refused to arbitrate his
claims on an individual basis. Midway filed a petition to compel
arbitration of the first amended complaint "on an individual
basis, with the exception of the PAGA claims."

In its April 20, 2015 order, the trial court granted the petition
to compel arbitration of the first amended complaint on an
individual basis, with the exception of the PAGA claims. The PAGA
claims were severed and stayed pending completion of arbitration.

Landy filed a notice of appeal from the April 20, 2015 order,
citing the "death knell" doctrine. In its respondent's brief,
Midway argues to dismiss the appeal, claiming an order compelling
arbitration is not directly appealable, and, in light of the
pending PAGA claims, does not constitute a death knell of the
representative claims.

In his Order dated June 30, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/qf9puL from Leagle.com, Judge Epstein dismissed the
appeal because the death knell doctrine is inapplicable from the
interlocutory order compelling arbitration.

Evan Landy is represented by:

      Jennifer L. Hart, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JENNIFER HART
      1651 S Beverly Glen Blvd
      Los Angeles, CA 90024-6105
      Tel:(310)903-0717

Midway Rent A Car, Inc. is represented by Michelle Cooper, Esq. --
mcooper@molinolawfirm.com -- MOLINO & BERARDINO


MISSISSIPPI: Airport Authority May Intervene in "Stallworth" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Carlton W. Reeves of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi granted Jackson
Municipal Airport Authority (JMAA)'s motion to intervene in the
case captioned, JEFFERY A. STALLWORTH, Plaintiff, v. GOVERNOR PHIL
BRYANT; STATE OF MISSISSIPPI; MISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE; EAST METRO
PARKWAY; and MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. Defendants,
and JACKSON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY; MAYOR TONY T. YARBER;
MELVIN V. PRIESTER, JR.; ASHBY FOOTE; KENNETH I. STOKES;
DE'KEITHER STAMPS; CHARLES TILLMAN; TYRONE HENDRIX; MARGARET
BARRETT-SIMON; DR. ROSIE L.T. PRIDGEN; REV. JAMES L. HENLEY, JR.;
LAWANDA D. HARRIS; VERNON W. HARTLEY, SR.; and EVELYN O. REED, all
in their official capacities, individual capacities, and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Movants, Case No. 3:16-CV-246-CWR-
FKB (S.D. Miss.).

On April 6, 2016, Jeffery A. Stallworth filed the suit to
challenge Senate Bill 2162, a proposed law that at the time was
working its way through the Mississippi Legislature. His suit
claims that SB 2162 will, among other things, violate his rights
under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution. Stallworth seeks monetary, declaratory, and
injunctive relief.

Within a week of those filings -- and with barely a week left
before SB 2162 was to go into effect -- the prospective
Intervenors filed the present motion. They contend they have
interests in challenging SB 2162 that are so unique, and allegedly
inadequately represented by Stallworth, that they are entitled to
mandatory or permissive intervention as plaintiffs.

Within a day of the intervention request, Stallworth moved for a
Preliminary Injunction and a hearing on that motion. The
prospective Intervenors then moved for a Preliminary Injunction,
an emergency hearing on that motion, and an emergency hearing on
their request to intervene.

In his Order dated July 19, 2016 available at https://is.gd/cQXbWF
from Leagle.com, Judge Reeves held that the movants are entitled
to intervene by right under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 24(a)(2) because (1)
their application is timely; (2)the movants plainly have legal and
property interests in the subject matter; (3) a ruling on
Stallworth's theories could potentially impair the movants' own
claims; and (4) Stallworth may not adequately represent the
movants' interests.

Governor Dewey Phillip is  represented by:

      Justin L. Matheny, Esq.
      Whitney Holliday Lipscomb, Esq.
      OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
      550 High St #1200
      Jackson, MS 39201
      Tel: (601)359-3680

State of Mississippi is represented by:

      Justin L. Matheny, Esq.
      MISSISSIPPI ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
      550 High St #1200
      Jackson, MS 39201
      Tel: (601)359-3680

East Metro Parkway is represented by Andrea La'Verne Edney, Esq.
-- ledney@bakerdonelson.com -- Bradley C. Moody, Esq. --
bmoody@bakerdonelson.com -- and Donald Jeffrey Wagner, Esq. --
dwagner@bakerdonelson.com -- BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL &
BERKOWITZ, PC

Evelyn O. Reed is represented by Fred L. Banks, Jr., Esq. --
fred.banks@phelps.com -- PHELPS DUNBAR, LLP


MJB HOLDING: Faces "Chananya" Suit Over Fiduciary Duties Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Chananya, on behalf of herself and all other shareholders
of MJB Holding Corporation, similarly situated, and in the right
of MJB Holding Corporation v. Pauline Spolan, Mindy Spolan
Bezalel, MJB Holding Corporation, Audley Street Realty LLC, and
Baron Spolan Realty LLC, Case No. 60530/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., July
25, 2016), arises out of the Defendants' breach of their fiduciary
duties, specifically by failing to preserve and protect the assets
of MJB Corp.

MJB Holding Corporation owns a six-story, multifamily structure,
located at 118-09 83rd Avenue, Apt. 1 G, Kew Gardens, New York,
that has approximately forty-eight residential rental apartments.

Audley Street Realty LLC owns and operates the real property
located at 116-16 Audley Street, Kew Gardens, New York, which is a
three story apartment building with several rental apartments.

Baron Spolan Realty LLC own, manages, and operates the real
property located at 116-11 Metropolitan Avenue, Kew Gardens, New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Ansell, Esq.
      SIVERMAN ACAMPORA LLP
      100 Jericho Quadrangle, Suite 300
      Jericho, NY 11753
      Telephone: (516) 479-6300
      Facsimile: (516) 479-6301
      E-mail: RAnsell@SilvermanAcampora.com


MONEY STORE: 2nd Cir. Affirms Decertification of "Mazzei" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs of the Court of Appeals, Second
Circuit, affirmed a district court's judgment decertifying a class
in the case captioned, JOSEPH MAZZEI, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE MONEY
STORE, TMS MORTGAGE INC., HOMEQ SERVICING CORP., Defendants-
Appellees, Case No. 15-2054 (2nd Cir.).

In 1994, Joseph Mazzei obtained a mortgage loan from his employer,
The Money Store. At that time, The Money Store was a loan servicer
and mortgage lender. Mazzei missed payments on the loan for years
beginning in late 1997, and received three notices of default in
1998. In 1999, The Money Store changed ownership, and Mazzei was
laid off. Soon after, The Money Store ceased originating loans and
became HomEq Servicing Corp.

Plaintiff-appellant Joseph Mazzei initiated a class action against
The Money Store et al., alleging, inter alia, overcharge of late
fees on mortgages, and prevailed in a jury trial. The United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Koeltl,J.) (i) granted defendants-appellees' post-verdict motion
to decertify (under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(C)) a
class that was previously certified pursuant to Rule 23(a) and
(b)(3); and (ii) entered judgment in favor only of Mazzei, the
putative class representative.

The certified class action eventually went to trial. The jury
returned a verdict in favor of Mazzei and the class on the late
fee claims. It awarded Mazzei $133.80, and it awarded the class
approximately $32 million plus prejudgment interest.

After trial, and before the entry of judgment, The Money Store
moved for decertification of the class pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(C), or, in the alternative, the entry of
judgment as a matter of law on the class late fee claims pursuant
to Federal Rule 50.

In his Order dated July 15, 2016 available at https://is.gd/Lc3723
from Leagle.com, Judge Jacobs concluded that the district court
did not abuse discretion in determining that, given the failure of
class-wide evidence as to privity at trial, Rule 23(a) and (b)(3)
requirements were not satisfied and decertification was therefore
warranted.

The Money Store is represented by Paul S. Grobman, Esq. --
paul@sharmadeyoung.com -- NEAL DEYOUNG, SHARMA & DEYOUNG

Joseph Mazzei is represented by Daniel A. Pollack, Esq. --
dpollack@mccarter.com -- Edward T. McDermott, Esq. --
emcdermott@mccarter.com -- Anthony Zaccaria, Esq. --
azaccaria@mccarter.com -- and Minji Kim, Esq. -- mkim@mccarter.com
-- MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP


MORGAN STANLEY: Denial of Class Certification in "Adkins" Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judges Dennis Jacobs, Reena Raggi and Denny Chin of the
Court of Appeals, Second Circuit affirmed the district court's
order denying class certification in the case captioned, BEVERLY
ADKINS, CHARMAINE WILLIAMS, REBECCA PETTWAY, RUBBIE MCCOY, and
WILLIAM YOUNG, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, and MICHIGAN LEGAL SERVICES, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
MORGAN STANLEY, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, MORGAN STANLEY ABS
CAPITAL I INC., MORGAN STANLEY MORTGAGE CAPITAL INC., and MORGAN
STANLEY MORTGAGE CAPITAL HOLDINGS LLC, Defendants-Appellees, Case
No. 15-2398 (2nd Cir.).

The plaintiffs, a putative class of African-American homeowners in
the Detroit area allege a disparate impact under the Fair Housing
Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3605, by certain alleged policies and
practices of defendants Morgan Stanley, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC,
Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc., Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital
Inc., and Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC.
Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that Morgan Stanley's
purchases of home loans from New Century induced New Century to
make costly, high-risk loans to the class at a higher rate than
comparable white borrowers.

Judge Valerie Caproni of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York issued an order denying class
certification. She concluded that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy
the typicality requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3), as well as
the predominance and superiority requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(3).

On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that the district court did not
consider certification of issue classes or its proposed
alternative class.

In the Summary Order dated July 14, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/74uPJ6 from Leagle.com, Judges Jacobs, Raggi and
Chin held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
failing to certify the proposed alternative class finding no merit
in the plaintiff's other arguments.

Bevelry Adkins, et al. are represented by Elizabeth J. Cabraser,
Esq. -- ecabraser@lchb.com -- and Rachel J. Geman, Esq. --
rgeman@lchb.com -- LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP

She is also represented by:

      Rachel E. Goodman, Esq.
      Dennis D. Parker, Esq.
      AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
      125 Broad Street, 18th Floor,
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212)549-2500

           - and -

      Stuart T. Rossman, Esq.
      THE NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER
      7 Winthrop Square
      Boston, MA 02110
      Tel: (617)542-8010

Morgan Stanley, et al are represented by Noah A. Levine, Esq. --
noah.levine@wilmerhale.com -- Colin T. Reardon, Esq. --
colin.reardon@wilmerhale.com -- and John Paredes, Esq. --
john.paredes@wilmerhale.com -- David W. Ogden, Esq. --
david.ogden@wilmerhale.com -- and Jonathan A. Bressler, Esq. --
jonathan.bressler@wilmerhale.com -- WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE
AND DORR LLP


NAOMI SHU: "Muye" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------
MUYE ZHOU, the Plaintiff, v. NAOMI SHU REALTY and NAOMI SHU, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-04280 (E.D.N.Y., August 1, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid wages for denial of overtime pay in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York
Labor Law.

Defendant Naomi Shu is the Principal and Owner of Naomi Shu Realty
who failed to pay Plaintiff's full wages and committing  other
violations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ian Wallace, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF IAN WALLACE, PLLC
          501 Fifth Avenue, 19th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 661 5306


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Insurance Companies May Delay Concussion Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sportsblog reports that an increasing amount of players in recent
times are experiencing devastating symptoms stemming from their
injuries on the field.  In fact, the NFL recently settled a class
action lawsuit for approximately one billion dollars, brought by
retired players, over concussion injuries incurred during their
playing tenure.

Some players take extra precautions and buy personal policies to
insure themselves against injuries.  Unfortunately it appears, as
in many personal injury cases, getting paid on those claims when
an injury occurs, can be easier said than done.

A recent Washington Post article outlines the issues of Haruki
Nakamura, who is a five year safety of the Baltimore Ravens and
Carolina Panthers, and is suffering the long term effects of NFL
injuries.

Troubling as the actual injuries sustained, are the ways in which
insurance companies have been dealing with players whose careers
have ended in serious injury.  Haruki Nakamura has been forced to
sue his insurance company after being denied his claim to collect
on a policy for a career-ending injury.  He is not alone,
insurance companies resort to every excuse in the book to deny
claims.

"But Nakamura was unable to collect on his insurance policy for a
career-ending injury, with the lawsuit saying that insurance
underwriters subjected Nakamura to "voluminous" paperwork and
delays while investigating and then denying his claim.  Nakamura
was not allowed to have an advocate accompany him to an
examination by a medical expert selected by the insurer, according
to the lawsuit, and the insurance underwriters denied the claim
based on the findings of that examination."

As a result of this corporate greed, attorneys have stepped in to
lend a legal hand to former NFL players.  Pat Tighe of X1 LAW, an
experienced attorney on the subject, sheds a little light on the
specifics of how insurance companies squeeze every bit of money
from those who rely on them.

Mr. Tighe explains and outlines in the bullet points below:

"In industry terms it's known as the three D's. Delay. Deny.
Defend.

1. The insurance company DELAYS the claim by requesting huge
amounts of additional information, that is used to delay the
claim, with the insurance company saying they can't evaluate the
claim without the information.

2. When the insurance company receives the information, They
review it in an attempt to DENY the claim, saying it's unrelated
to the insurance policy.

3. The insurance company then DEFENDS, when the person making the
claim sues them.

This allows the company to hold the money and invest it, at the
same time frustrating the person who was entitled to be paid in a
quick manner."

As for the recent NFL Concussion Class Action Settlement, many
experts expect similar tactics to be employed in that claims
process as well.  The takeaway here is, these battles should not
be fought alone.  Injured parties need an experienced advocate who
will fight for them, else they could find themselves in the
situation of Mr. Nakamura, still fighting, or even worse, with no
claim awarded at all.

If you are an injured player and need assistance with a claim, and
would like a no cost consultation with attorney Patrick Tighe you
can contact him at: www.nflconcussioncase.com


NEUBERGER BERMAN: Faces "Bekker" Suit Alleging Violation of ERISA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Bekker individually and on behalf of a class of all other
persons similarly situated, and on behalf of the Neuberger Berman
401(k) Plan, v. NEUBERGER BERMAN GROUP LLC, Neuberger Berman LLC,
Neuberger Berman Trust Company N.A., Marvin Schwartz, the
Neuberger Berman Investment Committee and JANE AND JOHN DOES 1-25,
Case 1:16-cv-06123-LTS (S.D.N.Y., August 2, 2016), was filed on
behalf of a purported class of similarly situated participants in
the Neuberger Berman Group 401(k) Plan, and on behalf of the Plan,
for alleged breach of fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Neuberger Berman LLC is a registered broker-dealer and registered
investment adviser engaged principally in providing investment
advisory services to individuals and institutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kevin W. Barrett, Esq.
     Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
     Mark G. Boyko, Esq.
     BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
     209 Capitol Street
     Charleston, WV 25301
     Phone: (304) 345-6555
     Fax: (304) 342-1110
     E-mail: kbarrett@baileyglasser.com
             gporter@baileyglasser.com
             mboyko@baileyglasser.com


NIANTIC INC: Faces Pokemon Go Privacy Class Action in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a Canadian class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of an Albertan woman against California-
based Niantic Inc., the creator of Pokemon Go, saying she's
suffering from an invasion of privacy.

Barbra-Lyn Schaeffer said on Aug. 10 that she's been inundated by
Pokemon Go players at her home 160 kilometers (99 miles) northeast
of Calgary ever since it became the site of a Pokemon gym.
Pokemon Go gyms are places where players congregate and battle it
out to take control of the area for a selected team. Usually, gyms
are designated to churches or public buildings.

In the U.S., a Massachusetts man also had his home designated as a
gym.  In his case, his home was on the site of a former church.

Ms. Schaeffer said people have been trying to crawl over her fence
into the grounds of her home.

"The way I look at it, the game is fine.  My kids play it, my
grandkids play it but just don't do it at my house,"
Ms. Schaeffer said.

Ms. Schaeffer said there are people sitting out in front of their
home at all hours of the day and night.

"We moved out here to be in the quiet, not to have people climb up
over my fence," she said.  "The last thing we need is strangers
trying to peer in our windows.  On Saturday, someone flew a drone
up into our yard to play the game."

The lawsuit was filed in Calgary and has not been certified by the
courts, which determines whether it can proceed.

The game sends players into the real world to search for digital
monsters known as Pokemon, which appear on their smartphones
screen.  It uses digital beacons -- called Pokestops and Pokegyms
-- and Ms. Schaeffer said there are plenty of them in their tiny
hamlet of Torrington, population 179.

"There's six spots in Torrington which is really ironic for a town
as small as it is," she said.

Ms. Schaeffer said she sent a request to Niantic asking her home
be removed and only received a computer-generated response saying
the company would look into it.  The idea of launching the class-
action lawsuit isn't about the money, she said.  No dollar amount
has been set.

"I just want to be left alone. I just want it removed and
apparently they're not doing that," she said.

Calgary attorney Clint Docken, whose firm is handling the case,
said Schaeffer came to him out of "frustration."  He said a
similar class-action lawsuit has been launched in the United
States.

Mr. Docken said Ms. Schaeffer is the only plaintiff at this point,
but he expects others.


NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss "Langley" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sim Lake of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas denied Defendant Northstar Location
Services, LLC's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint Pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(6) in the case captioned, ANITA LANGLEY, ON BEHALF
OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v.
NORTHSTAR LOCATION SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. H-16-1351
(S.D. Tex.).

Plaintiff Anita Langley (Langley) brought the action against
Defendant Northstar Location Services, LLC (Northstar) pursuant to
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Northstar sent
Langley the debt collection Letter on February 1, 2016.

Langley filed her Complaint on May 12, 2016, alleging two causes
of action for violations of the FDCPA:

     -- First, Langley alleges that Northstar "violated 15 U.S.C.
Sections 1692e, 1692e(10) by falsely stating in its Letter that
Plaintiff had agreed to make a payment on the debt when such
agreement had not, in fact, been made," and that Northstar
"further violated Sec. 1692e because the Letter's attempt to
collect a payment from Plaintiff was deceptive or misleading where
any payment towards the Debt would renew the statute of
limitations for the entirety of the Debt owed."

     -- Second, Langley alleges that Northstar "violated 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 1692f by falsely stating in its Letter that Plaintiff had
agreed to make a payment on the time-barred Debt in an attempt to
revive the statute of limitations on the entirety of the Debt,"
and that the Letter "was unfair and unconscionable because
Defendant attempted to deceive Plaintiff to make a payment and
unwittingly renew the statute of limitations for the entirety of
the Debt."

Northstar filed the Motion to Dismiss on June 27, 2016 arguing
that both of Langley's claims fail because "the letter at issue
explicitly states that if plaintiff takes any action with respect
to the debt, including making a promise to pay, the time for
filing suit will be reset." Northstar also argues that "even if
the letter did not advise plaintiff that the limitation may be
revived if she were to make a partial payment or otherwise
acknowledges the debt authority on point provides that this does
not constitute a violation of the FDCPA.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 28, 2016 available
at https://is.gd/hLOpON from Leagle.com, Judge Lake found that
that Langley has alleged plausible claims for violations of 15
U.S.C. Sections 1692e and 1692f concluding that Langley has
satisfied the requirements of Rule 8, and the Complaint is not
subject to dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).

Anita Langley is represented by Russell S. Thompson, IV, Esq. --
peterrjthompson@gmail.com -- THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC

Northstar Location Services LLC is represented by Christopher S.
Norcross, Esq. -- and Kirstie M. Simmerman, Esq. --
ksimmerman@gordonrees.com -- GORDON REES LLP


NUTRO COMPANY: Court Approves Attorneys' Fees, Incentives
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Esther Salas of the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey granted Plaintiff's motion for
attorneys' fees, expenses, and incentive award in the case
captioned, DAMIAN MONTELEONE, an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff. v. THE NUTRO COMPANY, a
Delaware corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-801 (ES)
(JAD)(D.N.J.).

The action arises out of a class action complaint that was filed
in New Jersey state court. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants The
Nutro Company and MARS, Inc. made false representations that
certain dog kibble and biscuit products (the Class Products)
contained a healthy, digestive probiotic additive referred to as
Bacillus.

On August 4, 2015, the Court granted the joint motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement. On November 13,
2015, the parties filed a joint motion for final certification of
settlement class and approval of class settlement, notice
procedures, and plan of allocation. The Class Settlement Motion
discussed the settlement terms, which provided that Defendant will
reserve up to $500,000 for a common fund to be distributed to
individuals who purchased the Class Products during the relevant
time period. Settlement Class Members may elect to receive a
single payment of $2.00 or a gift certificate for $5.00 towards
the purchase of any Nutro product, or donate $5.00 worth of dry
kibble to animal shelters. In addition to the common fund,
Defendants also agree to donate $500,000 worth of dry kibble to
animal shelters.

On November 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant unopposed motion
for attorneys' fees, expenses, and incentive award on behalf of
Class Counsel. Class Counsel is seeking $370,000 in attorneys'
fees and expenses incurred by Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP
and Del Mar Law Group, LLP Class Counsel is also seeking an
incentive award of $5,000 for Plaintiff Damian Monteleone in his
capacity as class representative.

In her Opinion dated June 30, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/VTsIU2 from Leagle.com, Judge Salas concluded that
given the complete absence of objections to the settlement, the
requested fees are reasonable and appropriate.

The Court approved attorneys' fees in the amount of $370,000,
expenses in the amount of $10,086.61, both to be paid from the
$370,000, and $5,000 incentive award.

Damian Monteleone is represented by Peter G. Siachos, Esq. --
psiachos@gordonrees.com -- GORDON & REES, LLP

The Nutro Company and Mars, Incorporated are represented by
Stephen J. Defeo, Esq. -- sdefeo@brownconnery.com -- BROWN &
CONNERY, LLP


OAK LAWN, IL: Sued Over Unlawful Residency Requirements
-------------------------------------------------------
Oak Lawn Professional Firefighters Association, Local 3405, IAFF,
on behalf of its members, and William Roser, Timothy Radke, and
Todd Stanford, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals v. Village of Oak Lawn, Board of Trustees of
Village of Oak Lawn, Tim Desmond, Alex G. Olejniczak, Robert J.
Streit, Terry Vorderer, William R. Stalker, Mike Carberry, Mayor
Sandra Bury, and Village Manager Larry Deetjen, Case No. 2016-CH-
09908 (Ill. Cir. Ct., July 27, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Illinois Municipal Code,
specifically by imposing residency requirements on bargaining unit
employees hired prior to issuance of the Arbitrator's award.

Village of Oak Lawn is a municipal corporation authorized and
organized under the Illinois Municipal Code

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lisa B. Moss, Esq.
      Susan M. Matta, Esq.
      CARMELL CHARONE WIDMER MOSS & BARR
      One E. Wacker Dr., Suite 3300
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 236-8033
      E-mail: lmoss@carmellcharone.com
              smatta@carmellcharone.com


OBESITY RESEARCH: Judgment on Attorney Fee & Incentives Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Associate Judge Gilbert Nares of the California Court of Appeals
reversed the judgment, including the award of attorney fees and
incentive payment, 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, Case No. D067917 (Cal. App.).

Fred Duran filed a putative class action complaint against Obesity
Research Institute, LLC (ORI) and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.  Duran
alleges defendants falsely claimed that ORI's products, Lipozene
and MetaboUp, have weight loss benefits. The court approved a
claims-made settlement providing that class members submitting a
claim without proof of purchase would receive $15, and those
submitting receipt(s) would receive one refund of double the unit
price paid. The settlement also provided that ORI would cease
making certain assertions in product advertising. Defendants also
agreed to not oppose a motion seeking $100,000 in attorney fees to
class counsel.

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

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

In his Order dated July 15, 2016 available at https://is.gd/q4P1Cd
from Leagle.com, Judge Nares held that the material
inconsistencies between the downloadable claim form and the
approved settlement undermines the court's analysis of the
fairness of the settlement and requires the judgment to be
reversed.

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

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

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

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

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


PAT'S PIZZERIA: Insurer Not Liable, Appeals Court Says
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joy Cunningham of the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the
judgment of the circuit court in the case captioned, MORTESA
"MARTY" FAYEZI and AMERICAN AWNING AND WINDOW COMPANY, INC.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ILLINOIS CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant-
Appellee, Case No. 1-15-0873 (Ill. App.).

The plaintiffs initiated the declaratory judgment action to
determine whether the defendant-appellee, Illinois Casualty
Company (ICC), was obligated to defend a class action against
ICC's insured, and to indemnify the eventual settlement of that
underlying action. ICC was the insurer for Pat's Pizzeria, Inc.
(Pat's), the defendant in the underlying class action. ICC issued
a "Businessowners Policy" to Pat's effective September 2, 2005,
through September 2, 2006 (the 2005-06 policy). The 2005-06 policy
separately sets forth coverage for "Personal and Advertising
Injury."

On March 31, 2006, Pat's transmitted unsolicited advertisements by
facsimile (fax) to 3636 recipients. In April 2009, one of the
recipients, Fayezi, filed a class action complaint (the underlying
complaint) in the circuit court of Cook County on behalf of
himself "and all other persons similarly situated" who had
received such faxes. The parties agreed to seek court approval of
a judgment against Pat's in the amount of $1,818,000. The
settlement agreement specified that the plaintiffs would not seek
recovery from Pat's but instead would proceed against Pat's
insurers.

On December 28, 2012, the plaintiffs initiated the action by
filing a declaratory judgment complaint in the circuit court of
Lake County, alleging that ICC was required to defend Pat's in the
underlying action and to indemnify the resulting judgment in favor
of the class. On April 23, 2013, ICC filed a forum non conveniens
motion, arguing that Lake County was an improper forum,
particularly since the underlying action was litigated in the
circuit court of Cook County. On May 29, 2014, ICC filed a motion
to dismiss. Relying on the TCPA exclusions in the 2005-06 policy,
ICC argued that it had no duty to defend the underlying class
action or to indemnify the resulting judgment.

On February 19, 2015, the trial court granted ICC's motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint. The court's order found
that "ICC's motion and affidavit are procedurally proper" and that
the Second District's decision in G.M. Sign, Inc. v. State Farm
Fire & Casualty Co., 2014 IL App (2d) 130593, was "controlling."
The court dismissed the plaintiff's amended complaint in its
entirety and with prejudice.

On appeal, plaintiffs argues: (1) that the trial court improperly
granted dismissal based upon extrinsic evidence (the Doran
affidavit) and without allowing discovery as to whether ICC had
issued prior policies; (2) even if there were no such prior
policies, the TCPA exclusions in the 2005-06 policy did not exempt
ICC from a duty to defend the underlying lawsuit; and (3) because
ICC breached its duty to defend, ICC is estopped from contesting
its obligation to indemnify the settlement of the underlying
action

In her Opinion dated June 30, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/uHLTO1 from Leagle.com, Judge Cunningham concluded
that the plaintiffs' contentions lack merit.


PEAK CAMPUS: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
William Truong, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. Peak Campus Management, LLC, Case No.
2016-CH-09735 (Ill. Cir. Ct., July 25, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of transmitting unauthorized advertisements
in the form of "text message" calls to the cellular telephones of
consumers throughout Illinois and the rest of the nation.

Peak Campus Management, LLC is a property manager of student
housing in Illinois and across the nation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. McMorrow, Esq.
      MCMORROW LAW, P.C.
      One North LaSalle Street, 44th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 265-0708
      E-mail: mike@mjmcmorrow.com


PENNSYLVANIA: Order Granting Summary Judgment Bids Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------
Senior Judge Dan Pellegrini of the Commonwealth Court of
Pennsylvania affirmed a trial court order granting the motion for
summary judgment filed by Debra Trees (Trees), Joseph Visinky
(Visinky), Annette Kowalewski (Kowalewski) and the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections (collectively, DOC Defendants), and the
order granting the motions for summary judgment filed by Rodger
Mason (Mason) and James Petaccio (Petaccio) in the case captioned,
Elwood Small, Appellant, v. Debra Trees, Rodger Mason, James
Petaccio, Joseph Visinky, Annette Kowalewski, Richard Ellers,
Jawad Salameh, Prison Health Services, Inc. and Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections, Case No. 149 C.D. 2016 (Pa. Cmmw.).

In July 2008, Small filed an 11-count class action complaint,
later amended twice, in the trial court, naming as defendants the
DOC Defendants, Mason, Petaccio, Richard Ellers, Jawad Salameh and
Prison Health Services, Inc. involving the treatment he received
for a left shoulder injury that he sustained in December 2004 when
he slipped and fell while working in the kitchen at the State
Correctional Institution (SCI) at Retreat where he was
incarcerated at the time. He underwent surgery at Somerset
Hospital and was transferred to SCI Houtzdale.

Small alleges in his complaint that subcontractor Mason was
negligent by failing to ensure that Small was being given his
prescribed therapy when he was in the RHU. He also alleges that
contractor Petaccio is liable for the alleged breach of duty by
Mason under the doctrine of respondeat superior because Mason was
hired as an independent contractor by Petaccio, who was a
subcontractor hired by Prison Health Services, Inc. to provide
physical therapy to inmates housed at SCI Laurel Highlands. He
contends that the DOC Defendants were negligent because they were
responsible for his medical care, making them liable for the
negligent care provided by Petaccio and Mason.

In February 2015, the DOC Defendants filed their motion for
summary judgment, to which were attached the expert affidavits
that Small had not previously provided to the trial court from
Alan Kushner, an unlicensed chiropractor; Stephen B. Scher, M.D.;
Charolette Basenfelder, R.N.; and Janika Jordan, a physical
therapist. The trial court granted the motions and dismissed
Small's claims against the DOC Defendants, finding that Small's
allegations of negligence and not professional negligence were
insufficient to avoid summary judgment. The trial court also found
that respondeat superior liability was appropriate for the DOC
itself, but that the claim would be insufficient to proceed if
there was no claim against the other DOC Defendants. Moreover, the
trial court found that Small failed to present sufficient evidence
to prove that the DOC Defendants' acts or omissions increased the
risk of harm to a person in Small's position, as well as the
elements of "duty of care" and "extent of injury."

On appeal, Small argues that the trial court erred in granting
Mason and Petaccio's as well as the DOC Defendants' motions for
summary judgment because, among other reasons, his certificates of
merit did not satisfy the requirements of Pa.R.C.P. No. 1042.3(a).

In his Memorandum Opinion dated July 27, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/db64y4 from Leagle.com, Judge Pellegrini hold that
the trial court properly granted the motion for summary judgment
because Small has not satisfied Pa.R.C.P. No. 1042.3(a). The Court
also affirmed the opinion of the Honorable David C. Klementik of
the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County as to the remaining
issues.

Debra Trees and Annette Kowalewski are represented by:

      Timothy Eugene Gates, Esq.
      Vincent R. Mazeski, Esq.
      PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
      333 Market St. #17
      Harrisburg, PA 17101
      Tel: (717)783-6563

James Petaccio is represented by:

      Ira L. Podheiser, Esq.
      Jennifer L. McPeak, Esq.
      Lisa Dianne Perrache, Esq.
      BURNS WHITE, LLC
      106 Isabella Street
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212-5805
      Tel: (412) 995-3219


PHILADELPHIA, PA: 4 Officials Added in Forfeiture Defendants List
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Seal, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit challenging the civil-
forfeiture practices of the Philadelphia District Attorney's
Office are seeking to add four top officials of the First Judicial
District as defendants.

In an amended complaint filed on Aug. 3 in Sourovelis v. City of
Philadelphia, the plaintiffs asked U.S. District Judge Eduardo C.
Robreno of the Eastern District of Philadelphia to add
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas President Judge Sheila Woods-
Skipper and Administrative Judge Jacqueline F. Allen, as well as
court administrator Joseph H. Evers and chief deputy court
administrator Charles A. Mapp.  The court officials were added to
the suit for their alleged failure to address systemic due-process
violations inherent in the city's civil-forfeiture procedures.

"The state court administrators have a policy and practice of
administering civil-forfeiture proceedings against seized or
retained property when they know or should reasonably know that
those proceedings afford property owners no meaningful opportunity
to contest the seizure or restraint at a meaningful time before
the ultimate hearing on the merits of forfeiture," the amended
complaint said.

The complaint acknowledged "incremental reforms" in the system,
but noted that constitutional violations remain.

"The Philadelphia court system has dragged its feet and
obstinately refused to make needed changes to bring the forfeiture
system in compliance with due process," said plaintiffs counsel
Darpana Sheth of the Institute for Justice in Arlington, Virginia.

None of the newly named defendants returned calls for comment.
In January, the court assigned a dedicated courtroom in the
Criminal Justice Center to handle forfeiture cases in place of
Courtroom 478, which the complaint identified as a "legal rabbit
hole" run by prosecutors and lacking a judge or court reporter.
But the reforms, which included a general court regulation
published July 25, were not enough to eliminate due process
violations under the 14th Amendment, the complaint said.

The new rule is still problematic for a variety of reasons, the
plaintiffs said, including its requirement that civil-forfeiture
petitions be filed in the Criminal Court Division; the Fifth
Amendment implications created by the requirement that an answer
be filed, with default judgment as a risk, without notice that it
may be used in criminal proceedings; and the risk of erroneous
deprivation of property caused by the deferral of an explanation
of the forfeiture process until a pretrial conference.  The rule
also fails to advise property owners of their burdens of proof,
their right to request a prompt post-deprivation hearing and the
procedures of such a hearing, the complaint said.

The initial complaint was filed in August 2014 against the city of
Philadelphia, District Attorney R. Seth Williams and his office,
former Mayor Michael A. Nutter, and former Philadelphia Police
Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey.   Mr. Nutter and Ramsey have since
been replaced as defendants by Mayor Jim Kenney and Commissioner
Richard Ross Jr.

The complaint described civil forfeiture in Philadelphia as "a
veritable machine, devouring real and personal property from
thousands of residents, many of whom are innocent."  The city's
programs have taken 1,200 houses, 3,500 vehicles and $50 million
in cash over a 13-year period, delivering an average annual stream
of $5.6 million in revenue for the District Attorney's Office, the
complaint said.

The First Judicial District is specifically identified in the
complaint as contributing to the city's failure to provide post-
deprivation hearings; the "relisting" process for civil-forfeiture
cases that forces property owners to appear in person multiple
times; the prosecutor-controlled hearings in Courtroom 478; and
the denial of information about the forfeiture process.
Woods-Skipper is named in her official capacity and as chair of
the FJD's Administrative Governing Board, which monitors the
court's operations.  Allen is named in her official capacity and
as a member of the board responsible for the designation and use
of all rooms assigned to the Trial Division. Evers is named in his
official capacity, and Mapp is named in his official capacity for
his involvement in deciding how forfeiture proceedings are
conducted.

Judge Robreno approved settlement in November of two of the
initial complaint's six claims, dealing with the city's removal of
residents from their homes without notice or the opportunity to be
heard in court and the requirement that property owners waive
their rights in order to re-enter their homes or have a forfeiture
action dismissed.  A hearing is set for Sept. 26 on class
certification regarding the plaintiffs' assertion that the profit
incentive in the forfeiture system creates a conflict of interest
for the city and the District Attorney's Office.


PINGTAN MARINE: Court Dismisses "Fila" Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Alison J. Nathan of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York granted Defendants'
motion to dismiss in the case captioned, Paul Fila, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 15-CV-267 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs bring the securities fraud action on behalf of a
putative class of those who acquired stock in Pingtan Marine
Enterprise Ltd. (Pingtan Marine) between June 17, 2013, and
November 10, 2014.  During that period, Plaintiffs claim Pingtan
Marine falsely represented that it received profits from a Chinese
fishing company, when in reality those profits remained in the
fishing company's hands.  The complaint alleges (1) securities
fraud against Pingtan Marine and several of its officers and
directors under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the Exchange Act) and its implementing regulation Rule 10b-
5, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5; and (2) control person liability
against the officer and director defendants, pursuant to Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

In the Memorandum and Order dated July 19, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/tVOgJS from Leagle.com, Judge Nathan found that
Plaintiffs have failed to identify a material misrepresentation or
omission, and failed to plausibly allege loss causation.

Fu Sung Peter Wu and Paul Fila are represented by Phillip C. Kim,
Esq. -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- and Yu Shi, Esq. --
yshi@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM. P. A.

Tyler R. Warriner is represented by Yu Shi, Esq. --
yshi@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM. P.A.

Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd. is represented by Arunabha Bhoumik,
Esq. -- abhoumik@manatt.com -- Jeremy Ross Lacks, Esq. --
jlacks@manatt.com -- Ronald Gustav Blum, Esq. -- rblum@manatt.com
-- and Yuri Mikulka, Esq. -- ymikulka@manatt.com -- MANATT, PHELPS
& PHILLIPS, LLP


PINNACLE FOODS: Faces "Biffar" Lawsuit Over Sale of Muffin Mix
--------------------------------------------------------------
DIANE BIFFAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-
situated, v. PINNACLE FOODS GROUP LLC, Case 3:16-cv-00873-JPG-SCW
(S.D. Ill., August 2, 2016), alleges deceptive, unfair, and false
practices regarding Duncan Hines Simple Mornings Blueberry
Streusel Premium Muffin Mix that the Defendant(s) claims to
contain "Nothing Artificial."

Defendant manufactures, sells, and distributes baking products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew H. Armstrong, Esq.
     ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM LLC
     8816 Manchester Rd., No. 109
     St. Louis, MO 63144
     Phone: 314-258-0212
     E-mail: matt@mattarmstronglaw.com

        - and -

     Stuart L. Cochran, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF STUART L. COCHRAN, PLLC
     12720 Hillcrest Rd., Suite 1045
     Dallas, TX 75230
     Phone: (214) 300-1765
     E-mail: scochran@scochranlaw.com


PREFFERED FREEZER: Settlement in "Altnor" Overtime Case Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania approved the
settlement agreement in the case captioned, EDWIN ALTNOR, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. PREFERRED FREEZER SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 14-7043 (E.D. Pa.).

The Named Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendant, a
refrigerated warehouse company. On December 11, 2014, the Named
Plaintiffs filed a Class/Collective Action Complaint against
Defendant, alleging that Defendant failed to pay overtime wages
for missed and shortened meal breaks as required under the FLSA
and Pennsylvania state wage and hour laws. Plaintiffs brought
their FLSA claim as a collective action on behalf of Defendant's
full-time hourly employees throughout the United States,  and
their state law claims as a class action on behalf of Defendant's
hourly employees in Pennsylvania.

On January 9, 2015, Defendant filed an Answer that generally
denied Plaintiffs' allegations. After an initial pretrial
conference, this Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge
Thomas J. Rueter for settlement purposes. The parties participated
in a mediation session with Judge Rueter on October 8, 2015, which
culminated in an agreement on October 29, 2015, to settle the
litigation for $175,000. Thereafter, the parties confirmed the
agreement's essential terms, identified the class members,
determined the ranges of values for individual damage payments,
and prepared a Joint Stipulation of Settlement.

The Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary and
conditional approval of the proposed settlement agreement. On
April 25, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for final
approval of the settlement agreement. Plaintiffs also filed a
supplemental memorandum of law in support of the Named Plaintiffs'
proposed incentive award and the requested attorneys' fees.

In his Memorandum dated July 19, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/z67UB4 from Leagle.com, Judge Robreno found that the
settlement agreement as fair and reasonable. The Court approved
$57,667 as attorneys' fees and $2,000 in out-of-pocket costs to be
paid to class counsel and $1,410.80 as an incentive award to each
of the two Named Plaintiffs.

Edwin Altnor and Christina Oyola are represented by David J.
Cohen, Esq. -- dcohen@stephanzouras.com -- and Ryan F. Stephan,
Esq. -- rstephan@stephanzouras.com -- STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP

Preferred Freezer Services, Inc. is represented by Karl A.
Fritton, Esq. -- kfritton@reedsmith.com -- Michael D. Jones, Esq.
-- mjones@reedsmith.com -- and Richard L. Etter, Esq. --
retter@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP


PRINCE ST: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Osman Perez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. Prince St Pizza Corp. and Frank Morano, Case No. 1:16-
cv-05869 (S.D.N.Y., July 21, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a pizza restaurant located at 27
Prince St, New York, NY 10012.

Osman Perez is a pro se plaintiff.


PUBLICIS: Settles Sex Discrimination Class Action for $3 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Edwards, writing for Business Insider, reports that Publicis
Groupe paid nearly $3 million to settle a class-action gender
discrimination lawsuit at its MSLGroup PR shop in New York in May
2016.

Publicis denied that the settlement was why the company reacted so
quickly to remarks by Kevin Roberts, Publicis' head coach, about
whether there was gender parity in the ad industry.
Mr. Roberts told Business Insider, "the fucking debate is all over
. . . .  I can't talk about sexual discrimination because we've
never had that problem, thank goodness."

The remarks triggered a negative reaction from staff inside
Publicis, and Mr. Roberts was immediately placed on a "leave of
absence" by the company.

"Promoting gender equality starts at the top and the Groupe will
not tolerate anyone speaking for our organization who does not
value the importance of inclusion," the company said at the time.
On Aug. 1, the company added, "The particular case you reference
has nothing to do with our decision.  The motive for Publicis
Groupe's action is explained in our [previous] statement."

The discrimination suit had nothing to do with Mr.  Roberts, who
in addition to his role as head coach at Publicis is the chairman
of Saatchi & Saatchi.

The suit was a rare victory for women who believe they are
underpaid or underpromoted in the PR business.

The plaintiffs in the case alleged that 70% of Publicis' 45,000 PR
executives worldwide are women, but females occupied only 15% of
the "leadership" positions.  The case was filed in 2011 and
covered several years of allegations.

Female employees covered by the suit received $2.875 million
between them, with $197,500 going to 23 named plaintiffs, plus
$1,000 for every pregnant employee in recognition that they should
have been given an additional week of paid maternity leave.
MSLGroup's North America president, Jim Tsokanos, stepped down
after the suit was filed and he was replaced by Renee Wilson,
MSL's then-chief client officer.

An internal email sent to Publicis employees condemned Roberts'
remarks:

"Kevin's remarks are wholly inconsistent with the beliefs and
values of Publicis Groupe, and they are inconsistent with my own
personal beliefs and values.  Viva la Difference is not a line; it
is who we are and how we behave.  I am very proud of being part of
the Groupe that is doing so much on gender equality but I
acknowledge that we, our industry and business at large are not
where we need to be or where we aspire to be."


PVH CORP: Court Rules on Bid to Decertify Paycard Suit
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Troy L. Nunley of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California denied Defendant's motion
to reconsider in the case captioned, JODI SCOTT-GEORGE,
individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PVH CORP., a Delaware
corporation, and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
2:13-CV-00441-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal.).

In January of 2013, Plaintiff Jodi Scott-George filed the initial
complaint in the action against PVH Corp. for violations of
various provisions of the California Labor Code. Plaintiff Class
Members are retail store nonexempt employees of Defendant, an
international clothing retailer.

Plaintiff Jodi Scott-George is the Class Representative for
subclass (1), (2), (5), (6) and (7). Plaintiff Melissa Wiggs is
the Class Representative for the subclass (3), (4) and (8). The
classes currently encompass all nonexempt employees of PVH
Corporation which owns Van Heusen; and owned but sold G. H. Bass.

Defendant seeks to decertify:

     (1) Paycard Subclass: All nonexempt employees who received
their earned wages via the Money Network paycard system while
working for Defendant in California from March 20, 2009 to the
present; and

     (2) Wage Statement Subclass: All nonexempt employees who
received non-compliant wage statements while working for Defendant
in California from March 20, 2009 to the present.

In the motion, Defendant argues that the Chavez and Lapan cases
have effectively mooted the litigation of Plaintiffs' paycard and
wage settlement subclasses.

In his Order dated July 28, 2016 available at https://is.gd/WkqkbM
from Leagle.com, Judge Nunley hold that Plaintiffs may still
recover from paycard violations occurring from August 7, 2015 the
end of the Lapan class period to the commencement of the Subclass
in March 2016.  Subclass IV will remain certified, with the
clarification that those who chose not to opt out of Chavez and/or
Lapan will be barred from recovering for the dates covered in
those respective class settlement periods. All members may still
be eligible to recover for alleged paycard violations between
August 7, 2015, and the filing of this litigation in March 2016.

Jodi Scott-George and Melissa Wiggs are represented by Ronald H.
Bae, Esq. -- rbae@aequitaslegalgroup.com -- and Olivia D.
Scharrer, Esq. -- oscharrer@aequitaslegalgroup.com -- AEQUITAS
LEGAL GROUP

PVH Corporation is represented by Dean Hansell, Esq. --
dean.hansell@hoganlovells.com -- and Samantha Michele Kantor, Esq.
-- samantha.kantor@hoganlovells.com -- HOGAN LOVELLS LLP


QUALCOMM INCORPORATED: Sued in Cal. Over Gender Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dandan Pan, Carrie Haluza, Carolina Dealy, Laura Paquin, Wei Shi,
Blanche Matulich, and Connie Jacobson, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Qualcomm Incorporated & Qualcomm
Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-01885-JLS-DHB (S.D. Cal.,
July 25, 2016), arises out of the Defendants' pattern and practice
of systemic unlawful treatment and impact discrimination,
specifically by assigning female employees to lower
classifications than similarly situated male employees performing
the same job duties; paying female employees less than their male
counterparts; and denying female employees development, promotion,
and advancement opportunities resulting in their relegation to
lower classifications and compensation levels; and discriminating
against or impinging upon the leave protected under California
law.

The Defendants operate a semiconductor company that designs and
sells wireless telecommunications products and services in the
United States and internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD HEISLER, LLP
      1666 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 300
      Washington, DC 20009
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (202) 499-5200
      Facsimile: (202) 499-5199
      E-mail: dsanford@sanfordheisler.com

         - and -

      Felicia Medina, Esq.
      Xinying Valerian, Esq.
      Danielle Fuschetti, Esq.
      SANFORD HEISLER, LLP
      111 Sutter Street, Suite 975
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 795-2020
      Facsimile: (415) 795-2021
      E-mail: fmedina@sanfordheisler.com
              xvalerian@sanfordheisler.com
              dfuschetti@sanfordheisler.com

         - and -

      Ed Chapin, Esq.
      Jill Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD HEISLER, LLP
      501 West Broadway, Suite 515
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 577-4253
      Facsimile: (619) 577-4250
      E-mail: echapin@sanfordheisler.com
              jsanford@sanfordheisler.com


QUICK LANE: Faces Mich. Suit for "Violation" of Federal Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TOM TOTTE, CODY HITCH, and JOHN MERRELL, on behalf of themselves
and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, v.
QUICK LANE OIL & LUBE, INC. and TALHA HARES, a Michigan for-profit
company, and Officer of said Michigan for-profit company, 2:16-cv-
12850-AC-RSW (E.D. Mich., August 2, 2016), was filed under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Quick Lane offers oil changes, tires, maintenance & repair
services.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Bryan Yaldou, Esq.
     Omar Badr, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF BRYAN YALDOU, PLLC
     23000 Telegraph, Suite 5
     Brownstown, MI 48134
     Phone: (734) 692-9200
     Fax: (734) 692-9201
     E-mail: bryan@yaldoulaw.com


REACHLOCAL INC: Faces "Casey" Suit Over Proposed Sale to Gannett
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donal Casey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Sharon Rowlands, James Geiger, Thomas Hale, Habib
Kairouz, Lawrence Kutscher, Alan Salzman, Edward Thompson, and
Reachlocal, Inc., Case No. BC628508 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 27,
2016), is brought on behalf of all public stockholders of
Reachlocal, Inc., to enjoin the Defendants' attempt to sell the
Company to Gannett Co., Inc., for inadequate consideration and
soliciting shareholder approval through a materially false and
misleading recommendations and solicitation statement.

Reachlocal, Inc. is an online marketing company that helps local,
and small to medium sized businesses grow and operate their
business by providing digital marketing technologies and services
for clients' lead generation and conversion.

Gannett Co., Inc. is a media holding company headquartered in
Tysons Corner, Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam McCall, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      445 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 985-7290
      Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
      E-mail: amccall@zlk.com

         - and -

      Joseph Levi, Esq.
      Justin G. Sherman, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500
      Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
      E-mail: jlevi@zlk.com
              jsherman@zlk.com


RECOVERY SYSTEMS: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Brock" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Daniel Brock, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Recovery Systems, Inc. d/b/a Pro-Tow Wrecker Services,
Case No. 3:16-cv-02147-B (N.D. Tex., July 25, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for all
hours worked over 40 during each seven-day workweek.

Recovery Systems, Inc. owns and operates a towing services company
located at 1006 E Main St, Lewisville, TX 75057.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
      Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
      Farsheed Fozouni, Esq.
      BARON & BUDD, P.C.
      3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
      Dallas, TX 75219
      Telephone: (214) 521-3605
      Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
      E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com
              marbuckl@baronbudd.com
              ffozouni@baronbudd.com


REGIS CORP: Court Grants Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California granted plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary approval of a class settlement and for
conditional certification of the class in the case captioned,
JESSICA DEARAUJO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. REGIS CORPORATION, a Minnesota
corporation; SUPERCUTS CORPORATE SHOPS, INC., a Minnesota
corporation; and DOES 1 through 99, inclusive, Defendants.
AMYMARIE KAELAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. REGIS CORPORATION, a Minnesota
corporation; SUPERCUTS CORPORATE SHOPS, INC., a Minnesota
corporation; and DOES 1 through 99, inclusive, Defendants, Case
Nos. 2:14-cv-01408-KJM-AC, 2:14-cv-01411-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal.).

Defendant Supercuts Corporate Shops, Inc. (Supercuts) is a wholly
owned subsidiary of defendant Regis Corporation (Regis)
(collectively, defendants), which is authorized to do business in
California in cosmetology and hair care. Plaintiffs worked for
defendants. Plaintiffs filed their original class action
complaints in Stanislaus County Superior Court against Regis on
May 8, 2014, and Regis removed the actions to this court on June
11, 2014. On April 15, 2015, as provided by a joint stipulation,
plaintiffs filed first amended complaints, which added Supercuts
as a defendant.  On May 11, 2015, defendants filed answers to the
first amended complaints. On December 2, 2015, the court granted
the parties' request to consolidate the two actions.

The court set a schedule for a hearing on a motion for class
certification but the parties first reached preliminary settlement
after a full day of private mediation on June 15, 2015. Defendants
agree to pay a gross settlement amount of $1,950,000.  Attorneys'
fees and costs, enhancement payments, payments to the California
Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA), and payments to the
settlement administrator would first be deducted from the Total
Settlement Payment, and then the remainder would be allocated
toward payment to the Settlement Classes Attorneys' fees and
costs, enhancement payments, payments to the California Labor and
Workforce Development Agency (LWDA), and payments to the
settlement administrator would first be deducted from the Total
Settlement Payment, and then the remainder would be allocated
toward payment to the Settlement Classes.

The parties agreed that Simpluris, Inc. will serve as claims
administrator, the Law Offices of Sean S. Vahdat & Associates,
APLC, and the Law Offices of James Hawkins APLC will serve as
class counsel.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of a class
settlement and for conditional certification of the class of "All
persons employed by defendants as an Area Supervisor, District
Leader, or Senior District Leader in California at any time from
May 8, 2010 through the date of preliminary approval of the
settlement" and "All hourly non-exempt persons employed by
defendants as a Shift Manager or Salon Manager in California at
any time during the same Settlement Class Period, and who do not
opt out of the Settlement."

In her Order dated June 29, 2016 available at https://is.gd/AQ3Eo2
from Leagle.com, Judge Mueller found the settlement agreement
fair, reasonable, and adequate on a preliminary basis. The
plaintiff class appears likely, as a preliminary matter, to meet
the certification criteria of numerosity, commonality, typicality,
adequacy, superiority, and predominance. The court has also
reviewed the proposed Class Notice of Settlement and found it to
conform with due process and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

The Court appointed Sean S. Vahdat of Law Offices of Sean S.
Vahdat & Associates, APLC and James R. Hawkins of James Hawkins
APLC aas appointed class counsel, Jessica Dearaujo and Amymarie
Kaelan as appointed class representatives and Simpluris, Inc. as
claims administrator.

Jessica Dearaujo is represented by James Ross Hawkins, Esq. --
James@jameshawkinsaplc.com -- JAMES HAWKINS APLC

She is also represented by:

      Sean Sasan Vahdat, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SEAN S. VAHDAT & ASSOCIATES
      7700 Irvine Center Dr #800
      Irvine, CA 92618
      Tel: (949)496-2011

Amymarie Kaelan is represented by:

      Sean Sasan Vahdat, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SEAN S. VAHDAT & ASSOCIATES
      7700 Irvine Center Dr #800
      Irvine, CA 92618
      Tel: (949)496-2011

Regis Corporation and Supercuts Corporate Shops, Inc. are
represented by Catherine M. Dacre, Esq. -- cdacre@seyfarth.com --
Daniel C. Whang, Esq. -- dwhang@seyfarth.com -- and Michael
Anderson Wahlander, Esq. -- mwahlander@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH
SHAW LLP


REMINGTON: Expert Says Settlement Proposal "Designed to Fail"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Cohn, writing for CNBC, reports that a proposed plan to
replace the triggers in millions of allegedly defective Remington
rifles is "designed to fail," a leading expert on class action
settlements said.

Philadelphia-based consultant Todd Hilsee said the proposal has
been crafted by the company and plaintiffs' attorneys largely to
address "Remington's public relations concerns" instead of
properly notifying gun owners that there may be a problem.

The allegations in a 30-page letter from Hilsee, who helped write
the federal court rules on notifying victims in class action
cases, could further threaten a tenuous settlement agreement
involving Remington's popular Model 700 bolt-action rifle, which
CNBC investigated in a 2010 documentary.  Dozens of lawsuits have
alleged that for decades, Remington has covered up a deadly design
defect that allows the guns to fire without the trigger being
pulled, resulting in hundreds of injuries and at least two dozen
deaths.

Remington has denied the allegations and continues to maintain
that the guns are safe.  Nonetheless, the company agreed in 2014
to the landmark settlement covering some 7.5 million rifles
including the Model 700 and a dozen other firearms with similar
designs.  At the time, the company said it was agreeing to the
settlement in order to avoid protracted litigation.

In his scathing letter to the judge overseeing the case,
Mr. Hilsee wrote that the settlement--and what he called an
"inadequate" plan to notify the public--risked leaving millions of
allegedly defective guns in the public's hands, with little or no
recourse left for accident victims.

"The notice as written reduces safety concerns about the guns,
which would have caused fewer people to seek replacement, less
money being spent by Remington, and fewer potential deaths and
injuries being prevented," Mr. Hilsee wrote.

The letter came on the eve of a key hearing on July 26 in Kansas
City to consider a new notification plan developed by Remington
and plaintiffs' attorneys.  U.S. District Judge Ortrie Smith ruled
last December that their original plan was inadequate because only
around 2,300 gun owners had filed claims.

Mr. Hilsee said the new plan was no better than the first one, and
urged the judge to send the parties back to the drawing board yet
again. Otherwise, he wrote, "I'm afraid the Court and Class will
get stung."

Attorneys for Remington did not respond to multiple e-mails over
the weekend seeking a comment.

Mr. Hilsee reserved some of his harshest criticism for plaintiffs'
attorneys, who, he wrote, "were appointed to represent fathers and
mothers of kids" killed in Remington rifle accidents.  Yet, he
said, the attorneys agreed to a "defective" plan to notify the
public.  Under the proposed settlement agreement, the attorneys
stand to collect $12.5 million in fees regardless of how many gun
owners get their triggers replaced.

Mr. Hilsee also accused the plaintiffs' attorneys of squandering
multiple opportunities to publicize the trigger replacement offer.
He said one such opportunity occurred in December, when CNBC
presented a follow-up investigation on the Remington rifles and
the proposed settlement.  Mr. Hilsee said the report was "the
proverbial 'home run' of publicity for a settlement," yet the
plaintiffs' attorneys declined to comment for the story.

Mr. Hilsee wrote that while it was one thing for Remington to
continue maintain its guns are safe, "It's quite another thing for
Class Counsel to not comment, when speaking up would serve Class
members' interests."

A lead attorney for the plaintiffs spoke up in response to
Mr. Hilsee's letter.

"His letter frightens me," attorney Mark Lanier said in an e-mail.
"In effect, he is saying, 'scuttle the settlement and leave the
dangers on the street because I think notice should be done my
way'."

"He clearly hasn't represented hunters, and doesn't understand the
response numbers are not indicative of deficient notice," Lanier
writes.  "They are indicative of gun owners who don't want to part
with their guns regardless."

Nonetheless, on orders from Judge Smith, attorneys for both sides
submitted a new notice plan in June.  In addition to the direct
mail and print advertising promised in the initial proposal, the
new plan includes commercials on conservative talk radio programs,
internet banner ads, and a social media campaign using Facebook.
The parties said they have engaged a former Obama campaign
manager, Jim Messina, to administer the plan.

But Mr. Hilsee said in his letter that the new plan was also
doomed to fail, noting that only half of rifle owners even used
Facebook; fewer still would see the ads.  He alleged that the
advertising metrics cited in the revised plan were inflated. And
he said the use of a former Obama aide in the campaign was not
what it seemed.

"The implication that past political campaign successes can be
repeated here, is belied by the fact that the 2012 Obama campaign
spent $483 million on advertising, mostly on TV," Mr. Hilsee
wrote.

He said a simpler claims process, more direct language, and more
targeted marketing -- including possibly using theNational Rifle
Association's mailing list -- could result in a campaign that
reaches 95 percent of owners, which he said is the industry
standard in high-stakes class action cases such as this one.

In a telephone interview, Mr. Hilsee said he felt moved to write
the letter not because of any personal involvement in the case or
any political concerns -- he said he had never taken a public
position on gun control -- but because of much broader legal
issues, including proposals in the federal courts to ease some of
the requirements for notifying potential victims in class action
cases.

"The entire class action field is watching this case with
astonishment," he said.

"This is the case where you would turn over every rock to find
class members," he said.  "If we can have this kind of notice in
this kind of case, the hope for good class action notice is lost."

But Mr. Lanier said the fact that the case involved guns made it
unique.  Not only are many gun owners wary of turning over their
rifles, but many also believe they can remedy the problem on their
own by practicing better gun safety.

"I want every gun fixed," he said.  "But a bunch of gun owners are
not going to do it, even if you knock on their door."


RENO, NV: RHA Sued Over Failure to Pay Employees Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jaime Villa and Melisa Chavez v. Reno Housing Authority and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:16-cv-00441 (D. Nev., July 25,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Reno Housing Authority, officially known also as Housing
Authority of Reno, is a municipal corporation under Chapter 315 of
the Nevada Revised Statute.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
      Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
      Leah L. Jones, Esq.
      THIERMAN BUCK LLP
      7287 Lakeside Drive Reno, NV 89511
      Telephone: (775) 284-1500
      Facsimile: (775) 703-5027
      E-mail: mark@thiermanbuck.com
              josh@thiermanbuck.com
              leah@thiermanbuck.com


SAFE-GUARD PRODUCTS: Wins Dismissal of WVCCPA Claims
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia granted
Safe-Guard's motion for dismissal of claims under the West
Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (WVCCPA) in the case
captioned, ROBIN L. HINKLE, Plaintiff, v. CASEY JOE MATTHEWS,
TIMOTHY MAY, CONNIE MAY, SANTANDER CONSUMER, USA, INC., SAFE-GUARD
PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, and JOHNNY HINKLE, Defendants, Case
No. 2:15-13856 (S.D. W. Va.).

In July 2006, Plaintiff Robin L. Hinkle purchased a vehicle and
entered into a GAP insurance policy with Safe-Guard. Hinkle paid
$495 upfront for the policy, which constituted the only payment
due to Safe-Guard. On June 1, 2011, Hinkle was involved in an
automobile accident resulting in the total loss of her vehicle.
After payment by her primary insurer, which was calculated based
on the actual cash value of the vehicle, Hinkle had an outstanding
debt of $4,698.81. By letter dated July 21, 2011, Safe-Guard
denied Hinkle's claim under her GAP policy and refused to cover
the remaining debt.

On July 20, 2012, Hinkle instituted the action in the Circuit
Court of Mingo County. In the state courts, the parties
extensively litigated the issue of whether the state's insurance
laws apply to GAP insurance policies. Safe-Guard argued, based on
its interpretation of a memorandum issued by the West Virginia
Insurance Commissioner, that GAP policies did not constitute
insurance under the state's insurance laws. Following the ruling
by the Supreme Court of Appeals, on May 28, 2015, Hinkle moved to
amend her complaint to include class action claims against Safe-
Guard under the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act
(WVCCPA), on behalf of all purchasers of GAP insurance in West
Virginia. In response, Safe-Guard removed the action to this court
pursuant to the removal provision of the Class Action Fairness
Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1453. In the Amended Class Action Complaint
(operative pleading), Hinkle alleges that Safe-Guard violated
various provisions of the WVCCPA by engaging in the sale of
insurance in West Virginia without a license. Hinkle seeks, inter
alia, compensatory damages, a refund of premiums paid, punitive
damages, and civil penalties for each violation of the WVCCPA.

In the motion, Safe-Guard argues that any claim against it under
the WVCCPA fails as a matter of law because its alleged conduct,
as well as the sale of insurance generally, falls outside the
ambit of the WVCCPA.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 19, 2016 available
at https://is.gd/VcyVzL from Leagle.com, Judge Copenhaver, Jr.
concluded that the sale of insurance is not covered by the general
consumer protections in Article 6 of the WVCCPA.

Robin L. Hinkle is represented by Howard M. Persinger, III, Esq.
-- hmp2@persingerlaw.com -- PERSINGER & PERSINGER; Jonathan R.
Marshall, Esq. -- jmarshall@baileyglasser.com -- andSandra Henson
Kinney, Esq. -- skinney@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY & GLASSER

Casey Joe Matthews is represented by C. William Davis, Esq. --
calvin@starrlaw.com -- RICHARDSON & DAVIS

Safe-Guard Products International, LLC is represented by Debra
Tedeschi Varner, Esq. -- dtvarner@wvlawyers.com -- James A.
Varner, Sr., Esq. -- javarner@wvlawyers.com -- and Jeffrey D. Van
Volkenburg, Esq. -- jdvanvolkenburg@wvlawyers.com -- MCNEER
HIGHLAND MCMUNN & VARNER


SAN DIEGO SUPERIOR COURT: Petition for Writ of Mandate Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Presiding Judge McConnell of the California Court of Appeals
denied JAMS and Sonenshine's petition for writ of mandate or other
relief in the case captioned, JAMS, INC., et al., Petitioners, v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Respondent; KEVIN J.
KINSELLA, Real Party in Interest, Case No. D069862 (Cal. App.).

This action arises from representations made on the JAMS, Inc.
(JAMS) Web site regarding the background of the Honorable Sheila
Prell Sonenshine (Retired), and JAMS's operations in offering
alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services. Kevin J. Kinsella
alleges he relied upon certain representations made on the Web
site when he agreed to stipulate to hire Sonenshine as a privately
compensated judge to resolve issues related to his marital
dissolution case and later discovered the representations were
either untrue or misleading. Kinsella sought injunctive relief,
actual damages exceeding $250,000, punitive damages, prejudgment
interest, disgorgement, and restitution.

JAMS and Sonenshine filed an anti-SLAPP (Code Civ. Proc., Sec.
425.16) motion to strike Kinsella's complaint. The court found the
action exempt from the anti-SLAPP procedure under the commercial
speech exemption of section 425.17, subdivision (c).

JAMS and Sonenshine filed a petition for writ of mandate or other
relief. The Court stayed the proceedings and issued an order to
show cause why relief should not be granted to allow us the
opportunity to consider the issues raised in the petition related
to the scope of the commercial speech exemption of section 425.17,
subdivision (c).  JAMS and Sonenshine contend the commercial
speech exemption is not applicable for two reasons. First, they
contend the statements about which Kinsella complains are not
"representations of fact" involving positive assertions of past or
present conditions or events, but are omissions or nonactionable
opinions. Second, they contend the statements from which the
causes of action arise were not made for purely commercial
purposes.

In his Order dated July 27, 2016 available at https://is.gd/okwHJx
from Leagle.com, Judge McConnell hold that the commercial speech
exemption of section 425.17, subdivision (c), applies to the
action and precludes consideration of the anti-SLAPP motion.

The stay issued on March 7, 2016 is vacated. Kinsella is entitled
to costs in the proceeding.

JAMS, INC., et al. are represented by Joseph P. McMonigle, Esq. --
jmcmonigle@longlevit.com -- Jessica R. MacGregor, Esq. --
jmacgregor@longlevit.com -- and Jonathan Rizzardi, Esq. --
jrizzardi@longlevit.com -- LONG & LEVIT; Paul D. Fogel, Esq. --
pfogel@reedsmith.com -- and Dennis P. Maio, Esq. --
dmaio@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH


SANFORD HEALTH: Dismissal of "Limberg" Lawsuit Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------
Justice Dale V. Sandstrom of the North Dakota Court of Appeals
affirmed a district court's dismissal of the case captioned,
Dustin Limberg, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Sanford Medical Center
Fargo, a North Dakota corporation, Sanford Health Network North, a
North Dakota corporation, Sanford North, a North Dakota
corporation and Sanford, a North Dakota corporation and Does 1
through 25, inclusive, Defendants and Appellees, Case No. 20150348
(N.D. App.).

Dustin Limberg filed a class action lawsuit seeking a declaratory
judgment that Sanford's billing practices were unfair,
unconscionable, or unreasonable because the contract contained an
"open price" term. According to the complaint, Limberg sought
emergency department care and treatment at Sanford Medical Center
Fargo. He claimed the term "all charges" as referenced in the
Sanford contract was ambiguous and he and the class were liable to
Sanford only for the reasonable value of the treatment and
services provided to them.

Sanford moved for dismissal, which the district court granted for
failing to state a claim for which relief could be granted.

On appeal, Limberg argues Sanford's billing practices are unfair,
unconscionable, and unreasonable because the contract, signed by
all patients seeking care at Sanford, contains an "open price"
term and is ambiguous. Sanford argues the contract contains no
"open price" term and the district court appropriately dismissed
the case.

In his Opinion dated June 30, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/lyYcvs from Leagle.com, Judge Sandstrom held that
the district court appropriately found that Limberg's complaint
failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

Dustin Limberg is represented by Barry L. Kramer, Esq. --
barry.kramer@lockelord.com -- LOCKE LORD LLP -- Daniel E.
Phillips, Esq. -- DPhillips@dickinsonwright.com -- DICKINSON
WRIGHT

Linberg is also represented by:

      Mike Miller, Esq.
      THOMAS V. MIKE MILLER, JR, PA
      8808 Old Branch Avenue
      P.O. Box 219
      Clinton, MD 20735
      Tel:(301)856-3030

           -- and --

      Todd M. Miller, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF TODD MILLER, LLC
      1305 Southwest Blvd., Ste. A
      Jefferson City, MO 65109
      Tel: (573)634-2838

Stanford Medical Center Fargo is represented by Vanessa L.
Anderson, Esq. -- vanderson@vogellaw.com -- and W. Todd Haggart,
Esq. -- thaggart@vogellaw.com -- VOGEL LAW FIRM


SCHLUMBERGER TECH: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Wolf, and all others similarly situated v. Schlumberger
Technology Corporation, Case No. 1:16-cv-00274-DLH-CSM (N. Dak.,
July 25, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Schlumberger Technology Corporation is involved in oilfield
services throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack Siegel, Esq.
      SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
      10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 1040
      Dallas, TX 75231
      Telephone: (214) 706-0834
      Facsimile: (469) 339-0204
      E-mail: jack@siegellawgroup.biz

         - and -

      J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
      Jay Forester, Esq.
      LEE & BRAZIEL, LLP
      1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 749-1400
      Facsimile: (214) 749-1010
      E-mail: info@l-b-law.com


SCHLUMBERGER TECH: Wins Summary Judgment in "Kubischta" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nora Barry Fischer of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted summary
judgment in favor of Defendant in the case captioned, JONATHAN
KUBISCHTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SCHLUMBERGER TECH CORP., Defendant, Case
No. 15-1338 (W.D. Pa.).

Plaintiff brings the action against his former employer,
Defendant, to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages,
individually and on behalf of other Measurement While Drilling
employees (MWD Class Members), alleging violations of the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA), 43 P.S. Sections 333.101 et
seq, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, O.R.C. Sections
4111 et seq., (the Ohio Wage Act), and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act
(OPPA), Ohio Rev. Code Sec. 4113.15 (collectively, the Ohio Acts).
Plaintiff also asserts an individual claim against Defendant to
recover for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA). Plaintiff brought this action in the Western District of
Pennsylvania because he allegedly worked substantial overtime for
Defendant in Washington, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff also allegedly
worked for Defendant, at times, in Ohio.

According to the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff worked as a
Measurement While Drilling (MWD) employee for Defendant. Plaintiff
alleges that, although he and the MWD Class Members were regularly
scheduled to work 84 hours per work week, Defendant did not pay
any members of the MWD Class overtime for any hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a work week. Instead, Defendant paid its MWD
employees a base salary plus a day-rate.  Plaintiff contends that,
because the MWD work involves manual labor duties that constitute
non-exempt work, Defendant owes back overtime wages to Plaintiff
and the MWD Class Members.

In the motion, Defendant argues that the class action waiver is
enforceable and that Plaintiff should not be permitted to proceed
as the representative plaintiff in this class action lawsuit on
behalf of similarly situated workers employed by Defendant in
Pennsylvania and Ohio. Plaintiff counters that the class action
waiver clause is unenforceable under Pennsylvania law and that the
Court should permit him to proceed in a representative capacity on
behalf of the proposed class.

In her Memorandum Opinion dated July 14, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/8aqPmV from Leagle.com, Judge Fischer concluded that
as a matter of law that the class action waiver is enforceable
under both Pennsylvania and Texas law and the Court found that no
evidence that the terms of the Agreement is not substantively
unconscionable.

The case may proceed as to Plaintiff's individual claims upon his
filing of a Second Amended Complaint.

Jonathan Kubischta is represented by:

      Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
      GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
      3634 California Ave,
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Tel:(412)766-1455

           - and -

      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet St
      Houston, TX 77005
      Tel: (713)489-6566

           - and -

      James A. Jones, Esq.
      Richard J. Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza # 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel:(713)877-8788

Schlumberger Tech Corp is represented by Rachel E. Linzy, Esq. --
rel@kullmanlaw.com -- Robert P. Lombardi, Esq. --
rpl@kullmanlaw.com -- and Samuel Zurik, III, Esq. --
sz@kullmanlaw.com -- THE KULLMAN FIRM


SCHWEBEL BAKING: Court Grants Conditional Certification in "Boyd"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sara Lioi of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio granted plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification and plaintiff's motion to amend the
complaint to substitute Bankruptcy Trustee Toby Rosen as a party
plaintiff and denied Defendant's motion for judgment on the
pleadings in the case captioned, RAYMOND BOYD, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. SCHWEBEL BAKING CO., Defendant, Case No. 4:15-cv-871 (N.D.
Ohio).

Schwebel Baking Company is an Ohio-based corporation that "is in
the business of baking and distributing various bread products."
Plaintiffs are former route drivers employed by Schwebel, who
drove small vehicles during at least a part of a workweek within
the last three years. On May 3, 2015, plaintiffs filed the present
litigation, raising a single violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act. They seek damages for unpaid wages and attorney's fees.
Further, because they maintain that the alleged FLSA violation was
willful pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 255(a), plaintiffs have
demanded wages dating back three years. Specifically, plaintiffs
complain that they, and similarly situated route drivers, were
unlawfully denied overtime compensation for hours worked in excess
of 40 per week by virtue of Schwebel's policy of classifying the
position of route driver as exempt.

By their motion for conditional certification, plaintiffs seek to
represent the following class of "All workers who were employed by
Defendant Schwebel as a Route Sales delivery driver (or similar
position), spent all or part of their workweek driving a vehicle
that weighed 10,000 pounds or less, and did not receive overtime
for hours worked over forty (40) per workweek during the last
three years."

In her Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 30, 2016 available
at https://is.gd/5H7TA1 from Leagle.com, Judge Lioi granted
conditional certification finding that there exists a potential
collective of similarly situated individuals who may be able to
join in plaintiffs' FLSA claim.

Toby L. Rosen and Terry L. Vukich are represented by Shannon M.
Draher, Esq. -- sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com -- and Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
-- hans@ohlaborlaw.com -- NILGES DRAHER

Schwebel Baking Company is represented by Frank W. Buck, Esq. --
fbuck@littler.com -- Lee J. Hutton, Esq. -- lhutton@littler.com --
and Amy Ryder Wentz, Esq. -- awentz@littler.com -- LITTLER
MENDELSON


SERRA NISSAN: Faces "Bettis" Suit Alleging Violations of RICO Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RUTH D. BETTIS, an individual, individually, and on behalf of
those similarly situated, v. SERRA NISSAN/OLDSMOBILE, INC., an
Alabama corporation; SERRA VOLKSWAGEN, INC., an Alabama
corporation; SERRA AUTOMOTIVE, INC., an Alabama corporation; SERRA
AUTOMOTIVE MANAGEMENT, INC., an Alabama corporation; ANTHONY F.
SERRA, an individual; ABDUL ISLAM MUGHAL, an individual; and
DWIGHT A. PERRY, an individual; Case 2:16-cv-01260-JHE (N.D. Ala.,
August 2, 2016), was brought under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organization Act for alleged fraudulent increase of loan
approvals, and vehicle sales by Defendant(s).

SERRA NISSAN/OLDSMOBILE, INC. is a Nissan dealer offering new
Nissan cars and used cars.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jason L. Yearout, Esq.
     YEAROUT & TRAYLOR, PC
     3300 Cahaba Road, Suite 300
     Birmingham, AL 35223
     Phone: (205) 414-8169
     Fax: (205) 795-7169
     E-mail: jyearout@yeraout.net


SMOKE BBQ: "Mendieta" Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL MENDIETA, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ABDUL MOSAVER, Individually and SMOKE
BBQ PIT d/b/a SMOKIN' HOG BBQ PIT INC., the Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-04262 (E.D.N.Y., August 1, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
wages and related damages for unpaid minimum wage and overtime
hours worked, while employed by Defendant, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL).

Smoke BBQ specializes in slow-smoked pulled pork, BBQ ribs and
burgers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darren P.B. Rummack, Esq.
          THE KLEIN LAW GROUP
          11 Broadway Suite 960
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 344 9022
          Facsimile: (212) 344 0301


SPRINT CORP: Settlement in "Bui" Suit Has Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Troy L. Nunley of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California granted Plaintiff's motions
for final approval of class action settlement and for award of
attorney's fees and costs, class representative enhancement
payments, and settlement administration expenses in the case
captioned, VIET BUI and CHRISTINA AVALOS-REYES, individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated employees, and on behalf
of the general public, Plaintiff, v. SPRINT CORPORATION, a SPRINT
COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P., a Delaware Corporation;
SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT CO., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:14-CV-02461-TLN-AC
(E.D. Cal.).

The Court has received and considered the proposed Joint
Stipulation and Settlement Agreement entered into by the
Plaintiffs, Viet Bui and Christina Avalos-Reyes (Plaintiffs), and
on behalf of the Settlement Class, and Defendants Sprint/United
Management Company and Sprint Communications Company L.P.
(Defendant).

On June 16, 2016, the Court conducted a hearing regarding final
approval of the settlement and release of claims in this matter,
Plaintiff's application for approval of attorney's fees and costs,
class representative payments to class representatives Viet Bui
and Christina Avalos-Reyes, and the settlement administration
expenses. The parties appeared by and through their respective
counsel of record.

In his Final Order dated July 19, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/u9vr53 from Leagle.com, Judge Nunley found that the
Settlement Class meets the legal requirements for class
certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (Rule 23)
and that the settlement is, in all respects, fair, adequate, and
reasonable and is hereby approved in all respects.

The Court approved a Class Representative Enhancement Award of
$15,000 to Class Representative Viet Bui and a Class
Representative Enhancement Award of $5,000 to Class Representative
Christina Avalos-Reyes in accordance with the terms of the
Settlement Agreement.

The Court approved a $3,750 payment to the California Labor and
Workforce Development Agency in accordance with the terms of the
Settlement Agreement.

The Court approved the payment of settlement administration
expenses to Class Administrator, Rust Consulting, Inc., in an
amount not to exceed $30,000 in accordance with the terms of the
Settlement Agreement.

Viet Bui and Christina Avalos-Reyes are represented by Marc H.
Phelps, Esq. -- marchannanphelps@gmail.com -- THE PHELPS LAW
GROUP, Richard Edward Quintilone, II, Esq. -- req@quintlaw.com --
QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES -- Roger Richard Carter, Esq. --
rcarter@carterlawfirm.net -- THE CARTER LAW FIRM

Sprint Corporation and Sprint/United Management Co. are
represented by Anthony DiBenedetto, Esq. --
adibenedetto@proskauer.com -- Enzo DerBoghossian, Esq. --
enzoderbo@gmail.com -- and Harold M. Brody, Esq. --
hbrody@proskauer.com --  PROSKAUER ROSE LLP


STRATEGIC EQUITY: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Carter, Deborah Martin, Christine Morales, StanLEY Caraker,
Stanley Nicks, Michaela Vecht, Bert Schorling, Jeanette Breiten,
Raymond Bachar, Katherine Mitchell, Stephanie Castro, Bruce
Hinsley, and Arlene Pounds, individually and as representatives of
all others similarly situated v. Strategic Equity Group;
Christopher Kramer; Shoreline Capital, Inc.; Edgewater Capital,
LLC, and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 30-2016-008660025-CU-BT-
CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., July 27, 2016), alleges that the Defendants
made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

Strategic Equity Group provides investment banking and valuation
advisory services to middle market companies.

Shoreline Capital, Inc. is an equity investment firm that
specializes in the management of distressed debt and asset
investments.

Edgewater Capital, LLC is a private equity firm focused on the
acquisition of lower, middle-market performance materials
companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony W. Trujillo, Esq.
      Alexander H. Winnick, Esq.
      Jeffrey T. Belton, Esq.
      TRUJILLO & WINNICK, LLP
      2919 1/2 Main Street
      Santa Monica, CA 90405
      Telephone: (310) 210-9302
      Facsimile: (310) 921-5616
      E-mail: atrujillo@trujillowinnick.com
              awinnick@trujillowinnick.com
              jeffreytbelton@gmail.com


STURGEON SERVICES: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Garcia, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Sturgeon Services
International Inc. and Does 1-l00, Case No. BC628461 (Cal. Super.
Ct., July 27, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Sturgeon Services International Inc. provides construction,
paving, grading, and construction material recycling services.

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 92121
      Telephone: (619) 234-2833
      Facsimile: (619) 234-4048


SYMANTEC CORP: Bid for Appeal Bond Granted in Part
--------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, DEVI KHODAY and DANISE TOWNSEND,
individually and on behalf of the class they represent,
Plaintiffs, v. SYMANTEC CORP. and DIGITAL RIVER, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 11-180 (JRT/TNL) (D. Minn.), Chief District Judge John R.
Tunheim of the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota granted in part Plaintiffs' motion for an order
directing objectors to a settlement agreement to post an appeal
bond under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 7.

Plaintiffs Devi Khoday and Danise Townsend commenced this putative
class action against Defendants Symantec Corp. and Digital River,
Inc., in 2011, alleging that Defendants sold download insurance
that was unnecessary and duplicative of free alternatives. In
April 2015, after class certification, the parties agreed to a $60
million settlement. On April 22, 2016, the Court adopted a Report
and Recommendation (R&R) issued by United States Magistrate Judge
Tony N. Leung recommending that the Court give final approval to
the settlement.

Two of the objectors, Michelle VanDeVoorde and Erin C. Caligiuri,
have appealed the Court's final approval of the settlement. Khoday
and Townsend now move the Court for an order directing VanDeVoorde
and Caligiuri to post an appeal bond under Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 7 in the amount of $66,040 -- $1,472 for
direct appeal costs and $64,568 for estimated class administrative
costs, including the costs of maintaining the claims website and
responding to inquiries from class members.

VanDeVoorde and Caligiuri do not object to jointly posting an
appeal bond for $1,472 in direct appeal costs, but argue that
class administrative costs are not permitted under Rule 7.

The Court agrees: Khoday and Townsend cannot rely on Federal Rule
of Appellate Procedure 38 to seek an appeal bond that includes
class administrative costs, and Plaintiffs have not cited any
other rule or statute that would authorize the recovery of such
costs.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 28, 2016 available
at https://is.gd/axixQv from Leagle.com, Judge Tunheim denied
without prejudice Plaintiffs' request that the appeal bond include
$64,568 for estimated class administrative costs because Khoday
and Townsend have not cited rule or statute that would allow them
to recover their estimated class administrative costs and required
Objectors VanDeVoorde and Caligiuri to post an appeal bond in the
amount of $1,472 for direct appeal costs.

The Court directed VanDeVoorde and Caligiuri to file within 10
days of the date of the Order, proof that they have secured the
bonds directed by the Order and shall further file the original
bonds with the Clerk of Court.

Devi Khoday and Danise Townsend are represented by Andrew N.
Friedman, Esq. -- afriedman@cohenmilstein.com -- Douglas J.
McNamara, Esq. -- dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com -- Mary J.
Bortscheller, Esq. -- mbortscheller@cohenmilstein.com -- Sally M.
Handmaker, Esq. -- shandmaker@cohenmilstein.com -- and Theodore J.
Leopold, Esq. -- tleopold@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN
SELLERS & TOLL PLLC -- Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. --
khriebel@locklaw.com -- and Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. -- kmbaxter-
kauf@locklaw.com -- LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP -- Lee S. Shalov,
Esq. -- MCLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP

Symantec Corp. is represented by Steve W. Gaskins, Esq. --
sgaskins@gaskinsbennett.com -- GASKINS, BENNETT, BIRRELL, SCHUPP,
LLP

Digital River, Inc. is represented by Amy Van Gelder, Esq. --
amy.vangelder@skadden.com -- Charles Smith, Esq. --
charles.smith@skadden.com -- Jessica Frogge, Esq. --
jessica.frogge@skadden.com -- and Marcella L. Lape, Esq. --
marcella.lape@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM
LLP -- Christopher W. Madel, Esq. -- CMadel@RobinsKaplan.com --
Denise S. Rahne, Esq. -- Drahne@RobinsKaplan.com -- and Jennifer
M. Robbins, Esq. -- JRobbins@RobinsKaplan.com -- ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
-- Steve W. Gaskins, Esq. -- sgaskins@gaskinsbennett.com --
GASKINS, BENNETT, BIRRELL, SCHUPP, LLP


SYSCO CORP: Court Grants in Part Motion for Judgment on Pleadings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John A. Mendez of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California grants in part defendants'
motion for judgment on the pleadings in the case captioned, CHRIS
PYARA on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on
behalf of the general public, Plaintiffs, v. SYSCO CORPORATION;
SYSCO SACRAMENTO, INC., A California Corporation; and DOES 1-100,
Defendants, Case No. 2:15-CV-01208-JAM-KJN (E.D. Cal.).

Pyara was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt industrial truck
driver from October 31, 2011 to November 27, 2013. During this
period, there was a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) in place
between Sysco Sacramento and the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Local 137, which represented Sysco Sacramento
employees.

The action is a wage and hour case brought by plaintiff Chris
Pyara (Pyara) on behalf of similarly situated employees of
defendants Sysco Corporation and Sysco Sacramento, Inc.
(collectively Defendants). Pyara alleges ten causes of action for
violations of various provisions of the California Labor Code
(CLC), associated regulations, and common law. Pyara's first cause
of action for "wage theft/time shaving" is based on Defendants'
alleged practice of clocking out Pyara for meal and rest periods
even when he remained working. Pyara's second cause of action for
failure to pay overtime is based on Defendants' alleged failure to
provide meal and rest periods and therefore not correctly
classifying certain hours as overtime work. Pyara's third cause of
action for failure to provide meal periods is based on Defendants'
alleged policy of requiring Pyara to work through meal periods and
to work at least five hours without a meal period and failing to
provide a second meal period when Pyara worked shifts of ten hours
or more. Pyara's fourth cause of action for failure to permit rest
periods is similarly based on Defendants' alleged policy of
requiring Pyara to work through rest periods and work four hours
without a rest period. Based on these alleged practices (wage
theft, failure to pay overtime, and failure to provide meal and
rest breaks), Pyara alleges that Defendants failed to provide
accurate itemized wage statements (fifth cause of action); failed
to pay all wages due upon termination (sixth cause of action);
were unjustly enriched (seventh cause of action); converted
Pyara's wages (eighth cause of action); defrauded Pyara (ninth
cause of action); and violated the California Unfair Competition
Law (UCL) (tenth cause of action).

Defendants removed the case to the Court based on federal question
jurisdiction and pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings of all ten of the
causes of action.  Defendants alleged that the first four causes
of action are either statutorily barred or preempted by Section
301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA).

In his Order dated July 19, 2016 available at https://is.gd/ZjcjnY
from Leagle.com, Judge Mendez granted Pyara's second, third, and
fifth causes of action finding Defendants' grounds with merit and
denied Pyara's first cause of action, except to the extent the
claim rests upon violations of overtime or meal periods, fourth
cause of action and sixth through tenth causes of action because
Defendants failed to provide reasonable grounds.

Counsel for Defendants is ordered to pay $250.00 in sanctions to
the Clerk of the Court within five days of the date of the Order.

Chris Pyara is represented by Ray Padilla, Esq. --
raypadillalaw@gmail.com -- and William Turley, Esq. --
bturley@turleylawfirm.com -- THE TURLEY LAW FIRM

Sysco Corporation and Sysco Sacramento, Inc. are represented by
Julie Kwun, Esq. -- jkwun@bakerlaw.com -- Margaret Rosenthal, Esq.
-- mrosenthal@bakerlaw.com -- Sabrina Layne Shadi, Esq. --
sshadi@bakerlaw.com -- and Vartan Serge Madoyan, Esq. --
vmadoyan@bakerlaw.com -- BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP


THRIVE MARKET: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Properly Pay Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Vazquez Sanchez and Alex Vazquez, as aggrieved employees on
behalf of themselves and other current and former employees v.
Thrive Market, Inc., d/b/a Thrive Markettechnologies,Inc., and
Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC628551 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
July 27, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay all meal period wages and rest break wages, failure to pay all
overtime wages and minimum wages, failure to pay all vested
vacation wages, including vacation equivalents, failure to timely
pay all wages due and owing upon termination of employment, and
failing to provide accurate wage statements.

The Defendants own and operate a store offering natural and
organic products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq.
      Stephanie E. Yasuda, Esq.
      Brian G. Lee, Esq.
      YOON LAW, APC
      One Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2200
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 612-0988
      Facsimile: (213) 947-1211

         - and -

      Joseph M. Hekmat, Esq.
      HEKMAT LAW GROUP
      11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 1700
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (424) 888-0848
      Facsimile: (424) 270-0242


TORTORICE & BRADY: Faces "Weekly" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------- Josh
Weekly, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Tortorice & Brady, Inc. d/b/a Tea & Coffee America,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00302 (E.D. Tex., July 25, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Tortorice & Brady, Inc. is a tea and coffee importer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Melissa Moore, Esq.
      Curt Hesse, Esq.
      MOORE & ASSOCIATES
      Lyric Center
      440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 222-6775
      Facsimile: (713) 222-673


TOYO DENSO: Lee Oldsmobile Claims Price Fixing of Window Switches
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LEE OLDSMOBILE-CADILLAC, INC. D/B/A LEE HONDA; ANCONA ENTERPRISE,
INC. D/B/A FRANK ANCONA HONDA; BILL PEARCE HONDA; SHEARER
AUTOMOTIVE ENTERPRISES III, INC.; and DAVE HEATHER CORPORATION
D/B/A LAKELAND TOYOTA HONDA MAZDA SUBARU on Behalf of Themselves
and All Others Similarly Situated, v. TOYO DENSO CO. LTD.,
WEASTEC, INC., and OMRON AUTOMOTIVE ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., 2:16-
cv-12849-GER-EAS (E.D. Mich., August 2, 2016), alleges that
Defendant(s) engaged in a long-running conspiracy to unlawfully
fix, artificially raise, maintain and/or stabilize prices, rig
bids for, and allocate the market and customers in the United
States for Power Window Switches.

Defendant Toyo Denso Co. Ltd. is a Japanese corporation with its
principal place of business in Tokyo, Japan. Defendant Toyo Denso
Co. Ltd. -- directly and/or through its subsidiaries, which it
wholly owned and/or controlled -- manufactured, marketed and/or
sold Power Window Switches that were sold and purchased throughout
the United States

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gerard V. Mantese, Esq.
     Alexander E. Blum, Esq.
     MANTESE HONIGMAN, P.C.
     1361 E. Big Beaver Road
     Troy, MI 48083
     Phone: (248) 457-9200
     E-mail: gmantese@manteselaw.com
             ablum@manteselaw.com

        - and -

     Joel Davidow, Esq.
     Daniel Cohen, Esq.
     Victoria Romanenko, Esq.
     Evelyn Li, Esq.
     CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
     507 C Street, N.E.
     Washington, DC 20002
     Phone: (202) 789-3960
     E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com
             joel@cuneolaw.com
             danielc@cuneolaw.com
             vicky@cuneolaw.com
             evelyn@cuneolaw.com

        - and -

     Don Barrett, Esq.
     David McMullan, Esq.
     BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
     P.O. Box 927
     404 Court Square
     Lexington, MS 39095
     Phone: (662) 834-2488
     Fax: (662)834-2628
     E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
             dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com

        - and -

     Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
     LARSON KING, LLP
     2800 Wells Fargo Place
     30 East Seventh Street
     St. Paul, MN 55101
     Phone: (651) 312-6500
     Fax: (651) 312-6618
     E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com


TRANSUNION: Parties in Tradeline Litigation to Attend Mediation
---------------------------------------------------------------
TransUnion said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2016, that the parties in the so-called bankruptcy
tradeline litigation expect to attend one or more mediation
sessions in 2016 to determine whether an agreed settlement should
still be pursued.

The Company said, "In a matter captioned White, et al, v. Experian
Information Solutions, Inc. (No. 05-cv-01070-DOC/MLG, filed in
2005 in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California), plaintiffs sought class action status against
Equifax, Experian and us in connection with the reporting of
delinquent or charged-off consumer debt obligations on a consumer
report after the consumer was discharged in a bankruptcy
proceeding. The claims allege that each national consumer
reporting company did not automatically update a consumer's file
after their discharge from bankruptcy and such non-action was a
failure to employ reasonable procedures to assure maximum fi
le accuracy, a requirement of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA")."

"Without admitting any wrongdoing, we have agreed to a settlement
of this matter. In August 2008, the Court approved an agreement
whereby we and the other industry defendants voluntarily changed
certain operational practices. These changes require us to update
certain delinquent records when we learn, through the collection
of public records, that the consumer has received an order of
discharge in a bankruptcy proceeding. These business practice
changes did not have a material adverse impact on our operations
or those of our customers.

"In 2009, we also agreed, with the other two defendants, to settle
the monetary claims associated with this matter for $17.0 million
each ($51.0 million in total), which amount will be distributed
from a settlement fund to pay the class counsel's attorney fees,
all administration and notice costs of the fund to the purported
class, and a variable damage amount to consumers within the class
based on the level of harm the consumer is able to confirm. Our
share of this settlement was fully covered by insurance. Final
approval of this monetary settlement by the Court occurred in July
2011.

"Certain objecting plaintiffs appealed the Court's final approval
of the monetary settlement and, in April 2013, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the final approval
order and remanded the matter to the District Court. The rationale
provided by the Court of Appeals was not that the proposed
settlement was unfair or defective, but that named class counsel
and certain named plaintiffs did not adequately represent the
interests of the class because of certain identified conflicts.
Objecting counsel to the settlement has sought to become new class
counsel and the District Court denied that request.

"The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling on interlocutory appeal
and on May 5, 2016 denied plaintiffs' petition for rehearing en
banc. The parties expect to attend one or more mediation sessions
in 2016 to determine whether the agreed settlement should still be
pursued. Depending on the progress of those sessions, the Court
will determine the timing of this matter.

"If the monetary settlement is not ultimately upheld or modified
in a manner that is acceptable to us, we intend to vigorously
litigate this matter and to assert what we believe are valid
defenses to the claims made by the plaintiffs. Regardless of what
occurs next, we believe we have not violated any law, have valid
defenses and are willing to aggressively litigate this matter. We
do not believe any final resolution of this matter will have a
material adverse effect on our financial condition."


TRANSUNION: Continues to Defend Suit Over OFAC Alert Service
------------------------------------------------------------
TransUnion said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is reviewing the impact of
the decision in Spokeo v. Robins on the Ramirez, Miller, Larson
and Patel lawsuits and discussing next steps with the applicable
plaintiffs' counsel.

The Company said, "As a result of a decision by the United States
Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 2010 (Cortez v. Trans Union
LLC), we modified one of our add-on services we offer to our
business customers that was designed to alert our customer that
the consumer, who was seeking to establish a business relationship
with the customer, may potentially be on the Office of Foreign
Assets Control, Specifically Designated National and Blocked
Persons alert list (the "OFAC Alert"). The OFAC Alert service is
meant to assist our customers with their compliance obligations in
connection with the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism
(USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001."

"In Ramirez v. Trans Union LLC (No. 3:12-cv-00632-JSC, United
States District Court for the Northern District of California),
filed in 2012, the plaintiff has alleged that: the OFAC Alert
service does not comply with the Cortez ruling; we have willfully
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and the
corresponding California state-FCRA based on the Cortez ruling by
continuing to offer the OFAC Alert service; and there are one or
more classes of individuals who should be entitled to statutory
damages (i.e., $100 to $5,000 per person) based on the allegedly
willful violations.

"The same lawyers representing Ramirez (who also represented the
plaintiff in Cortez) have also filed in 2012 two additional
alleged class actions (Miller v. Trans Union, LLC, No. 12-1715-
WJN, United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania; and Larson v. Trans Union, LLC, No. 12-5726-JSC,
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California) and a third one in 2014 (Amit Patel, et al. v.
TransUnion LLC, TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions, Inc. and
TransUnion Background Data Solutions, No. 14-cv-0522-LB, United
States District Court for the Northern District of California)
claiming that our process for disclosing OFAC information to
consumers, or how we match OFAC information to a consumer's name
or other identifying information, violates the FCRA and, in some
instances, the corresponding California state-FCRA. In addition to
the OFAC allegations, the plaintiff in the Patel action seeks to
collapse all TransUnion FCRA regulated entities into a single
entity.

"In July 2014, the Court in Ramirez certified a class of
approximately 8,000 individuals solely for purposes of statutory
damages if TransUnion is ultimately found to have willfully
violated the FCRA, and a sub-class of California residents solely
for purposes of injunctive relief under the California Consumer
Credit Reporting Agencies Act.

"In June 2015, the Court in Patel certified a national class of
approximately 11,000 individuals with respect to allegations that
TransUnion willfully violated the FCRA by failing to maintain and
follow reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible
accuracy of their information, and a national subclass of
approximately 3,000 individuals with respect to allegations that
TransUnion willfully violated the FCRA by failing to provide
consumers with all information in their files.

"In all of the above actions the plaintiffs' did not alleged any
actual or concrete damages for their alleged injuries. As a result
we sought and were granted a stay in each of proceedings pending a
decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Spokeo v. Robins.

"On May 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in
Spokeo v. Robins, holding that the injury-in-fact requirement for
standing under Article III of the United States Constitution
requires a plaintiff to allege an injury that is both "concrete
and particularized." The Court held that the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals (where most of the identified matters are pending)
failed to consider concreteness in its analysis and vacated the
decision and remanded to the Ninth Circuit to consider both
aspects of the injury-in-fact requirement.

"On May 31, 2016, the stay in the Miller matter was lifted.

"We are reviewing the impact of the decision in Spokeo v. Robins
on the Ramirez, Miller, Larson and Patel matters and discussing
next steps with the applicable plaintiffs' counsel. We intend to
continue to defend these matters vigorously as we believe we have
acted in a lawful manner."


TRANSUNION: Continues to Defend "Henderson" Suit in E.D. Va.
------------------------------------------------------------
TransUnion said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend the
consumer disclosure lawsuit by Tyrone Henderson.

In Tyrone Henderson, et al. v. TransUnion LLC and TransUnion
Rental Screening Solutions, Inc. (No. 3:14-cv-00679-JAG, United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
(Richmond Division)), the plaintiffs have alleged that
TransUnion's process for mailing required notices to consumers at
the time it furnishes a consumer report to a reseller of those
reports for employment purposes, when that report contains adverse
public record information, violates the FCRA.

On May 3, 2016, the Court in Henderson certified a national class
of individuals with respect to these allegations, the size of
which is unknown.

"We intend to continue to defend this matter vigorously as we
believe we have acted in a lawful manner," the Company said.


TRUXX OUTFITTERS: Faces "Harvey" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL HARVEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. TRUXX OUTFITTERS, LLC, and STEVEN MAGERS,
Individually, Case 4:16-cv-00573 (E.D. Tex., August 2, 2016),  was
filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Truxx Outfitters -- http://truxxoutfitters.com/-- is in the truck
accessory and performance parts business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
     Jay Forester, Esq.
     LEE & BRAZIEL L.L.P.
     1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Phone: (214) 749-1400
     Fax: (214) 749-1010
     E-mail: www.overtimelawyer.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Battle Over $100MM Settlement Faces Impasse
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Rosenblatt, writing for Insurance Journal, reports that
Uber Technologies Inc.'s message to the judge who must approve its
$100 million settlement with drivers is clear: take it or leave
it.

In an escalating game of courtroom brinkmanship, Uber has hit what
may be an impasse with U.S. District Judge Edward Chen over its
demand that, as part of the deal, he erase his own order intended
to protect the ride-hailing company's drivers.

"Uber is almost daring Judge Chen to go against its wishes," said
Charlotte Garden, an associate professor at Seattle University
School of Law.  "Uber all but says that if he doesn't treat the
issue the way it wants, it will walk away from the deal."

That gives the San Francisco judge the choice of approving what he
sees as a flawed agreement or sending lawyers back to the
bargaining table knowing that the settlement is likely to fall
apart.  That would leave more than 350,000 drivers in California
and Massachusetts with nothing to show for three years of court
battles.

Uber wins either way because the settlement will let the world's
most valuable technology startup escape with a relatively small
financial sacrifice and only minor tweaks to its business model,
keeping drivers classified as independent contractors instead of
employees.  If the deal isn't approved now, Uber may get a
favorable appeals court ruling any day that will give it the upper
hand in any further negotiations.

The end result may be that the case once seen as the most likely
to upend the gig economy's no-guarantees work rules could embolden
Uber and other companies facing similar lawsuits across the U.S.
to dig in their heels.

Turning Point

The standoff stems from what Uber has described as Judge Chen's
"seek and destroy mission" to nullify its arbitration agreements.

The turning point that shifted the momentum in Uber's favor was a
June appeals court hearing in the company's challenge to a ruling
by Judge Chen that undermined its ability to limit lawsuits.
While the appeals court hasn't ruled, the panel gave strong hints
it may allow the company to enforce arbitration agreements
prohibiting the vast majority of its drivers from joining class-
action lawsuits.

The judge first found Uber's 2013 and 2014 arbitration provisions
to be unfair and unenforceable.  He then ruled in December that
going forward, Uber must take steps to make it easier for drivers
to opt out of arbitration -- and preserve their right to take
disputes to court.  He ordered the company to send drivers an
e-mail with the opt-out option highlighted in bold text and a
hyperlink to register their choice with a single click.

Uber argued in court filings that Chen's "bizarre requirements"
were an illegal intrusion into its business and would convey an
inappropriate message that "drivers should opt out of
arbitration."

Driver Rights

Uber and the lawyer for the drivers, Shannon Liss-Riordan, agreed
as part of the settlement announced in April that the judge's
December order must be wiped from the record.

Judge Chen has said undoing his order might strip some drivers of
their legal rights.  Uber has refused to budge, saying that
provision is critical to preserving the settlement.

"So much so in fact," Uber's lawyers wrote, that the company has
the right to walk away from the deal "unless and until the court
vacates" its order, and allows it to "distribute and enforce" its
2015 arbitration agreement to all drivers nationwide.

"Uber's position is if we don't have freedom going forward to
craft arbitration agreements how we want, we're not going to have
a settlement," said Katherine Stone, an employment law professor
at the University of California at Los Angeles.  "It's a my- way-
or-the-highway kind of term."

Uber's ultimate aim may be to do away with the opt-out provision
altogether, making arbitration mandatory, she said.

The proposed settlement allows drivers to solicit tips and allots
payouts based on the miles they've driven.  It also provides non-
monetary benefits including protection against being terminated
without reason.

Dozens of drivers and other lawyers claimed the deal lets Uber off
the hook too easily, with drivers forfeiting their demand for
employee status and a chance to win hundreds of millions of
dollars at trial as compensation for unpaid tips and expenses.

Claims 'Hijacked?'

Judge Chen questioned at a June hearing whether one provision
releasing the company from liability for violations of labor laws
"hijacked" drivers claims in other cases for minimum wage,
overtime and workers compensation.  He later peppered lawyers on
both sides of the accord with a barrage of written questions,
saying he needed more information to decide whether to grant
preliminary approval.

While Judge Chen has focused his attention on making sure the
settlement is adequate, Ms. Liss-Riordan warned him the looming
ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco may leave her
without any bargaining power if he rejects the deal.

Comments and questions about Uber's arbitration agreements at the
June 16 appeals court hearing showed that the judges may be poised
to overrule Judge Chen's order declaring the 2013 and 2014
arbitration agreements unenforceable, Ms. Liss-Riordan said in a
June 17 filing.  She said that "leaning" may dramatically diminish
her "ability to negotiate modifications to the agreement."

Ms. Liss-Riordan in June won preliminary approval of $27 million
agreement with Uber rival Lyft Inc. that left its drivers
classified as contractors.  She and Matt Kallman, a spokesman for
Uber, declined to comment on their proposed settlement.

While facing the possibility that the appeals court may reverse
his rulings, Judge Chen hasn't embraced the notion of voiding the
key December decision and has demonstrated a willingness of his
own to push the case toward the brink.

"I have a problem of retroactively vacating an order that
purported to and attempted to afford some protection to class
members," Judge Chen told lawyers for both sides in June.  "If
that thwarts this settlement, among other things, that may be the
case."

The case is O'Connor v. Uber Technologies Inc., 13-cv-03826, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).


UNILEVER: Sued Over Plastic Found in Ice Cream Product
------------------------------------------------------
ENJOYLI BURNEY, 1342 Edgehill Road, Darby, PA 19023, the
Plaintiff, v. UNILEVER and UNILEVER UNITED STATES and GOOD HUMOR-
BREYERS ICE CREAM COMPANY 800 Suylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
07632; and SHOPRITE OF ISLAND AVENUE and BROWN'S SUPERSTORES,
INC., Penrose Plaza Shopping Center, 2946 Island Avenue,
Philadelphia, PA 19153, the Defendants, Case No. 60703197 (Phila.
Cty. Ct., July 28, 2016), demands judgment against Defendants, and
makes claim for compensatory damages in an amount not in excess of
fifty thousand dollars and not in excess of the compulsory
arbitration limit of the court.

On August 1, 2014, the Plaintiff purchased Breyers butter pecan
ice cream from Defendants Shoprite and Brown's. While consuming
the product, the plaintiff bit into a piece of plastic which was
mixed into the product, and suffered a fractured tooth and injury
to the gums and dental structures.

Unilever and Breyers design, manufacture, package and supply the
Breyers ice cream product. Shoprite and Brown's sold, delivered,
marketed and supplied the Breyers ice cream product

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gerald B. Baldino Jr., Esq.
          SACCHETTA & BALDINO
          308 East Second Street
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (610)891 9212


UNITED AIRLINES: Wins Summary Judgment in "Ward" Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Alsup of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California granted defendant's motion
for summary judgment in the case captioned, CHARLES E. WARD,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Defendant, Case No. C 15-
02309 WHA (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Charles E. Ward worked as a pilot for defendant United
Airlines, Inc., a major passenger airline serving destinations all
over the world.  Ward commenced this action in state court in San
Francisco in April 2015. Ward claims that United violated various
provisions of Section 226(a) of the California Labor Code, which
requires employers to provide certain information on wage
statements issued to employees.  Ward also asserts claims under
the Private Attorneys General Act.

In March 2016, an order certified a class for all claims of "All
persons who are or were employed by United Airlines, Inc., as
pilots for whom United applied California income tax laws pursuant
to 49 U.S.C. 40116(f)(2) at any time from April 3, 2014 up to
April 3, 2015."  United removed it to federal court pursuant to
the diversity jurisdiction provision of the Class Action Fairness
Act.

Both sides move for summary judgment. Ward contends that United
violated Section 226(a) because it provided only a post office box
as its address and because it failed to itemize the applicable
rates and hours worked at each rate when it issued pay advices.
United responds that Section 226(a) does not apply to the wage
statements because, although all class members reside in
California. Thus, United contends, because the California
legislature did not "clearly express" an intention for Section
226(a) to apply to work performed primarily outside the state, nor
could such an intention be reasonably inferred "from the language
of the act or from its purpose, subject matter or history," it
cannot apply to the wage statements United issued to its pilots.
Further, United argues, to the extent any class member worked
principally in California for a given bid period, the application
of Section 226(a) in those circumstances would run afoul of
dormant commerce clause preemption.

In his Order dated July 19, 2016 available at https://is.gd/AiYq0h
from Leagle.com, Judge Alsup held that Ward does not cite a single
decision addressing the problem in the application of California
labor law to individual employees each of whom performed work in a
patchwork of states, with rare instances of pay periods in which
the employees worked in California for a majority of their time.

Charles E. Ward is represented by Kirk David Hanson, Esq. --
hansonlaw@cox.net -- JACKSON HANSON LLP

United Airlines, Inc. is represented by Robert Alan Siegel, Esq. -
rsiegel@omm.com -- Susannah Kelly Howard, Esq. -- showard@omm.com
-- and Adam P. KohSweeney, Esq. -- akohsweeney@omm.com --
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP


VALLEY STATE PRISON: Court Dismisses Amended "Hackett" Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California dismissed Plaintiff's
amended complaint in the case captioned, STEPHEN HACKETT,
Plaintiff, v. RAYMOND FISHER, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:15-
CV-00670-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Stephen Hackett is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.
Plaintiff filed consent to proceed before a magistrate judge on
May 14, 2015. On June 7, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's
complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff was subsequently granted
an extension until July 25, 2016 to amend his complaint.

Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on July 14, 2016. The events
in the amended complaint allegedly occurred at Valley State Prison
("VSP") in Chowchilla, California. Plaintiff names the following
defendants: (1) Warden Raythel Fisher; (2) Deputy Director J.
Lewis, Policy and Risk Management Services; (3) Inkwinder Singh,
M.D.; (4) Chief Physician and Surgeon Dr. K. Toor; (5) Nurse
Practitioner L. Stolfus; and (6) Physicians' Assistant Chetana
Sisodia. Plaintiff alleges negligence against all defendants, and
medical negligence against Defendants Singh, Toor, Stolfus, and
Sisodia. Plaintiff seeks damages, costs, and expenses.

In her Screening Order dated July 18, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/qbSudH from Leagle.com, Judge McAullife found that
Plaintiff has failed to allege compliance with the Government
Claims Act and the complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.

Plaintiff may file a Second amended complaint or a notice of
voluntary dismissal within 30 days from the date of service of the
order.


VARITRONICS LLC: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Bais Yaakov Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ann D. Montgomery of the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota denied Varitronics' motion to
dismiss the case captioned, Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Varitronics, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 14-5008 ADM/FLN (D. Minn.).

The putative class action arises from eight unsolicited fax
advertisements Bais Yaakov received between November 2013 and
February 2014. Bais Yaakov alleges the sending of the Fax
Advertisements violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47
U.S.C. Sec. 227 (the TCPA), and New York General Business Law. On
January 30, 2015, Varitronics moved to dismiss the Complaint,
arguing that since a third party, R&M Letter Graphics, Inc., was
the actual sender of the Fax Advertisements, Varitronics was not
liable to Bais Yaakov. That motion was denied.

Varitronics next made three offers of judgment to Bais Yaakov
under Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Varitronics
offered Bais Yaakov $13,000, plus additional amounts determined by
the Court for costs, in settlement of the case. Varitronics
asserted that the $13,000 offer provided Bais Yaakov with complete
relief of its claims. Bais Yaakov did not accept any of
Varitronics' offers of judgment.

Varitronics moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 67 to
Deposit Funds into the Court Registry, a motion heard by
Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel.  Varitronics argued that the
Supreme Court left open the possibility that its decision in
Campbell-Ewald would have been different if the plaintiff actually
received, rather than was simply offered, complete relief.
Varitronics argued that it should be permitted to deposit funds
into court, in essence to walk through the crack in the door left
open by the Campbell-Ewald majority.

In denying the motion, Judge Noel concluded that Varitronics' Rule
67 motion was solely an attempt to moot the case, and that,
consistent with the holding in Campbell-Ewald, Bais Yaakov must be
given a fair opportunity to show whether class certification is
warranted.

During the time between Judge Noel's order and this Court's
affirmation of that order, Varitronics mailed Bais Yaakov a
certified check for $13,000. Bais Yaakov did not cash the check.
Instead, Bais Yaakov mailed the check back to Varitronics stating
"Bais Yaakov rejects this check, rejects any offer of your client
for an individual injunction, and rejects your client's attempt to
moot out the case."

While its Objection to Judge Noel's order was pending, Varitronics
filed the present motion to dismiss. Varitronics argues that the
$13,000 certified check it mailed to Bais Yaakov constitutes
receipt of complete relief as was contemplated in Campbell-Ewald.
Varitronics argues that the check extinguishes the controversy
between the parties and thus, the case must be dismissed for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction.

In her Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 28, 2016 available
at https://is.gd/m8Snri from Leagle.com, Judge Montgomery held
that Bais Yaakov was under no obligation to accept the certified
check and it exercise of its right to refuse the certified check
places the case and that the $13,000 certified check Varitronics
mailed to Bais Yaakov does not deprive the Court of subject matter
jurisdiction.

Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley is represented by Brant D. Penney,
Esq. -- b.penney@rwblawfirm.com -- REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD

Varitronics, LLC is represented by Bryan R. Freeman, Esq. --
bfreeman@lindquist.com -- Jonathan M. Bye, Esq. --
jbye@lindquist.com -- and Nicole M. Tupman, Esq. --
ntupman@lindquist.com -- LINDQUIST & VENNUM LLP


VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Court Narrows Claims in "Youngers" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Pauley, III United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York granted in part Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint in the
case captioned, MARK YOUNGERS, et al., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VIRTUS INVESTMENT
PARTNERS INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 15CV8262 (S.D.N.Y.).

Lead Plaintiffs Mark Youngers, et al., bring the securities class
action on behalf of themselves and others who purchased various
mutual funds issued by Virtus Opportunities Trust (Virtus Trust)
between May 8, 2010 and December 22, 2014. Plaintiffs also bring
shareholder derivative claims under Delaware law.

In May 2015, Plaintiffs filed this securities class action
asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and claims for
breach of fiduciary duty under Delaware law.  Concurrently, Virtus
Partners announced that the SEC had initiated an investigation
into Virtus Advisers and AlphaSector's performance history. In
November 2015, Virtus Advisers consented to entry of a cease and
desist order and settled with the SEC for $16.5 million in
disgorgement and civil monetary penalties.

The Virtus Defendants, Independent Trustees, Present, and
F-Squared move separately to dismiss the Complaint asserting that
Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue claims on behalf of the
shareholders of two of the five funds -- the Allocator Premium
AlphaSector Fund and the Global Premium AlphaSector Fund --
because Plaintiffs never purchased shares in these funds.

In his Opinion and Order dated July 1, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/IBCieX from Leagle.com, Judge Pauley III dismissed
as to W. Patrick Bradley and the Independent Trustees of the
Section 10(b) claims, dismissed as to Euclid Advisers, LLC, Amy
Robinson, Michael A. Angerthal, W. Patrick Bradley, Francis G.
Waltman, Mark S. Flynn, the Independent Trustees, Howard Present,
and the F-Squared defendants of the Section 20(a) claims. The
Section 12(a)(2) claims are dismissed with regard to Virtus
Partners and George R. Aylward.

The derivative claims are dismissed in their entirety because the
Complaint does not allege sufficient facts to establish that
demand was excused.

Mark Youngers is represented by Jonathan Stern, Esq. --
jstern@rosenlegal.com -- and Laurence Matthew Rosen, Esq. --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.

Alfred Tolli, et al are  represented by Jonathan Stern, Esq. --
jstern@rosenlegal.com -- and Laurence Matthew Rosen, Esq. --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.

Virtus Investment Partners Inc., et al. are  represented by Joseph
Michael McLaughlin, Esq. -- jmclaughlin@stblaw.com -- Michael
David Kibler, Esq. -- mkibler@stblaw.com -- Daniel Joseph
Stujenske, Esq. -- dstujenske@stblaw.com -- and Shannon Kyle
McGovern, Esq. -- smcgovern@stblaw.com -- SIMPSON THACHER &
BARTLETT LLP

F-Squared Investments, Inc., et al. are represented by Aric Hugo
Wu, Esq. -- awu@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP

Leroy Keith, Jr., et al. are represented by Geoffrey Hunter Coll,
Esq. -- gcoll@bakerlaw.com -- and Michael R. Matthias, Esq. --
mmatthias@bakerlaw.com -- BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP


VOLCANO CORP: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Stockholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vice Chancellor Tamika Montgomery-Reeves of the Delaware Court of
Chancery granted the motion to dismiss the complaint in the case
captioned, IN RE VOLCANO CORPORATION STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION, Case
Nos. 10485-VCMR (Del. Ch.).

Plaintiffs Melvin Lax, Melissa Gordon, and Mohammed Munawar
(Plaintiffs) were common stockholders of Volcano Corporation
(Volcano or the Company). Defendant Goldman, Sachs & Co. (Goldman)
is a New York-based investment banking firm. Goldman served as
Volcano's financial advisor in connection with the merger.

The plaintiffs in the action are former public stockholders of a
company that was acquired for $18 per share in an all-cash merger.
Just five months prior, the target company had declined an offer
of $24 per share from the same acquiror. After the companies
announced the merger, the plaintiffs brought this action against
the target company's board of directors and its financial advisor.
The gist of the plaintiffs' complaint is that the board breached
its fiduciary duties in approving the merger and the financial
advisor, motivated by its own conflicts of interest, aided and
abetted those breaches.

Defendants deny that the Board was uninformed as to the Merger and
maintain that any benefits the Board stood to receive from the
Merger were routine and aligned the Board's interests with
Volcano's stockholders' interests. Defendants also dispute whether
Goldman's position in the Call Spread Transactions rendered
Goldman conflicted and contend that, to the extent any such
conflicts existed, the Board and Volcano's stockholders were fully
informed regarding the impact of the Merger on the Options and
Warrants.

In the motion, Defendants argue that the Complaint should be
dismissed because Volcano's stockholders approved the Merger by
overwhelmingly tendering into the Tender Offer.

In her Opinion dated June 30, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/3dHkqG from Leagle.com, Vice Chancellor Montgomery-
Reeves held that (1) recent Supreme Court decisions confirm that
the approval of a merger by a majority of a corporation's
outstanding shares pursuant to a statutorily required vote of the
corporation's fully informed, uncoerced, disinterested
stockholders renders the business judgment rule irrebuttable; (2)
stockholder approval of a merger under Section 251(h) of the
Delaware General Corporation Law by accepting a tender offer has
the same cleansing effect as a vote in favor of that merger; and
(3) the business judgment rule irrebuttably applies to the Merger
because Volcano's disinterested, uncoerced, fully informed
stockholders tendered a majority of the Company's outstanding
shares into the Tender Offer.

Melvin Lax, Melissa Gordon, and Mohammed Munawar are represented
by Derrick B. Farrell, Esq. -- dfarrell@faruqilaw.com -- and James
R. Banko, Esq. -- jbanko@faruqilaw.com -- FARUQI & FARUQI LLP --
Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. -- mar@rl-legal.com -- Brian D. Long, Esq.
-- bdl@rl-legal.com -- Gina M. Serra, Esq. -- gms@rl-legal.com --
and Jeremy J. Riley, Esq. -- jjr@rl-legal.com -- RIGRODSKY & LONG,
P.A.; Kent A. Bronson, Esq. -- kbronson@milberg.com -- Roy Shimon,
Esq. -- rshimon@milberg.com -- and Christopher Schuyler, Esq. --
cschuyler@milberg.com -- MILBERG LLP; and Julia J. Sun, Esq. --
jsun@zlk.com -- LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP

Kieran T. Gallahue, Lesley H. Howe, R. Scott Huennekens,
Siddhartha Kadia, Alexis V. Lukianov, Ronald A. Matricaria, Leslie
V. Norwalk, and Daniel J. Wolterman are represented by William M.
Lafferty, Esq. -- wlafferty@mnat.com -- D. McKinley Measley, Esq.
-- mmeasley@mnat.com -- and Richard Li, Esq. -- rli@mnat.com --
MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP; Koji Fukumura, Esq. --
kfukumura@cooley.com -- and Peter Adams, Esq. -- padams@cooley.com
-- COOLEY LLP

Goldman, Sachs & Co. is represented by Kevin G. Abrams, Esq. --
Abrams@AbramsBayliss.com -- J. Peter Shindel, Jr., Esq. --
Seaman@AbramsBayliss.com  -- and Daniel R. Ciarrocki, Esq. --
Ciarrocki@AbramsBayliss.com -- ABRAMS & BAYLISS LLP; Mitchell A.
Lowenthal, Esq. -- mlowenthal@cgsh.com -- and Meredith Kotler,
Esq. -- mkotler@cgsh.com -- CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP

Volcano Corporation is represented by Raymond J. DiCamillo, Esq.
-- dicamillo@rlf.com -- J. Scott Pritchard, Esq. --
pritchard@rlf.com -- and Rachel E. Horn, Esq. -- horn@rlf.com --
RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.; Michael H. Steinberg, Esq. --
steinbergm@sullcrom.com -- and Edward E. Johnson, Esq. --
johnsone@sullcrom.com -- SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP


VOLKSWAGEN AG: S. Korean Euro 5 Vehicle Owners Call for Refund
--------------------------------------------------------------
KBS World Radio reports that a group of Volkswagen owners in South
Korea will demand full refunds or exchange for new cars in an
ongoing legal battle over the company's emission rigging.

Law firm Barun, representing VW owners in a class action lawsuit
against the German carmaker, revealed the plan to submit a
petition to the Ministry of Environment for the complete
compensation measures.

Ha Jong-seon, a lawyer at Barun, said the government is leaving
vehicles exceeding the Euro 5 emission standard out on the road
after it rejected Volkswagen Korea's recall proposal three times.

Ha called on the government to give the replacement order
immediately in accordance with the country's environmental
protection law.


WASHINGTON: Sex Offenders Mull Class Action v. SCC Over Water
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Ocker, writing for The Olympian, reports that some employees
who work at the Special Commitment Center for violent sex
offenders bring water with them on the ferry to McNeil Island
every day.

That way they don't have to drink the water that residents
describe as dark as mild coffee, with sediment that accumulates in
it.

When the water runs brown, employees pass out bottled water to the
people on the island, sometimes for as long as a week.

"The bottled water is sufficient for . . . for thirst or the
body's need for retaining water," says James Jones, 64, who has
been committed to the state Department of Social and Health
Services-run facility since 2013.

"But I don't think it's sufficient for washing your tailbone in it
or washing your face for a shave, or getting into the shower," the
former Spokane resident said.  "You can't get into the shower with
bottled water."

State officials say the water can be discolored, but it is still
safe to drink.  The bottled water is given to residents as a
comfort, not out of necessity, officials said.

That reasoning isn't good enough for Mr. Jones -- and 28 other SCC
residents -- who ended up filing a federal lawsuit against the
facility.

A spokesman for DSHS declined to comment on the legal matters and
Assistant Attorney General Craig Mingay, the lead attorney for the
state in Jones' lawsuit, could not be reached for this story.

Mr. Jones sued the SCC after exhausting the state's grievance
processes.  The lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Tacoma covered
the condition of the water, along with the facility's ventilation
and how quickly the hot water runs out.

Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura dismissed Mr. Jones' case.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals returned it to District Court
over the condition of the water, while dismissing the other
claims.

After the appeal was granted, 28 more residents sued about the
water condition.

"It seems like there's no problem when it comes to us drinking the
water, but it's not OK for the staff to drink the water, and I
find that suspect," says Calvin Malone, 64, of Edmonds, an SCC
resident since 2012 who is among the second wave of litigants.

Water lawsuit still afloat

Mr. Jones arrived on McNeil Island on Feb. 22, 2013. On Nov. 13,
he filed a grievance about the water condition, water temperature
and air quality in SCC buildings.  The next day, the grievance was
denied.

On to court he went, filing the first of the lawsuits, on Jan. 8,
2014.  In the suit, Mr. Jones made first, eighth Amendment and
14th amendment claims, contending that:

   -- He was not given adequate opportunity for redress of his
grievances.

   -- Water and air quality at the SCC fell "below the minimum
standards of decency."

   -- Civilly detained persons "must be afforded more considerate
treatment and conditions of confinement than criminals whose
conditions of confinement are designed to punish."

Lawyers from the state's Attorney General's Office denied the
water was unsanitary and said it stayed warm, and said the SCC's
ventilation systems worked properly.

They also said state employees were working in good faith and that
Mr. Jones' complaints weren't "civil rights deprivations."

As evidence for his suit, Mr. Jones collected and sealed samples
from at least five periods in which SCC residents were told to not
use the water.

He also collected emails through public records requests,
including an exchange between an employee and Crystal McCabe, the
safety officer at the SCC.

The employee complained about having to wash his hands in brown
water and using overly diluted cleaning supplies.  He ended his
email by saying, "In closing, it doesn't appear as if the facility
cares about the safety of the employees working at SCC."

Ms. McCabe forwarded the email to then-CEO Mark Strong, whose
Feb. 27, 2014, email, in its entirety, said, "I doubt I need to
write it, but don't respond to (the employee)."

Mr. Jones submitted the exchange with the evidence he filed.

Among the state's rebuttal evidence was testimony from
Michael Trust, who operates the SCC's waste-water treatment plant.

He wrote the water testing complied with federal and state
standards, and that discolored water wasn't hazardous.  He said
the discoloration was caused when water lines were flushed, heavy
equipment went over the lines or fire hydrants were tested.

The state moved to have the case dismissed before it reached
trial.

"Nothing in the complaint, the discovery, or Mr. Jones' opposition
to the motion for summary judgment creates a genuine issue of
material fact," Mr. Mingay wrote Sept. 19, 2014.

Judge Creatura granted the summary judgment request Nov. 10, 2014.

"Although plaintiff has presented evidence that the water is
brown, the showers are tepid, and the air is dank at the SCC,
plaintiff has failed to prove that these constitute a health
hazard," Judge Creatura wrote.

"To constitute cruel and unusual punishment, plaintiff must
present admissable evidence that the conditions are unhealthful
-- not unpleasant."

Mr. Jones, who represented himself throughout the case and wrote
his filings by hand, appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.

The appellate court ruled Feb. 24, 2016, that the summary judgment
was proper in regards to the complaints about air quality and
temperature, and water temperature.

But the judges sent the case back to District Court for a trial
about water quality.  He cited Mr. Jones' 14th amendment argument
about the rights of SCC residents -- civilly committed people
deemed sexually violent predators -- to better conditions of
confinement than prisoners convicted of a crime.

Mr. Jones' jury trial is to begin Dec. 12 with Creatura presiding.

Larger group tries to sue state

A second lawsuit came from Mr. Malone, who filed the suit pro se
April 14.  He sued Mr. Strong, using Mr. Jones' case as the basis
for his eighth and 14th amendment claims.

The filing includes a note dated Jan. 30, 2015, from Ms. McCabe,
the SCC's safety officer, to residents, saying the amount of
trihalomethanes in the water there exceeded the limit from the
federal Environmental Protection Agency.

Trihalomethanes are a byproduct of the chlorination process used
to disinfect water supplies.

"This is not an immediate health risk," Ms. McCabe wrote.
"However, it is the consumer's right to know trihalomethanes may,
when consumed in excess of the (maximum contaminant level) over
many years, result in liver, kidney, or central nervous system
problems and an increased risk of cancer."

Says Mr. Malone to The News Tribune: "There's a lot of people who
suddenly get ill and nobody knows why they get sick."

He, along with more than 20 co-petitioners, tried to file the
lawsuit as a class action for all former and current SCC
residents.  But Mr. Jones' successful pro se navigation of his
case to trial proved their undoing.

Magistrate Judge David Christel denied the residents' request June
22, ruling they cannot represent one another in a class action.

Among his reasons was that if one person were released from the
SCC, the class action would become moot because that person no
longer was being wronged.

"We were informed by the court we could not represent each other
as attorneys, so we had to file separately," Mr. Malone said.

"Some of those people . . . have very little ability to navigate
the court system.  Others were told that they saved too much money
for their release, so they'll probably back out" instead of paying
the court filing fees. (Messrs. Jones and Malone both filed as
indigent.)

Mr. Malone has been trying to find a lawyer who will represent the
residents as a class so they could certify.


WEATHERFORD U.S.: Court Preliminarily Approves "Vega" Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California granted
preliminary approval of the settlement agreement in the case
captioned, STEPHANIE VEGA and MICHAEL McNATT, individually and
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
WEATHERFORD U.S., LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 1:14-CV-1790-JLT (E.D. Cal.).

A Final Approval and Fairness Hearing is set for December 2, 2016
at 9:00 a.m.

Plaintiffs Stephanie Vega and Michael McNatt were employees at
Defendants' Bakersfield, California location. Ms. Vega was a full-
time non-exempt employee between September 2011 and September
2013.  She was then promoted to a full-time exempt position, which
she retained until May 2014.  Mr. McNatt was employed as a full-
time hourly employee between September 2012 and July 2013.
Plaintiffs contend Defendants "underpaid all of their required
overtime wages."

In addition, Plaintiffs allege Defendants maintained unlawful
break policies, and "failed to authorize and permit hourly non-
exempt employees with all rest breaks to which they were
entitled."  Similarly, Plaintiffs assert Defendants "failed to
provide legally compliant meal periods by failing to schedule
timely meal periods and failing to ensure adequate coverage so as
to not impede and/or discourage Plaintiffs and hourly non-exempt
employees from taking legally compliant meal periods."  Further,
Plaintiffs assert Defendants failed to pay all final wages within
72 hours of the end of their employment due to the wage, rest
break, and meal break violations.

Based upon these factual allegations, Plaintiffs contend
Defendants are liable for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of Cal. Labor Code Sections 204, 510, 558, 1194 and 198;
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201;
violations of the meal and rest break provisions of Cal. Labor
Code Sec. 226.7, 512, 516 and 558; wage statement penalties under
Cal. Labor Code Sec. 226; waiting time penalties under Cal. Labor
Code Sections 201-203; unfair competition under Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code Sec. 17200; and civil penalties under the Private Attorneys
General Act (PAGA).

In November 2015, the parties agreed to attend mediation, and the
Court stayed all deadlines pending mediation.  The parties
attended a full-day of mediation with Mark Rudy on March 24, 2016,
after which "Mr. Rudy made a mediator's proposal for a class-wide
resolution of all claims."  The parties accepted the proposal, and
filed a Notice of Settlement with the Court on April 12, 2016.
Pursuant to the proposed settlement, the parties agree to a gross
settlement amount not to exceed $6,000,000.

In the motion, Plaintiffs seek (1) conditional certification of
settlement classes; (2) preliminary approval of the settlement
terms; (3) appointment of Plaintiffs as the class representatives;
(4) appointment of Hernaldo Baltodano of Baltodano & Baltodano
LLP, and Paul Haines, Tuvia Korobkin and Fletcher Schmidt of
Haines Law Group as Class Counsel; (5) approval of the class
notice and related materials; (6) appointment of Rust Consulting,
Inc., as the claims administrator; and (7) scheduling for final
approval of the settlement. Defendants do not oppose the motion
for preliminary approval of the class settlement.

In her Order dated July 22, 2016 available at https://is.gd/7xrbUU
from Leagle.com, Judge Thurston concluded that the requirements of
Rule 23(a)  and Rule 23(b) are satisfied. The Court appointed
Stephanie Vega and Michael McNatt as Class Representatives for the
Settlement Classes, Hernaldo Baltodano of Baltodano & Baltodano
LLP, and Paul Haines, Tuvia Korobkin and Fletcher Schmidt of
Haines Law Group as Class Counsel, Rust Consulting, Inc. as Claims
Administrator.

Stephanie Vega is represented by Erica Flores Baltodano, Esq. --
and Hernaldo Jose Baltodano, Esq. -- hjb@bbemploymentlaw.com --
BALTODANO & BALTODANO LLP -- Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq. - and --
Paul K. Haines, Esq. -- phaines@haineslawgroup.com -- HAINES LAW
GROUP, APC

Weatherford U.S., Limited Partnership and Weatherford Artificial
Lift Systems, LLC are represented by Michelle L. Heverly, Esq. --
mheverly@littler.com -- Robert W. Pritchard, Esq. --
rpritchard@littler.com -- and Kyle W. Nageotte, Esq. --
knageotte@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, PC


WELLS FARGO: Court Denies Petition to Dismiss "Tucker" Dispute
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, WELLS FARGO ADVISORS, L.L.C., Petitioner,
v. REAGAN TUCKER, BENJAMIN DOOLEY, MARVIN GLASGOLD, Respondents,
Case No. 15-CV-7722 (VEC) (S.D.N.Y.), District Judge Valerie
Caproni of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York denied Wells Fargo's petition to dismiss or
in the alternative stay the pending arbitration, and compel
individual arbitration in accordance with the binding arbitration
agreements.

Respondents Reagan Tucker (Tucker), Benjamin Dooley (Dooley) and
Marvin Glasgold (Glasgold) (collectively the Respondents)
commenced an arbitration proceeding before the American
Arbitration Association (AAA) against their former employer, Wells
Fargo Advisors, L.L.C. (Wells Fargo), raising class-wide and
collective claims for unpaid overtime. In connection with their
employment, each Respondent signed a "New Financial Advisor
Training Agreement" (the Agreement), pursuant to which each agreed
to arbitrate "any controversy or dispute" with Wells Fargo.

On July 23, 2015, Respondents initiated identical putative class
actions with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA)
and the AAA, asserting, inter alia, claims for unpaid overtime
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor
Law (NYLL).  In their statement of claim before the AAA,
Respondents allege that Wells Fargo misclassified them as exempt
employees under the FLSA and NYLL and failed to pay them overtime
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Respondents seek to arbitrate their claims on a class-wide basis
representing, first, a class of similarly-situated financial
adviser "Trainees," and second, a class of similarly-situated
"Apprentice Phase" financial advisers.

Wells Fargo filed a petition to dismiss or in the alternative stay
the pending arbitration and compel individual arbitration in
accordance with the binding arbitration agreements.  Wells Fargo
also argues that the case must be dismissed or stayed on "first-
filed" grounds based on the Williams Action. As a threshold issue,
the Court said, Wells Fargo cites to no case in support of its
position that the Court, rather than the arbitrator, should decide
the first-filed question as a gateway matter.

In her Opinion and Order dated July 1, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/c1Fwli from Leagle.com, Judge Caproni found that
there to be little factual or legal overlap between the two suits
so that the first-filed rule does not apply considering that the
two cases involve substantially different claims, different
classes, different facts, different evidence and different law.

Wells Fargo Advisors, L.L.C. is represented by Ashley Jean Hale,
Esq. -- ashley.hale@morganlewis.com -- and Kenneth Joseph
Turnbull, Esq. -- kenneth.turnbull@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN,
LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

Reagan Tucker, et al. are represented by Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. --
gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com -- and Paolo Chagas Meireles, Esq. --
pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com -- SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.; Justin
Mitchell Swartz, Esq. -- jms@outtengolden.com -- Olivia J. Quinto,
Esq. -- ojq@outtengolden.com -- and Paul W. Mollica, Esq. --
pwm@outtengolden.com -- OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP


WENDY'S: MCUL Joins Credit Card Data Breach Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Brad Devereaux, writing for Mlive, reports that the Michigan
Credit Union League, on behalf of Michigan credit unions, joined a
class action lawsuit against the Wendy's restaurant chain
following a recent credit card data breach.

Wendy's said it first reported unusual payment card activity
affecting some franchise-owned restaurants in February 2016, and
in June the company reported an additional malware variant had
been identified and disabled.

The breach affects customers between Dec. 2, 2015 and June of
2016, and also includes locations outside of Michigan, Wendy's
said.

The breach impacted more than 100 locations across Michigan, the
MCUL said in a news release, and the class-action lawsuit alleges
it was due to Wendy's poor data security measures, failure to
discover and contain the breach and for neglecting to notify
financial institutions of the compromise.

The legal action is meant to recoup the costs to credit unions,
including reissuing new cards and refunding members' lost money.

"Until retailers are forced to invest in robust data security
measures, credit unions will continue to pay the price for
retailer data breaches," MCUL Chief Operating Officer Ken Ross
said.  "Adding our name to this class action is one way we are
going to bat for Michigan credit unions until a legislative
solution is achieved."

Mr. Ross called for changes in federal law to hold retailers
accountable to security standards.

Other plaintiffs listed in the class action include the Credit
Union National Association, the Ohio, Georgia and Indiana state
credit union leagues and numerous credit unions.

In July, Wendy's apologized to those impacted and encouraged
customers to search a database to see impacted restaurant
locations.

"We are committed to protecting our customers and keeping them
informed," Todd Penegor, Wendy's president, said in a July 7
statement.  "We sincerely apologize to anyone who has been
inconvenienced as a result of these highly sophisticated, criminal
cyberattacks involving some Wendy's restaurants."

"We have conducted a rigorous investigation to understand what has
occurred and apply those learnings to further strengthen our data
security measures," he said.

Mr. Penegor recommended customers remain vigilant for incidents of
fraud and identity theft by reviewing credit card account
statements and monitoring credit reports for unauthorized
activity.

Wendy's offered one year of complimentary fraud consultation and
identity restoration services to all customers who used a payment
card at a potentially affected restaurant during the breach time
period.

Customers with questions can call (866) 779-0485, from 8 a.m. to
5:30 p.m. Central Time, Monday through Friday excluding major
holidays.

MCUL says the Wendy's data theft is the latest in a string of
compromises for which member-owned credit unions have incurred the
costs.

Breaches at Target and Home Depot in 2013 and 2014, respectively,
cost credit unions nationwide an estimated $90 million combined,
according to the Credit Union National Association. In Michigan,
credit unions paid out an estimated $4.4 million as a result of
the same breaches, MCUL said.  MCUL was also a plaintiff in the
class action suit against Home Depot.


WORLDWIDE ELECTRIC: Faces "Horton" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT HORTON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. WORLDWIDE ELECTRIC CORPORATION; and RICK SIMMONDS,
individually and in his role as Chief Executive Officer of
Worldwide Electric Corporation, Case 6:16-cv-06536 (W.D.N.Y.,
August 2, 2016), was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

WORLDWIDE ELECTRIC CORPORATION is in the business of selling
products such as electric motors and related items.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert Mullin, Esq.
     FERR & MULLIN, P.C.
     7635 Main St. Fishers
     P.O. Box 440
     Fishers, NY 14453
     Phone: (585) 869-0210
     Fax: (585) 869-0223


XYTEX CORP: Bid to Dismiss Same-Sex Couple's Suit Put on Hold
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Alsup of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California held in abeyance a motion
to dismiss in the case captioned, JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2,
Plaintiffs, v. XYTEX CORPORATION, a Georgia Corporation, XYTEX
CRYO INTERNATIONAL, LTD., a Georgia Corporation, MARY HARTLEY, an
individual, J. TODD SPRADLIN, an individual, and DOES 1-25,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. C 16-02935 WHA (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2, a same-sex couple, are San
Francisco residents. In 2004, they registered to use xytex.com, a
website operated by defendant Xytex Corporation. Xytex, through
its website, sold human semen for use in artificial insemination.
After registering, plaintiffs reviewed the profiles of the sperm
donors listed on Xytex's website and selected Donor #9623, whose
profile stated he held a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and
that he had been working toward a Ph.D. in artificial intelligence
and neuroscience engineering. Jane Doe 1 underwent an artificial
insemination procedure using sperm from Donor #9623.

Plaintiffs commenced the action in San Francisco Superior Court in
April 2016 bringing claims for: (i) fraud, (ii) negligent
misrepresentation, (iii) strict products liability, (iv) negligent
products liability, (v) breach of express warranty, (vi) breach of
implied warranty of merchantability, (vii) battery, (viii)
negligence, (ix) specific performance, (x) false advertising, (xi)
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, and (xii)
wrongful birth. Defendants removed the case to federal court here
in San Francisco on the basis of declaratory judgment.

Xytex moves to transfer the case to the Southern District of
Georgia based on the forum-selection clause in the agreement on
its website. Plaintiffs counter that the language containing the
forum-selection clause appeared in an unenforceable "browsewrap
agreement" to which plaintiffs never manifested their assent.

In his Order dated July 19, 2016 available at https://is.gd/PjLp1u
from Leagle.com, Judge Alsup held that Xytex failed to give
plaintiffs constructive notice that the "Site Usage" button
included a hyperlink to the terms of a contract that supplied the
terms for use of Xytex's website and services. The motion to
dismiss is held in abeyance pending discovery into the issue of
plaintiffs' actual knowledge of the existence of the site-usage
agreement that contained the forum-selection clause at issue
herein and the actual format of Xytex's website at the time in
question.

All discovery on these issues were to be completed by August 11.
Xytex shall submit a brief addressing evidence of plaintiffs'
actual knowledge of the site-usage agreement and the forum-
selection clause therein by August 25, 2016.

Jane Doe 1 and 2 are represented by Brendan C. Gannon, Esq. --
bgannon@hershlaw.com -- and Nancy Hersh, Esq. --
nhersh@hershlaw.com -- HERSH & HERSH

Xytex Corporation is represented by John L. Supple, Esq. --
jsupple@jsupplelaw.com -- and Kathleen Humphrey, Esq. --
khumphrey@supplecanvel.com -- J SUPPLE LAW


ZALE DELAWARE: Court Denies Bid to Decertify "Tapia" Case
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Cynthia Bashant of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California denied Defendant's motion
to decertify the class and motion to stay dissemination of class
notice in the case captioned, NAOMI TAPIA, individually and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. ZALE DELAWARE INC., Defendant, Case No. 13-CV-1565-
BAS(PCL) (S.D.Cal.).

Plaintiff alleged that Defendant failed to pay employees for all
hours worked, including minimum wage and overtime compensation.
Plaintiff alleged that Defendant's "uniform compensation policy"
"shaved" minutes from time records. In its Amended Answer,
Defendant generally denied it "time shaves" and denied that its
employees "did not receive all due compensation." Defendant pled
twenty-five affirmative defenses.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, Plaintiff moved to
certify a class to determine whether Defendant fully compensated
its employees as required by State and Federal law. Plaintiff
contended that Defendant had a standard policy and practice to
"shave" minutes from time records before it calculated wages. The
Court considered the evidence the parties submitted, including
Defendant's manuals, deposition testimony, and competing expert
reports evaluating a sample of employee time records. The evidence
showed that Defendant calculated time and wages for all hourly
employees with its "Point of Sale" computer system. The Court held
that Defendant's standard policy met the commonality requirement
of Rule 23.

On June 8, 2016, Defendant filed this motion to decertify based on
a new legal development. Defendant argues that Corbin
"unequivocally rejected" Plaintiff's legal theory of liability,
demonstrates that its own rounding policy is lawful, and leaves
Plaintiff without any cognizable legal theory; therefore, that
part of the class should be decertified.

In her Order and Judgment dated July 25, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/uGbD2r from Leagle.com, Judge Bashant found that
class treatment is still appropriate and denied the motion to
delay notice to the potential class members.

The Court directed the parties to appear for oral argument on the
cross motions for summary judgment on December 12, 2016 at 2:30
p.m.

Naomi Tapia is represented by Eric K. Yaeckel, Esq. --
Yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupapc.com -- Lara Ann Prodanovich, Esq. --
lprodanovich@sullivanlawgroupapc.com -- and Clint S. Engleson,
Esq. -- cengleson@sullivanlawgroupapc.com -- SULLIVAN LAW GROUP,
LLP

Zale Delaware Inc. is represented by Candace Bertoldi, Esq. --
cbertoldi@seyfarth.com -- Holger C. Grossman Besch, Esq. --
hbesch@seyfarth.com -- Brian Patrick Long, Esq. --
bplong@seyfarth.com -- and Michael F. Marino, III, Esq. --
mmarino@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH SHAW LLP


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: M. Slayen Dropped as Defendant in "Floyd"
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jerry Floyd has filed a stipulation of dismissal dated
July 27, 2016, stating that he has agreed to settle all claims
between Plaintiff and Defendant M. Slayen and Associates, Inc.

"The plaintiff may dismiss some or all of the defendants . . .
through a Rule 41(a)(1) notice."  Dismissal is effective without
court order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California held.

All claims between the Plaintiff and Defendant M. Slayen and
Associates, Inc., have been dismissed without prejudice, Judge
Tigar further held.  The Clerk is directed to terminate Defendant
M. Slayen and Associates, Inc. as a party in this case.

The case is JERRY FLOYD, Plaintiff, v. ASBESTOS CORPORATION, LTD.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-05382-JST (N.D. Calif.).

A full-text copy of Judge Tigar's Order dated July 28, 2016, is
available at https://is.gd/Z4WemF from Leagle.com.

Jerry Floyd, Plaintiff, represented by Stephen Michael Fishback,
Keller Fishback & Jackson LLP, Cassiana Aaronson, Keller Fishback
& Jackson LLP, Daniel Lee Keller, Keller Fishback & Jackson LLP &
John Bruce Jackson, Keller Fishback & Jackson LLP.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, (Incorrectly sued as Foster
Wheeler USA Corporation), Defendant, represented by Charles S.
Park, Hugo Parker, LLP & Edward R. Hugo, Hugo & Parker LLP.

Autozone West, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher Maurice
Harnett, Jr, Archer Norris, A Professional Law Corporation &
Robert Dale Tobey, Jr., Archer Norris, A Professional Law
Corporation.

Buffalo Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Glen R. Powell,
Gordon & Rees LLP, James G. Scadden, Gordon & Rees LLP & Michael
J. Pietrykowski, Gordon & Rees LLP.

BW/IP, Inc., individually and as successor-in-interest to Byron
Jackson Pump Co., Defendant, represented by Dennis Michael Young,
Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Arturo Esteban Sandoval, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP, Holly Elizabeth Acevedo, Foley & Mansfield,
P.L.L.P. & Keith Michael Ameele, Foley & Mansfield, P.L.L.P..

Certainteed Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michelle
Christian Jackson, Dentons US LLP.

Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary David Sharp,
Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Peter Edward Soskin, K&L
Gates LLP & Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP.

Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Jennifer Denise Fitzpatrick, Armstrong & Associates, LLP.

Douglass Insulation Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Janice W. Man, Selman Breitman.

Flowserve Corporation, individually and as successor-in-interest
to Durametallic Corp., Defendant, represented by Nicole Denine
Brown Yuen, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, C. J. Manoli, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP & Gary David Sharp, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

FMC Corporation, Defendant, represented by Frank D. Pond, Pond
North LLP, Gavin David Whitis, Pond North LLP, Kevin Douglas
Jamison, Pond North LLP & Rebecca Suh, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard
Smith LLP.

Fraser's Boiler Service, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sandra
Lucia Gryder, Pond North LLP, Kathleen Burnam Ebrahimi, Pond North
LLP, Kevin Douglas Jamison, Pond North LLP & Previn Ariaraj Wick,
Pond North LLP.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Charles Todd
Sheldon, WFBM, LLP, Derek S. Johnson, WFBM, LLP, Emily Elizabeth
Anselmo, WFBM, LLP & Katherine Paige Gardiner, WFBM, LLP.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy Jo Talarico,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP.

Honeywell International, Inc., formerly known as AlliedSignal
Inc., Successor in Interest to the Bendix Corporation, Defendant,
represented by David Scott Shaffer, Perkins Coie LLP & David T.
Biderman, Perkins Coie LLP.

IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey,
Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon LLP.

Ingersoll Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Arpi Galfayan,
Prindle Goetz Barnes & Reinholtz LLP, Carla Lynn Crochet, Prindle
Goetz Barnes & Reinholz LLP & Jeremy David Milbrodt, Prindle Goetz
Barnes & Reinholtz LLP.

ITT Corporation, successor-in-interest to Bell & Gossett; Hoffman
Specialty Manufacturing Corporation and Kennedy Valve
Manufacturing, now known as ITT Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Joseph Duffy, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Amy Jo
Talarico, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr.,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP & Taylor Carl Day, Morgan, Lewis and
Bockius LLP.

Metalclad Insulation LLC, formerly known as Metalclad Insulation
Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michelle Christian Jackson,
Dentons US LLP.

Nibco Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory Scott Rosse, Hugo
Parker, LLP, Edward R. Hugo, Hugo & Parker LLP, Sara J. Savage,
Hugo Parker, LLP & Shelley Kaye Tinkoff, Hugo Parker LLP.

O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC, Defendant, represented by Mark S.
Kannett, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Shahrad Milanfar,
Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer.

Owens-Illinois, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jamie Lynn
Lanphear, Schiff Hardin LLP & Renee Christine Kelley, Schiff
Hardin LLP.

Parker-Hannifin Corporation, individually and as successor-in-
interest to Sacomo Sierra, Defendant, represented by Joseph Blaise
Adams, Bassi, Martini, Edlin & Blum LLP, Marte J. Bassi, Bassi,
Edlin, Huie & Blum LLP, Reno Cross, Bassi, Edlin, Huie & Blum LLP
& Timothy Wayne Moppin, Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck LLP.

Sterling Fluid Systems (USA) LLC, dba and individually and as
successor-in-interest to Peerless Pump Company and Indian Head,
Inc. doing business as Peerless Pump Company doing business as
Indian Head, Inc., Defendant, represented by Frank D. Pond, Pond
North LLP, Gavin David Whitis, Pond North LLP, Kevin Douglas
Jamison, Pond North LLP & Rebecca Suh, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard
Smith LLP.

Syd Carpenter, Marine Contractor, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Arpi Galfayan, Prindle Goetz Barnes & Reinholtz LLP, Carla Lynn
Crochet, Prindle Goetz Barnes & Reinholz LLP & Jeremy David
Milbrodt, Prindle Goetz Barnes & Reinholtz LLP.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, The, Defendant, represented by
Michael J. Pietrykowski, Gordon & Rees LLP, Deborah Ann Smith,
Gordon & Rees LLP & Megan Feeney Clark, Gordon and Rees LLP.

Trane US, Inc., Defendant, represented by Arpi Galfayan, Prindle
Goetz Barnes & Reinholtz LLP, Carla Lynn Crochet, Prindle Goetz
Barnes & Reinholz LLP & Jeremy David Milbrodt, Prindle Goetz
Barnes & Reinholtz LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Dismisses "Shelly"
------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles R. Breyer of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California ordered that all claims in the
case captioned DALE M. SHELLY, Plaintiff, v. ASBESTOS CORPORATION
LIMITED, et al., Defendants, No. 3:11-cv-05597-CRB (N.D. Calif.)
are dismissed, without prejudice, against all Defendants named in
this case pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

A full-text copy of Judge Breyer's July 25, 2016 Order is
available at https://is.gd/OQHw8e from Leagle.com.

Dale M. Shelly, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Donadio,
Brayton Purcell LLP & Alan R. Brayton, Brayton Purcell LLP.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Charles Todd Sheldon,
WFBM, LLP dba Walsworth & Derek S. Johnson, WFBM, LLP dba
Walsworth.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Wines" Remanded to Delaware State Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gregory M. Sleet of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Delaware, adopted the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Sherry Fallon issued on June 10, 2016, and
remanded tha case captioned IN RE ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to
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, C.A. No. 14-cv-1190
(GMS-SRF)(D. Del.) to the Superior Court of the State of Delaware.

A full-text copy of Judge Sleet's Order dated July 21, 2016, is
available at https://is.gd/SaQZ2j from Leagle.com.

Neal Wines, Plaintiff, represented by David W. deBruin, The
deBruin Firm LLC.

Alfa Laval Inc., Defendant, Cross 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, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth
E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Durez Corporation, Defendant, Cross 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, Cross Defendant, represented by
Nicholas E. Skiles, Swartz Campbell LLC.

General Electric Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented
by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Ingersoll Rand Company, Defendant, Cross Claimant, Cross
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, Cross 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, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, 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, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, 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, Cross Defendant, represented by
Anne Kai Seelaus, Barnard, Mezzanotte, Pinnie and Seelaus.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: June 28 Decision in NYCAL Vacated
--------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION
relating to NORTH, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, SUCCESSOR
BY MERGER TO BUFFALO PUMPS, INC. -- NATIONAL GRID GENERATION, LLC
-O'CONNOR CONSTRUCTORS, INC., 2016 NY Slip Op 81351(U), the
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, in a decision dated August 4, 2016, recalled and
vacated the decision and order of this Court entered June 28,
2016, as corrected on July 13, 2016.  A full-text copy of the
Decision is available at https://is.gd/oVkx2w from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Non 3rd-Party Claims in "Oliver" Remanded
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned WAYNE OLIVER, v. CAMPBELL McCORMICK, INC.,
Civil No. CCB-16-1057 (D. Md.), Judge Catherine Blake of the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted
Wayne Oliver's motion to sever and remand all non-third party
claims and, granted in part and denied as moot in part Campbell-
McCormick, Inc.'s motion to reconsider.

Wayne Oliver sued Campbell-McCormick, Inc., MCIC, Inc., and the
Walter E. Campbell Company in Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
alleging that exposure to asbestos in the defendants' products
caused his mesothelioma. General Electric Company, a third-party
defendant in the Circuit Court, removed the case to federal court.
Oliver filed a motion to sever and remand all non-third party
claims, and Campbell-McCormick filed a motion requesting that the
court reconsider staying the proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum dated July 18, 2016, is
available at https://is.gd/YIyuET from Leagle.com.

Wayne Oliver, Plaintiff, is represented by Daniel Aaron Brown,
Esq. -- dbrown@brownandgould.com -- Brown and Gould LLP & Matthew
E. Kiely, Esq. -- Matthew E Kiely LLC.

Campbell McCormick, Inc., Defendant, is represented by John C.
Ruff, Esq. -- jruff@dehay.com --  DeHay and Elliston LLP & Patrick
C. Smith, Esq. -- psmith@dehay.com -- Dehay and Elliston LLP.

MCIC, Incorporated, Defendant, is represented by Louis E. Grenzer,
Jr., Esq. -- lgrenzer@bodie-law.com -- Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs,
Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

The Walter E. Campbell Company, Inc., Defendant, is represented by
Steven Andrew Luxton, Esq. -- steven.luxton@morganlewis.com --
Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Westinghouse Wins Summary Judgment in "Norberg"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert W. Gettleman of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted
Viacom, Inc. ("Westinghouse")'s renewed motion for summary
judgment and judgment is entered in favor of Westinghouse, and
against plaintiff Mary Julia Norberg in the case captioned MARY
JULIA NORBERG, Individually and as Special Administrator of the
Estate of EARL NORBERG, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. VIACOM, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 02 C 2948 (D. Ill.).

On March 24, 2002, plaintiff, Mary Julia Norberg, individually and
as special administrator for the estate of her deceased husband,
Earl Norberg , brought this suit, alleging that Earl developed
lung cancer as the result of exposure to asbestos during his
employment, and that several defendants, including Viacom, Inc.,
sold, manufactured, distributed, packaged, installed, or otherwise
placed the asbestos insulated equipment into commerce.  Although
this lawsuit was originally filed in this district, it was
transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for inclusion
in a multi-district consolidation of asbestos-related claims.
Westinghouse previously filed a motion for summary judgment in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which was denied by that court
on February 24, 2014. Westinghouse filed the instant renewed
motion for summary judgment.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July
21, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/QFQDmB from Leagle.com.

Mary Julia Nordberg, Plaintiff, is represented by Michael Peter
Cascino, Esq. -- Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., Robert George
McCoy, Esq. -- Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd. & Daniel Benjamin
Hausman, Esq. -- Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd..

Airco/The BOC Group, Defendant, is represented by Michael J.
Hennig, Esq. -- mhennig@cassiday.com  --  Cassiday Schade LLP & K.
Kristann Carey, Esq. -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

Bechtel Construction Company, Defendant, is represented by Robert
Spitkovsky, Jr., Esq. -- Spitkovsky@jbltd.com -- Johnson & Bell,
Ltd. & David Arthur Cyr, Esq. -- Cyr@jbltd.com -- Johnson & Bell,
Ltd..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by
Douglas L. Prochnow, Esq. -- douglas.prochnow@FaegreBD.com --
Faegre Baker Daniels, LLP.

Mobile Oil Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Howard
Patrick Morris, Esq. -- Morris@jbltd.com -- Johnson & Bell, Ltd..
Rapid American Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Daniel
William McGrath, Esq. -- dmcgrath@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw &
Culbertson.

Rapid American Corporation, a corporation, Defendant, is
represented by Craig T. Liljestrand, Esq. --
cliljestrand@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson.

Texaco Inc, a corporation, Defendant, is represented by Michael T.
Trucco, Esq. -- mtrucco@stamostrucco.com --  Stamos & Trucco,
James Paul Arrigo, Esq. -- Moss & Bloomberg, Ltd. & Jenni L Young,
Esq. -- jyoung@stamostrucco.com -- Stamos & Trucco.

Viacom, Inc., a corporation formerly known as Westinghouse
Electric Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Daniel William
McGrath, Hinshaw & Culbertson, R. Delacy Peters, Jr., Gonzalez,
Saggio & Harlan, LLP & Craig T. Liljestrand, Hinshaw & Culbertson.

Viacom, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Jacob D. Sawyer, Esq. -
- Foley & Mansfield, Pllp & William C. Foote, Esq. -- Foley &
Mansfield, Pllp.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Circ. Affirms G-I Holdings' Plan Order
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed
the District Court's judgment affirming the Bankruptcy Court's
order approving the Eighth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization of
G-I Holdings, Inc.

The Bankruptcy Court, in conjunction with the District Court,
approved the Eighth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization, which
disposed of all covered claims against G-I Holdings and barred the
holders of those claims from reasserting them against the
reorganized G-I Holdings.  The New York City Housing Authority
never appealed the Confirmation Order finalizing the Plan.

However, three years later NYCHA filed a complaint against G-I
Holdings in which it sought an injunction to compel G-I Holdings
to remove asbestos-containing materials ("ACM") from hundreds of
NYCHA's buildings.  In this complaint, NYCHA put forward two
reasons why this claim was not barred by the now-finalized Plan.
First, NYCHA argued that its request for an injunction was not a
"claim" as defined by the Plan and thus was not barred by the res
judicata effect of the District Court's Confirmation Order.
Second, NYCHA argued that as a governmental entity, it should be
allowed to use its inherent regulatory power to force G-I Holdings
to remediate the environmental damage caused by the ACM. The
Bankruptcy and District Courts rejected both of these arguments.

The Third Circuit held that the NYCHA has creatively tried to
repackage its claim against G-I Holdings for property damage as a
claim for injunctive relief in the hopes of getting a better
outcome this time around.  Specifically, NYCHA argues that its
"new" claim is a non-dischargeable injunctive claim for pollution
abatement brought by NYCHA in its capacity as a governmental
entity.  By turning its monetary claim for property damage into a
"regulatory" action, NYCHA hoped to avoid the steep discounting,
inherent in most bankruptcy proceedings, of its claim for monetary
damages, the Third Circuit pointed out.

NYCHA's claim is thus properly characterized as a "repackaging of
a forfeited claim for damages," the Third Circuit held.  NYCHA is
not a regulatory agency seeking to enforce a state or local law;
it is simply a creditor seeking to circumvent the limitations on
its recovery of monetary damages from G-I Holdings under the Plan,
the Third Circuit ruled.

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated July 18, 2016, is available
at https://is.gd/b4yape from Leagle.com.

The appeals case is NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Appellant, v.
G-I HOLDINGS, INC., No. 15-2164 (3d Cir.), relating to In re: G-I
HOLDINGS INC, f/k/a GAF Corporation, et al., Debtors.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Remands St. Paul Coverage Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, remanded the
order dated July 22, 2011, for the limited purpose to conform its
content to the trial judge's oral ruling that St. Paul Fire and
Marine Insurance Company had no duty to provide insurance coverage
for defense costs under its two excess policies, but could, at its
own discretion, choose to participate in the defense.

These consolidated appeals involve insurance coverage disputes
concerning asbestos-related product liability claims allegedly
caused by brake and clutch pads that contained asbestos. The
Bendix Corporation, the corporate predecessor of Honeywell
International, Inc., manufactured and sold brake and clutch pads
that contained asbestos. Those pads are also referred to as
friction material products. Honeywell has been sued in tens of
thousands of actions asserting personal injuries and wrongful
death from exposure to asbestos from Bendix pads. As a
consequence, Honeywell and its insurers have spent over $1 billon
in defending, settling, and paying asbestos-related claims.
Following thirteen years of litigation, seeking declarations of
the rights and obligations among Honeywell and its various
insurers, all parties settled except Honeywell and two of its
excess carriers, Travelers Casualty & Surety Company and St. Paul
Fire and Marine Insurance Company. Travelers and St. Paul appeal
two orders that held (1) New Jersey law applies to insurance
allocation determinations, and (2) Honeywell need not share in
coverage allocations as if it were self-insured after 1987 because
excess insurance for asbestos bodily injury claims was no longer
available after 1987. Honeywell appeals an order and portions of
the final judgment that held (1) St. Paul excess policies did not
provide coverage for Honeywell's defense costs; (2) certain excess
insurance policies did not provide coverage for Honeywell's
defense costs; (3) certain excess policies attach only when all
underlying policies are exhausted; and (4) Honeywell was not
entitled to counsel fees and costs.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated Juky 20, 2016 is available
at https://is.gd/0o1SUw from Leagle.com.

The case is CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, FIDELITY & CASUALTY
COMPANY OF NEW YORK, COMMERCIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEWARK, N.J.,
and COLUMBIA CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiffs, v. HONEYWELL
INTERNATIONAL, INC. (f/k/a ALLIEDSIGNAL, INC., successor to BENDIX
AVIATION CORPORATION and BENDIX CORPORATION), Defendant-
Respondent, and ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellant, and AFFILIATED FM INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE
INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN
INSURANCE COMPANY, CALIFORNIA UNION INSURANCE COMPANY, CENTURY
INDEMNITY COMPANY, COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY as successor
to EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ASSURANCE CORPORATION, LTD., EMPLOYERS
INSURANCE OF WAUSAU, FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, GRANITE
STATE INSURANCE COMPANY, GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, HOME
INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, NATIONAL
UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA, NORTH RIVER
INSURANCE COMPANY, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, UNDERWRITERS AT
LLOYDS LONDON and CERTAIN LONDON MARKET COMPANIES, including ANGLO
SAXON INSURANCE ASSOC. LTD., DOMINION INSURANCE COMPANY, DRAKE
INSURANCE COMPANY, EAGLE STAR INSURANCE COMPANY, INSTITUTE OF
LONDON UNDERWRITERS, LONDON & EDINBURGH INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
PRUDENTIAL ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, and
WORLD AUXILIARY INSURANCE CORP., LTD., Defendants, and HONEYWELL
INTERNATIONAL, INC. (f/k/a ALLIEDSIGNAL, INC., successor to BENDIX
AVIATION CORPORATION and BENDIX CORPORATION), Defendant/Third-
Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY
(f/k/a AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY), Third-Party Defendant-
Appellant, and AIU INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN CENTENNIAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, ASSOCIATED INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
CENTRE INSURANCE COMPANY (f/k/a LONDON GUARANTEE AND ACCIDENT
COMPANY OF NEW YORK), CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, THE
CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY as successor in interest to HARBOR
INSURANCE COMPANY (f/k/a HARBOR INSURANCE COMPANY), EVEREST
REINSURANCE COMPANY (f/k/a PRUDENTIAL REINSURANCE COMPANY),
EXECUTIVE RISK INDEMNITY INC. (f/k/a AMERICAN EXCESS INSURANCE
COMPANY), FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, FIRST STATE INSURANCE
COMPANY, FREMONT INDEMNITY COMPANY (f/k/a INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY
COMPANY), GENERAL REINSURANCE CORPORATION, HARTFORD ACCIDENT &
INDEMNITY COMPANY, INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY (f/k/a
INTERNATIONAL SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY), LEXINGTON
INSURANCE COMPANY, MT. McKINLEY INSURANCE COMPANY (f/k/a GIBRALTAR
CASUALTY COMPANY), MUTUAL FIRE, MAINE & INLAND INSURANCE COMPANY,
ROYAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, THE TOKIO MARINE & FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY, LTD., TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, UTICA MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, WESTPORT INSURANCE COMPANY (f/k/a PURITAN
INSURANCE COMPANY), and CERTAIN LONDON MARKET COMPANIES, including
ACCIDENT & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ALBA GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY (f/k/a ALBA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED), AVIATION &
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, AXA INSURANCE PLC (f/k/a
PROVINCIAL INSURANCE PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY), THE BRITISH AVIATION
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRITISH LAW INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
BRITISH RESERVE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRITISH TRADERS
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., C.A.M.A.T. INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
C.F.A.U., CONTINENTAL ASSURANCE COMPANY OF LONDON, LTD., CORNHILL
INSURANCE PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY (f/k/a CORNHILL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED), EDINBURGH ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., EDINBURGH INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED, EDINBURGH NO. 2 GROUP, ELVIA SWISS INSURANCE
COMPANY (f/k/a HELVETIA ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED),
EXCESS INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, FIDELIDADE INSURANCE COMPANY OF
LISBON, GE SPECIALTY INSURANCE (UK) LIMITED (f/k/a THREADNEEDLE
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED), GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY HELVETIA
LIMITED, GROUPAMA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (f/k/a MINISTER
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED), HELVETIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
HELVETIA SWISS INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (f/k/a HELVETIA ACCIDENT
SWISS INSURANCE COMPANY), IRON TRADES INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
(f/k/a IRON TRADES MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED), LA MINERVE
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, LOMBARD MARINE & GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD., LONDON & EDINBURGH GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LONDON
& OVERSEAS AVIATION A.C., MOTOR UNION INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY, NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA,
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, PHOENIX ASSURANCE PUBLIC
LIMITED COMPANY, PHOENIX AVIATION INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., RIVER THAMES INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED, ROAD TRANSPORT & GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., ROYAL
SCOTTISH ASSURANCE PLC (f/k/a THE ROYAL SCOTTISH INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED), SCOTTISH LION INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., STRONGHOLD
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, SWISS NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED, SWISS UNION GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
SWITZERLAND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, TRENT INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED, TUREGUM INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, ULSTER
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, UMA, UNITED SCOTTISH INSURANCE COMPANY
AVIATION LTD., UNITED SCOTTISH INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, VANGUARD
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, VICTORIA AVIATION, VICTORIA INSURANCE
COMPANY, LTD., and THE WORLD MARINE & GENERAL INSURANCE PLC (f/k/a
THE WORLD MARINE & GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED), Third-Party
Defendants. CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, FIDELITY & CASUALTY
COMPANY OF NEW YORK, COMMERCIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEWARK, N.J.,
and COLUMBIA CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiffs, v. HONEYWELL
INTERNATIONAL, INC. (f/k/a ALLIEDSIGNAL, INC., successor to BENDIX
AVIATION CORPORATION and BENDIX CORPORATION), Defendant-Appellant,
and ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-
Respondent, and AFFILIATED FM INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE
INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN
INSURANCE COMPANY, CALIFORNIA UNION INSURANCE COMPANY, CENTURY
INDEMNITY COMPANY, COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY as successor
to EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ASSURANCE CORPORATION, LTD., EMPLOYERS
INSURANCE OF WAUSAU, FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, GRANITE
STATE INSURANCE COMPANY, GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, HOME
INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, NATIONAL
UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA, NORTH RIVER
INSURANCE COMPANY, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, UNDERWRITERS AT
LLOYDS LONDON and CERTAIN LONDON MARKET COMPANIES, including ANGLO
SAXON INSURANCE ASSOC. LTD., DOMINION INSURANCE COMPANY, DRAKE
INSURANCE COMPANY, EAGLE STAR INSURANCE COMPANY, INSTITUTE OF
LONDON UNDERWRITERS, LONDON & EDINBURGH INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
PRUDENTIAL ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, and
WORLD AUXILIARY INSURANCE CORP., LTD., Defendants, and HONEYWELL
INTERNATIONAL, INC. (f/k/a ALLIEDSIGNAL, INC., successor to BENDIX
AVIATION CORPORATION and BENDIX CORPORATION), Defendant/Third-
Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY
(f/k/a AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY), Third-Party Defendant-
Respondent, and AIU INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN CENTENNIAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, ASSOCIATED INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
CENTRE INSURANCE COMPANY (f/k/a LONDON GUARANTEE AND ACCIDENT
COMPANY OF NEW YORK), CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, THE
CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY as successor in interest to HARBOR
INSURANCE COMPANY (f/k/a HARBOR INSURANCE COMPANY), EVEREST
REINSURANCE COMPANY (f/k/a PRUDENTIAL REINSURANCE COMPANY),
EXECUTIVE RISK INDEMNITY INC. (f/k/a AMERICAN EXCESS INSURANCE
COMPANY), FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, FIRST STATE INSURANCE
COMPANY, FREMONT INDEMNITY COMPANY (f/k/a INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY
COMPANY), GENERAL REINSURANCE CORPORATION, HARTFORD ACCIDENT &
INDEMNITY COMPANY, INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY (f/k/a
INTERNATIONAL SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY), LEXINGTON
INSURANCE COMPANY, MT. McKINLEY INSURANCE COMPANY (f/k/a GIBRALTAR
CASUALTY COMPANY), MUTUAL FIRE, MAINE & INLAND INSURANCE COMPANY,
ROYAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, THE TOKIO MARINE & FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY, LTD., TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, UTICA MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, WESTPORT INSURANCE COMPANY (f/k/a PURITAN
INSURANCE COMPANY), and CERTAIN LONDON MARKET COMPANIES, including
ACCIDENT & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ALBA GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY (f/k/a ALBA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED), AVIATION &
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, AXA INSURANCE PLC (f/k/a
PROVINCIAL INSURANCE PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY), THE BRITISH AVIATION
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRITISH LAW INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
BRITISH RESERVE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRITISH TRADERS
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., C.A.M.A.T. INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
C.F.A.U., CONTINENTAL ASSURANCE COMPANY OF LONDON, LTD., CORNHILL
INSURANCE PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY (f/k/a CORNHILL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED), EDINBURGH ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., EDINBURGH INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED, EDINBURGH NO. 2 GROUP, ELVIA SWISS INSURANCE
COMPANY (f/k/a HELVETIA ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED),
EXCESS INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, FIDELIDADE INSURANCE COMPANY OF
LISBON, GE SPECIALTY INSURANCE (UK) LIMITED (f/k/a THREADNEEDLE
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED), GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY HELVETIA
LIMITED, GROUPAMA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (f/k/a MINISTER
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED), HELVETIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
HELVETIA SWISS INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (f/k/a HELVETIA ACCIDENT
SWISS INSURANCE COMPANY), IRON TRADES INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
(f/k/a IRON TRADES MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED), LA MINERVE
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, LOMBARD MARINE & GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD., LONDON & EDINBURGH GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LONDON
& OVERSEAS AVIATION A.C., MOTOR UNION INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY, NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA,
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, PHOENIX ASSURANCE PUBLIC
LIMITED COMPANY, PHOENIX AVIATION INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., RIVER THAMES INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED, ROAD TRANSPORT & GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., ROYAL
SCOTTISH ASSURANCE PLC (f/k/a THE ROYAL SCOTTISH INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED), SCOTTISH LION INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., STRONGHOLD
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, SWISS NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED, SWISS UNION GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
SWITZERLAND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, TRENT INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED, TUREGUM INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, ULSTER
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, UMA, UNITED SCOTTISH INSURANCE COMPANY
AVIATION LTD., UNITED SCOTTISH INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, VANGUARD
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, VICTORIA AVIATION, VICTORIA INSURANCE
COMPANY, LTD., and THE WORLD MARINE & GENERAL INSURANCE PLC (f/k/a
THE WORLD MARINE & GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED), Third-Party
Defendants, Nos. A-1071-13T1, A-1100-13T1 (N.J. App. Div.).

Andrew T. Frankel, Esq. -- afrankel@stblaw.com argued the cause
for appellants St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company and
Travelers Casualty and Surety Company in A-1071-13 (Windels Marx
Lane & Mittendorf, L.L.P., and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, L.L.P.,
attorneys; Stefano V. Calogero, Esq. -- scalogero@windelsmarx.com
of counsel; Mr. Calogero and Mr. Frankel, on the joint brief).

Michael J. Lynch of the Pennsylvania bar, admitted pro hac vice,
argued the cause for respondent Honeywell International, Inc. in
A-1071-13 (K&L Gates L.L.P., Donald E. Seymour, Esq. --
donald.seymour@klgates.com  of the Pennsylvania bar, admitted pro
hac vice, John T. Waldron, III, Esq. -- john.waldron@klgates.com
of the Pennsylvania bar, admitted pro hac vice, and Mr. Lynch,
attorneys; Mr. Seymour, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Waldron, and Donald W.
Kiel, on the brief).

Donald W. Kiel, Esq. -- donald.kiel@klgates.com  argued the cause
for appellant Honeywell International, Inc. in A-1100-13 (K&L
Gates L.L.P., Donald E. Seymour of the Pennsylvania bar, admitted
pro hac vice, Melissa J. Tea, Esq. -- melissa.tea@klgates.com  of
the Pennsylvania bar, admitted pro hac vice, and John T. Waldron,
III of the Pennsylvania bar, admitted pro hac vice, attorneys; Mr.
Seymour, Mr. Waldron, Ms. Tea, and Mr. Kiel, on the brief).

Andrew T. Frankel argued the cause for respondents St. Paul Fire
and Marine Insurance Company and Travelers Casualty and Surety
Company in A-1100-13 (Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, L.L.P., and
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, L.L.P., attorneys; Stefano V.
Calogero, of counsel; Mr. Calogero, Mr. Frankel, and Tanya M.
Mascarich, on the joint brief).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling on Fireman Widow's Fatal Claim Remanded
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania vacated the Workers'
Compensation Appeals Board's order because Ursula Miele-Cole did
not establish that Decedent Jeffrey Cole had direct exposure to a
known carcinogen classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the
International Agency for Research on Cancer as required by Section
301(f) of the Act, and remanded the matter to the Board with
specific instructions to remand to the Workers' Compensation Judge
for further findings.

The City of Williamsport petitioned for review of an order of the
Board that affirmed the decision and order of a WCJ, which granted
Miele-Cole's fatal claim petition on behalf of her husband,
Jeffrey Cole, pursuant to Section 108(r) of the Workers'
Compensation Act, relating to cancers suffered by firefighters.

On March 15, 2012, the Claimant filed the claim petition, alleging
that the Decedent's death from gastric cancer in October 2011 was
causally related to his employment with Employer as a firefighter
from 1980 until the time of his death.  The Claimant based the
fatal claim petition on two occupational disease provisions of the
Act: Section 108(o), relating to diseases of the heart and lungs
caused by over-exertion or exposure to heat, smoke, fumes or gases
arising out of the duty of a firefighter. Employer filed an answer
denying all material allegations and issued a Notice of Workers'
Compensation Denial asserting that Decedent did not suffer a work-
related injury.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion dated July 18, 2016, is
available at https://is.gd/FchPJn from Leagle.com.

The case is captioned City of Williamsport, Petitioner, v.
Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Cole (Deceased)), Respondent,
No. 620 C.D. 2015 (Pa. Comm. Ct.).

Kristopher Aaron Kachline, Esq. -- kkachline@chartwelllaw.com --
The Chartwell Law Offices, LLP, Clifford A. Goldstein, Esq. --
cgoldstein@chartwelllaw.com -- The Chartwell Law Offices, LLP, for
Petitioner, City of Williamsport.

Richard R. Di Stefano, Esq. -- rdistefano@jslex.com -- Jennings
Sigmond, P.C., for Respondent, Jeffrey Cole.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magistrate Recommends Summary Judgment Grant
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware recommended granting the
motions for summary judgment filed by Defendants John Crane, Inc.,
Crane Co., Flowserve US Inc., Carver Pump Co., Sterling Fluid
Systems (USA) LLC, FMC Corp., Velan Valve Corp., Borg-Warner Morse
Tee LLC, and Cleaver-Brooks Inc.

Robert Lee Winhauer filed the asbestos action in the Delaware
Superior Court against multiple defendants on December 18, 2014,
asserting claims regarding alleged wrongful exposure to asbestos.
Defendant John Crane, Inc. removed the action to this court on
February 23, 2015.

The Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Winhauer developed mesothelioma as
a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products while
performing personal automotive maintenance work from the 1940's
through the 1990's, during his course of employment at Ingalls
Shipyard in Pascagoula, Mississippi from 1965 to 1976, and while
working at Courtaulds North America Rayon Staple Plant in Le
Moyne, Alabama from 1977 to 1998. Plaintiff asserts that
Defendants manufactured, sold, distributed, or designed the
products at issue, which allegedly contained, or were designed for
use with, asbestos-containing products.

After Mr. Winhauer's death, the complaint was amended to
substitute a representative of Mr. Winhauer's estate as the
plaintiff, and to add a wrongful death claim.

JCI filed it motion for summary judgment on March 3, 2016. The
remaining Defendants filed their respective motions on March 4,
2016. (D.I. 152, 155, 157, 159, 161-163 166, 169, 171, 173)
Plaintiff did not respond to the motions.

A full-text copy of the Report and Recommendation dated July 13,
2016 is available at https://is.gd/LFfT2W from Leagle.com.

The case is captioned ROBERT LEE WINHAUER, JR. Individually and as
Executor of the Estate of ROBERT LEE WINHAUER, and on behalf of
all Wrongful Death beneficiaries, Plaintiff, v. AIR & LIQUID
SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-
00177-RGA-SRF (D. Del.).

Robert Lee Winhauer, Jr., Plaintiff, is represented by David W.
deBruin, Esq. -- The deBruin Firm LLC, Gemma R. Galeoto, Esq. --
ggaleoto@dykema.com -- pro hac vice & Samuel I. Iola, Esq. -- pro
hac vice.

Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC, Defendant, is represented by Matthew P.
Donelson, Esq. -- mdonelson@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans
Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

Carver Pump Company, Defendant, is represented by Neal C. Glenn,
Esq. -- nglenn@kjmsh.com -- Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna
LLP & Daniel Partick Daly, Esq. -- ddaly@kjmsh.com -- Kelley
Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Cleaver-Brooks Inc., Defendant, is represented by James J.
Horning, Jr., Esq. -- jhorning@rjm-law.com -- Reilly, Janiczek,
McDevitt, Henrich & Cholden, P.C. & Stephanie S. Levitsky, Esq. --
slevitsky@rjm-law.com -- Reilly Janiczek & McDevitt PC.

Crane Co., Defendant, is represented by Nicholas E. Skiles, Esq. -
- nskiles@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward
Martyniak, Esq. -- smartyniak@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz
Campbell LLC.

Flowserve US Inc., Defendant, is represented by Bernadette M.
Plaza, Esq. -- bplaza@goldfeinlaw.com --  Goldfein & Joseph &
Willard F. Preston, III, Esq. -- wpreston@goldfeinlaw.com --
Goldfein & Joseph.

FMC Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Neal C. Glenn,
Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP & Daniel Partick Daly,
Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

General Electric Company, Defendant, is represented by Beth E.
Valocchi, bvalocchi@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell LLC.
Honeywell International Inc., Defendant, is represented by Joelle
Florax, Esq. -- jflorax@rawle.com -- Rawle & Henderson LLP &
Stephanie Michelle Smith, Esq. -- ssmith@rawle.com -- Rawle &
Henderson LLP.

IMO Industries Inc., Defendant, is represented by Eileen M. Ford,
Esq. -- eford@moodklaw.com -- Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty &
Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Esq.  --
mmantzavinos@moodklaw.com -- Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty &
Kelly, P.C..

Ingersoll Rand Company, Defendant, is represented by Jessica Lee
Tyler, Esq. -- JLTyler@mdwcg.com -- Marshall, Dennehey, Warner,
Coleman & Goggin.

John Crane Inc., Defendant, is represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Esq. -- Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by
Sally J. Daugherty, Esq. -- Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP.

Sterling Fluid Systems (USA) LLC, Defendant, is represented by
Neal C. Glenn, Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP & Daniel
Partick Daly, Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Velan Valve Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Donald
Robert Kinsley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC & Paul A.
Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC.

Cleaver-Brooks Inc., Cross Defendant, is represented by Stephanie
S. Levitsky, Reilly Janiczek & McDevitt PC.

Crane Co., Cross Defendant, is represented by Nicholas E. Skiles,
Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC.
IMO Industries Inc., Cross Defendant, is represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

Ingersoll Rand Company, Cross Defendant, is represented by Jessica
Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

John Crane Inc., Cross Defendant, is represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

Robert Lee Winhauer, Jr., Cross Defendant, is represented by David
W. deBruin, The deBruin Firm LLC, Gemma R. Galeoto & Samuel I.
Iola.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duty of Care Can Extend Beyond Spouse, Ct. Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
The "Olivo" duty of care may, in proper circumstances, extend
beyond a spouse of a worker exposed to the toxin that is the basis
for a take-home toxic-tort theory of liability, the Supreme Court
of New Jersey held in the case captioned BRENDA ANN SCHWARTZ and
PAUL GRANT SCHWARTZ, Appellants-Appellants, v. ACCURATUS
CORPORATION, In Its Own Right and as Successor in Interest to
Accuratus Ceramic Corporation, Respondents-Respondents, and
MATERION BRUSH INC., C/O CT Corporation System, Defendant, Nos.
076195, A-73 September Term 2014 (N.J. Sup.).

The issue in Olivo was "whether a landowner can be liable for
injuries allegedly caused from asbestos exposure experienced by
the wife of a worker who had performed welding and steam fitting
tasks that brought him into contact with asbestos on the
landowner's premises." Based on the facts as presented in Olivo's
summary judgment record and considerations of fairness and
justness, the SUpreme Court of New Jersey recognized a duty owed
to spouses allegedly injured from "handling the workers'
unprotected work clothing based on the foreseeable risk of
exposure from asbestos borne home on contaminated clothing."

In this case, the Third Circuit was asked: "Does the premises
liability rule set forth in Olivo extend beyond providing a duty
of care to the spouse of a person exposed to toxic substances on
the landowner's premises, and, if so, what are the limits on that
liability rule and the associated scope of duty?"

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated July 6, 2016, is available
at https://is.gd/RCTmxE  from Leagle.com.

Ruben Honik, Esq. -- rhonik@golombhonik.com -- argued the cause
for appellants (Golomb & Honik, attorneys).

Joseph G. Harraka, Jr., Esq. -- jgharraka@becker.legal -- argued
the cause for respondents (Becker Meisel, attorneys; Mr. Harraka,
David G. Tomeo, Esq. -- dtomeo@becker.legal -- and A. Wesley
Bridges, Jr., Esq. -- wbridges@becker.legal  on the brief).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Prosecutions Difficult Due to Defense
------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Scopelianos, writing for ABC News, reported that a lack of
evidence and companies' use of "a mistake of fact defence" are
hampering Australian Border Force's ability to prosecute against
the importation of asbestos.

Key findings from a KGH Border Services report commissioned by the
Immigration Department found there was confusion about policy and
regulatory responsibilities, and there was no dedicated trade and
good customer function for people to seek advice about asbestos.

The department released the report after the ABC recently revealed
asbestos was slipping into the country from China and other Asian
countries in building materials and had been used on several
building sites.

The ABC revealed Australian Border Force was only testing a small
fraction of shipments each year for the deadly substance and a
Chinese company was claiming it made 100 per cent asbestos-free
products, but exported contaminiated fibre cement board to two
Adelaide companies.

The report noted the deadly material, which was banned from sale,
use and importation in 2003 in Australia, had been recently found
in children's crayons, automobile gaskets and spare parts.

'Differing standards' on chrysotile

It also noted "asbestos continues to be widely used
internationally" and the "differing standards" about chrysotile, a
type of asbestos, was not recognised as a dangerous by some
countries.

Border Force said since 2013 it had finalised 10 investigations
but declined to detail the number of prosecutions.

The report found there had been "a limited number of full
investigations" and prosecutions of asbestos-related offences
because it was "difficult" for the department to prosecute against
a mistake of fact defence.

The defence mitigates an importer's liability for the product if
they can provide evidence that they had exercised due diligence
against the goods containing asbestos.

A certificate from an overseas laboratory showing the goods were
asbestos free could be enough evidence for a court to find the
importer had done its best to meet standards, the report stated.

"Lack of available evidence, which can only be gathered by
undertaking a full investigation, makes it difficult to develop
strong prospects of successful prosecution," the report read.

The report found Border Force's management was effective but there
were organisation and technical improvements that could be made
including educating major trading partner countries about
Australian laws; maximise targeting of high-risk goods by
enhancing current risk profiling; and streamline and publish
external guidance on sampling methodology and testing techniques.

Nick Xenophon Team (NXT) leader Nick Xenophon said he would
introduce legislation to enforce mandatory testing of products
imported from countries that do not have appropriate asbestos
regulatory systems in place.

Senator Xenophon said the current ban on asbestos was not working.

"My concern is that Border Force has not given this the priority
it deserves, given that asbestos exposure can and does kill right
now 700 Australian each year," he said.

"We don't want to see another tsunami of asbestos cases in 30 or
40 years time even though it's been banned for use in this country
for many years."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aussie Guards Says No Time to Stop Imports
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Burrell, writing for The Australian, reported that
companies importing goods riddled with deadly asbestos are not
being fully investigated by Australian Border Force due to "time
and resources" constraints and the uncertainty of prosecution, a
review of Australia's asbestos border controls has found.

Amid revelations that authorities have prosecuted only three
companies for importing asbestos since 2008, the report calls on
the federal government to more forcefully pursue the offence and
to work with China to educate suppliers about Australian laws.

The independent review by Swedish firm KGH Border Services --
completed in March -- will be released by the Department of
Immigration.

It recommends the ABF move to "prioritise" prosecutions, noting
asbestos had recently been detected in Australia in building
materials, children's crayons, motor vehicle gaskets and spare
parts.

But it reveals the ABF's investigation division has decided
against fully-investigating several recent referrals it received
for asbestos-related offences due to the "time and resources
implications" needed to pursue them and the "uncertainty of
outcomes".

The release of the review comes amid an outcry led by unions and
business groups over the rising incidence of Chinese-made building
products contaminated with asbestos slipping through border
controls. The ABF halted 21 containers sourced from Chinese-owned
company Yuanda after its building materials at the $1.2 billion
Perth Children's Hospital and the 1 William Street office tower in
Brisbane were found to contain white asbestos, or chrysotile. Work
to rectify the problem is expected to cost millions of dollars.

The Australian reported that a South Australian company had
imported more than 8000 cement sheets laced with asbestos from
China in 2010 and 2011, triggering an investigation by the ABF and
Safework SA.

It has emerged in recent weeks that the maximum fine for
illegally importing asbestos -- $180,000 -- has never been
imposed in Australia.

The Asbestos Industry Association, which represents businesses
engaged in abating the hazardous material, says the ABF checks
less than 5 per cent of all products imported into the country.
The rising concerns over asbestos come as the peak national
welding body also demands a new certification regime to ensure
compliance with Australian standards amid claims that about 85 per
cent of imported fabricated steel coming into the country failed
to meet Australian standards.

The KGH report noted that it was often difficult for the
Department of Immigration and Border Protection to prosecute
against a "mistake of fact" defence, in which an importer argues
it took all reasonable steps to prevent the infringement.

An overseas laboratory testing certificate showing goods were
"asbestos free" could convince a court to find in favour of an
importer even where the testing did not comply with Australian
standards.

But the review found the department could contribute to more
successful prosecutions by gathering more evidence at an earlier
stage. "Lack of available evidence, which can only be gathered by
undertaking a full investigation, makes it difficult to develop
strong prospects of successful prosecution," it said.

The report found that a lack of available technologies had limited
the Department of Immigration and Border Control's ability to keep
asbestos out of the country.

"Non-intrusive inspection equipment currently used by the DIBP,
such as X-Ray scanning equipment, does not detect asbestos
content," it said. "There are currently no proven field asbestos
detection devices available on the market."

Most of the government's processes for managing the importation of
asbestos were found to be "effective" but the department should:

   * Engage with countries such as China by working with
Australian chambers of commerce and Australian diplomats to ensure
foreign suppliers complied with Australian laws;

   * Target more high-risk goods by enhancing risk profiling
processes to ensure importers cannot change trade habits and
reporting practices to avoid matches on existing profiles;

   * Establish a dedicated customer service charter that outlines
the department's service standards and expectations of importing
industries;

   * Promote voluntary compliance through better engagement with
industry, the public and other stakeholders.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Punitive Damaged Claims OK'd to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------
Zack Needles, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reported that a
Lackawanna County trial judge has allowed plaintiffs in an
asbestos case to move forward with punitive damage claims against
two boiler manufacturers.

In a July 26 ruling, Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas Judge
Terrence R. Nealon said the plaintiffs in Horst v. Union Carbide
sufficiently established factual issues as to whether the
management of defendants Lennox Industries Inc. and Weil-McLain
appreciated the risks of asbestos exposure and either acted or
failed to act in conscious disregard of that risk.

Nealon did, however, grant defendant Burnham's motion for partial
summary judgment on the punitive damage claims, finding that the
plaintiffs relied on the testimony of the chief engineer in
Burnham's commercial engineering department, who did not join the
company until 1984, six years after plaintiff I. Robert Horst Jr.
last alleged asbestos exposure.

Burnham's engineer did not testify as to the company's awareness
of the risks of asbestos exposure prior to 1984, Nealon said.

"The Horsts [Robert Horst and his wife, Diane Horst] have
presented no other evidence that a Burnham representative had a
subjective appreciation of the risk of harm from exposure to
asbestos," Nealon said.

"In contrast," Nealon added, "the Horsts have produced evidence
that managerial representatives of Lennox and Weil-McLain were
aware that asbestos reportedly caused lung diseases prior to and
during the 1970-1978 period of Mr. Horst's alleged exposure."

Lennox, Weil-McLain and Burnham filed their motions for summary
judgment on the punitive damage claims after Nealon previously
tossed out punitive damage claims defendants Trane US, Carrier
Corporation, Peerless Industries Inc. and Rheem Manufacturing Co.,
but allowed them to proceed against Georgia-Pacific and Kaiser
Gypsum Co.

The plaintiffs put forth evidence that in November 1968, the
manager of Lennox's design experimentation department sent a
letter to the Johns-Manville Corp. asking for information about
the possible dangers of lung disease posed by asbestos and the
following January received in response a pamphlet called "Asbestos
and Human Health," according to Nealon.

The pamphlet said investigators had associated mesothelioma with
asbestos exposure and that Johns-Manville had been striving to
eliminate asbestos dust exposure through the installations of
filters, ventilators, dust-collecting devices and individual
respirators, according to Nealon.

The Johns-Manville literature said that where dust control
measures were taken, the risk of lung diseases was reduced.
Despite this, Lennox's counsel had argued during oral argument in
the Horst case that the company had no reason to place warning
labels on its asbestos-containing products, according to Nealon.
Weil-McLain's corporate representative testified that the company
knew of the dangers of asbestos exposure as early as 1972 but did
not include any warnings on its asbestos-containing cement or rope
at the time, Nealon said.

In addition, according to Nealon, the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration cited Weil-McLain in 1974 to maintaining
higher-than-acceptable levels of asbestos and failing to perform
asbestos dust monitoring. Even after the OSHA citation, however,
the company failed to place warnings on its asbestos-containing
boilers or to provide instructions on how to safely dismantle and
remove those boilers.

Counsel for the Horsts, Chad Cotten of Baron & Budd in Dallas,
declined to comment.

Counsel for Lennox, Barbara J. Buba of Wilbraham, Lawler & Buba in
Philadelphia, also could not be reached. Nor could Weil-McLain's
attorney, Joseph Cagnoli Jr. of Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney
in Philadelphia.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IR Minister Says Fibres Found in Hospitals
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amy Remeikis, writing for Brisbane Times, reported that the
Queensland government has stepped up its attack against its
federal counterpart over the importation of asbestos materials
after the deadly fibres were found on construction sites across
the nation.

Industrial Relations Minister Grace Grace, who has previously
written to Peter Dutton, the minister in charge of border
protection, over the issue said a "lack of action" from the
federal government was "completely unacceptable".

Ms Grace said the fibres had been found in electrical switch
rooms, children's hospitals in Perth, the new Queensland
government executive building, vehicle spare parts "and children's
crayons" since the ban and was posing a "significant" health risk
to workers.

"In this country asbestos has been banned since 2003 and we are
now finding that goods containing asbestos are not being stopped
at the border and they are coming not only into Australian shores,
but into work places in this state and other states around
Australia," she said.

"We believe that there has been a complete lack of action over the
importation of goods containing asbestos and the lack of
resources, there has been a lack of action in enforcing the ban
that Australia has had over asbestos-containing materials since
2003 and there has been a lack of action in prosecuting illegal
importers and this is simply not acceptable.

"It is a very dangerous product and it is one that we have to be
forever vigilant on, because the ramifications are that somebody
literally loses their life."

Ms Grace again called on the federal government to release a
review into the nation's asbestos border control management and
follow through on its recommendations.

The department had previously advised that the report contained
internal border control processes information and would be kept
confidential.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dura Debris Pile Soon To Be Cleaned-up
-------------------------------------------------------
Lonnie Huhman, writing for Lenconnect.com, reported that a
solution is on the horizon for the large pile of junk at the
former Dura plant.

After taking questions during the public comment portion of
Monday's city commission meeting, Adrian City Administrator Shane
Horn updated the city commission and the public present on the
cleanup of the site at 365 East Beecher St. The site
previously was home to a 157,000-square-foot building that housed
an automobile supplier specializing in the manufacture of
convertible tops.

The site is owned by Lenawee County through tax reversion, but
it's within the city. Adrian officials know it's an eyesore and a
public health hazard, and therefore have made it a priority this
year to get it cleaned up with help from the Environmental
Protection Agency.

Horn said city officials met with EPA representatives last week.
"We expect the cleanup to begin mid-August and be completed by the
end of the month," he said.

Adrian United founder Scott Jay Smith asked about the Dura mess
during public comment. He said he's had many community members ask
him about the status of the cleanup. Now he has an answer.

"I'm overjoyed that we now have a timeline for work to begin,"
Smith said. "Administrator Horn has done an amazing job with
staying on top of this."

Late last year, Adrian and Lenawee County officials turned to the
EPA for help, both financially and with enforcement. Both the city
and EPA have conducted environmental tests at the site.

As a result of the previous demolition activities, the EPA-
sponsored report issued earlier this year stated non-asbestos-
containing material items and debris in the waste piles have been
contaminated with asbestos. It's estimated there is 1,000 cubic
yards of debris on the site.

The report states the largest pile of debris, estimated to be 700
cubic yards, contains large amounts of asbestos. A bulk sample of
white insulating material found in the large pile near Beecher
Road contains material with 70 percent chrysotile asbestos.

In addition to the cleanup, Horn said, the EPA will work to hold
the former owners of the Dura site accountable for leaving the
mess behind, especially with the cost.

"It's going to be great to finally see that site cleaned up," Horn
said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ayrshire Beaches Searched for Asbestos
-------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Wilson, writing for Daily Record, reported that a string of
beaches across Ayrshire have been searched for asbestos following
the closure of Prestwick promenade.

The shorelines at Ayr, Barassie, Newton and Troon faced checks
after the shock discovery last week.

Trawls took place to give the all-clear, but Prestwick remained
closed -- some five DAYS after it was shut following the health
warning.

A member of the public stumbled across the potentially lethal
fibres while out for a walk with his granddaughter on Friday.

The shock find has plunged the popular Prestwick Prom event into
doubt, with the event set to attract thousands to the beach in
just 10 days.

Council neighbourhood chief Mike Newall said: "We ask locals and
visitors alike to follow the warning signs and stay off the beach
for the time being."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Biz Fined GBP100K After Unsafe Asbestos Removal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Muhammad Aldalou, writing for Insider Media Limited, reported that
a Hertfordshire-based home improvement business has been fined
GBP100,000 after the unsafe removal of asbestos material from a
domestic property.

St Albans Magistrates' Court heard was told how Ace of Hearts Home
Improvement Ltd removed asbestos containing materials from a
domestic property in St Albans.

The Asbestos Insulation Board soffits surrounding the underside of
the guttering around the front, gable end and back of the property
had been dismantled in an unsafe manner creating the serious risk
of respiratory exposure of asbestos fibres to the two workers and
the residents of the property.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive into the
incident, which occurred on 25 Sept 2015, found that the company
was not licensed to remove asbestos.

Ace of Hearts Home Improvement, of Alldicks Road in Hemel
Hempstead, was fined GBP100,000 and ordered to pay costs of
GBP2,118.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Testing Underway in 68 Buildings in Sydney
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jayne Margetts, writing for ABC News, reported that testing for
asbestos is underway in 68 buildings across Australia including
Sydney's Chris O'Brien Lifehouse after the deadly substance was
found at Perth Children's Hospital and a Brisbane office tower.

All of the buildings had been supplied with products from Yuanda -
- a manufacturer in China -- where asbestos is legal.

Brad Parker, the national assistant secretary of the Construction
Forestry, Mining and Energy sector Union (CFMEU) construction
division said he is concerned for his members.

"It's building workers in this country who are exposed or
potentially exposed to this deadly product and the end result of
that of course is this deadly disease, asbestosis and mesothelioma
and it's a terrible long, suffering death and it's just
horrendous," Mr Parker said.

Other buildings under scrutiny include the Westfield shopping
centre in Sydney's CBD, and the Star Casino at Pyrmont.

Tests on three sites at Barangaroo have returned negative results.

CEO of the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency Peter Tighe said
workers would assume buildings constructed since an asbestos ban
was imposed in 2003 were free of the substance.

"The problem is someone comes in to do refurbishment work or to
make some adjustment because there's a change in the facade or in
the ceiling tiles, they don't know they're working with an
asbestos containing material," he said.

A spokesman for Yuanda said it has now appointed an independent
consultant to test all of the buildings it supplied products to.

"We have appointed independent consultants... to test every single
one of the 68 locations nationally where our products have been
used," the spokesman said.

"We encourage building owners or managers to take advantage of
this free service, to ensure peace of mind for owners, managers,
tenants and residents."

Putting Yuanda in charge bad move: union

Mr Parker said putting Yuanda in charge of testing was a bad move.

"That's like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse, that's not
a good result," he said.

He said independent testing should be carried out by the regulator
SafeWork NSW.

But Peter Dunphy, executive director of SafeWork NSW said he will
be keeping a close eye on Yuanda.

"We get the full results, we will follow up and we will actually
be doing site visits to confirm and to verify and doing our own
assessment and testing if necessary," Mr Dunphy said.
Mr Parker said it was "disgraceful" that so many buildings in
Sydney may be affected.

"You've got the Chris O'Brien Lifehouse, which was a purpose-built
building for cancer patients that could contain asbestos, cancer
causing product. This needs to be looked at."

Senator calls for tighter border controls

A spokesman for Lifehouse told the ABC Yuanda supplied some of its
external aluminium cladding and insulation.

But he said the material used here was not the same as that used
in buildings in Brisbane and Perth where asbestos was found.

Independent Senator Nick Xenophon is now calling for the mandatory
testing of all building products from China and other countries
where asbestos is legal.

"My concern is that Border Force has not given this the priority
it deserves, given that asbestos exposure can and does kill right
now 700 Australian each year."
Mr Tighe has backed the call for tougher border controls.

"While you've got a ban in place if you don't keep due diligence
in place in relation to imports the ban can mean nothing, we're
trying to remove asbestos, we don't want more coming in."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Royal Hobart Hospital Scare Prompts Audit Call
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tamara Glumac, writing for ABC News, reported that unions are
demanding a full audit of all construction areas at the Royal
Hobart Hospital after another asbestos scare.

In the latest incident, a tradesman disturbed vinyl cladding that
may contain asbestos in the hospital's D-block construction zone.

The worker was the only person present and no staff or patients
were affected.

Testing is now underway to determine whether the cladding contains
asbestos.

The scare comes less than a week after 40 staff were relocated
from another part of the hospital where asbestos fell from the
ceiling.

Unions Tasmania has met with the redevelopment's managing
contractor and hospital management, calling for an asbestos audit.

The union's Kevin Harkins wants every construction area properly
examined before tradesmen enter.

"The problem is they're relying on old asbestos registers to see
if people are going to be exposed or not," he said.

"Given that there have been at least five exposures to asbestos so
far we want a full audit of any work area before work commences
and we want all asbestos removed from that area before any other
trade goes in there."

The union also plans to make a formal request to Health Minister
Michael Ferguson.

"We want it to be very clear that we expect Government support to
protect the workers on the site," Mr Harkins said.

"It's inadvertent exposure ... They (workers) may be exposed and
not even know and depending on the type of asbestos and a number
of other factors obviously it can end in death."

The union has acknowledged the proposal would be costly but said
worker safety must come first.

In a statement, the Royal Hobart Hospital Redevelopment's project
director Ben Moloney said contractors have worked on the site with
the understanding asbestos materials are present and have acted
accordingly.

He said every worker has also been required to undertake asbestos
awareness training.

The Health Minister was unavailable for comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Philly Asbestos Filings Off 2015's Pace
--------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Malfitano, writing for PennRecord, reported that
asbestos-related filings in Philadelphia's Complex Litigation
Center have, so far, slightly decreased from 2015 through the
first half of 2016.

A statistical analysis provided by the CLC showed asbestos filings
are down to 560 pending cases this year as of July 1 -- from 592
pending through the end of last year.

The figures also show that 102 new asbestos cases were filed in
the CLC as of the end of June, which would put the pace on track
to reach 204 new cases by the end of the year. This projected
total would be the lowest since 2008's 182, and down a full 126
cases from 2013's record of 330.

The statistics also show that 136 asbestos cases were disposed of
in the CLC through the end of June.

Last year, in 2015, a total of 259 asbestos cases were filed in
the CLC. Among them, 101 concerned plaintiffs afflicted with
mesothelioma, known to be among the most valuable asbestos-related
claims; 92 were from plaintiffs with lung cancer; and 41 were from
plaintiffs with non-malignant disease.

Further, approximately 339 asbestos cases were disposed of in the
CLC in 2015.

In a larger sense, the 560 asbestos actions currently pending in
the CLC represent 10.2 percent of the organization's total case
load, listed for the moment at 5,495 as of the end of June.

Per analysis using standards from the American Bar Association, of
the 136 asbestos cases were disposed of in the CLC through the end
of June and over at least the preceding three-year period of more:
8.1 percent (11 cases) were concluded within six months; 10.3
percent (14 cases) were concluded within 13 months; 40.4 percent
(55 cases) were concluded within 19 months; 61.8 percent (84
cases) were concluded within 25 months; 77.2 percent (105 cases)
were concluded within 30 months; 85.3 percent (116 cases) were
concluded within 36 months and all cases were concluded after more
than 36 months.

For the 102 new asbestos cases filed so far in 2016, 41 percent
(42 cases) were from out-of-state plaintiffs. Throughout all of
2015, 258 asbestos cases were filed in the CLC. Among them, 33
percent (84 cases) were from out-of-state plaintiffs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: High Level Asbestos Found at School
----------------------------------------------------
Jeanne Moreno, writing for tapinto.net, reported that elevated
levels of asbestos have been found at South End School located on
Harper Terrace in Cedar Grove, according to the Superintendent of
Schools Michael Fetherman.

This announcement comes just after the Board of Education reported
that high levels of asbestos had been discovered at North End
School, which resulted in suspension of construction and which
will likely make the school unready to open on the first day of
classes, which is Sept. 12.

According to Fetherman, after discovering asbestos at North End,
the board directed that South End School also be tested due to the
similar nature of the work being completed and the age of the
school. Elevated levels of asbestos were discovered throughout the
school on July 29 and the building was immediately closed and
construction halted.

The Board met with environmental consultants who have advised that
the exposure in South End is far less severe than that at North
End, Fetherman said via email.  According to the email, asbestos
remediation began at South End and the board is coordinating the
remediation and construction so that South End can be ready for
the first day of school.

"The board is committed to providing clean and safe educational
environments for all of Cedar Grove's staff and students.
Therefore, the remediation will be conducted in accordance with
strict guidelines affecting that work," Fetherman said in an email
to parents. "However, at this time we cannot predict if South End
will be ready for the first day of school."

Fetherman said that on or around Aug. 12, the board should be able
to predict whether the work at South End will be completed in
time. He also said that the board is still waiting to hear back
from its insurance carriers on a coverage decision.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Another Asbestos Scare at Royal Hobart Hosp.
-------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that there has been another asbestos scare at
the Royal Hobart Hospital -- the second in a week.

The project director of the Royal Hobart Hospital redevelopment
has assured the public that no patients or staff were present when
potentially asbestos-containing material was disturbed by a
tradesman.

In a statement Ben Moloney said a tradesman disturbed vinyl
cladding on a wall, which was similar to cladding elsewhere in the
hospital that contains asbestos, in the D-Block construction zone.

Mr Moloney said the area was cleaned and the room was sealed.

"As a precautionary measure, work immediately stopped in order to
assess whether the vinyl cladding in the construction area
contained asbestos and if the disturbance potentially released
asbestos fibres," he said.

Samples from the area and from a respirator the tradesman was
wearing have been sent for testing, with results expected within
days.

The worker was the only person present when the cladding was
disturbed.

Mr Moloney said asbestos was common in old buildings and the
redevelopment had properly managed the asbestos risk.

"From day one contractors have worked on the site with the
understanding asbestos materials are present and have acted
accordingly," he said.
"That is why as part of site inductions, every worker is required
to undergo asbestos awareness training."

About 40 staff in the hospital's F-block had to be moved after
asbestos fell from ceiling material in an office space.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CJ Orders Removal of Asbestos from Court Roof
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jayanta Gupta, writing for The Times of India, reported that Chief
Justice Manjula Chellur of Calcutta high court, on Friday,
observed that she has already directed authorities to remove
asbestos and asphalt from the roofs of the court building. The
bench was hearing a petition moved by Ashis Mitra, a resident of
Tarak Dutta Road in Kolkata, seeking removal of carcinogenic
asbestos and asphalt from the roof of the court. Chief Justice
Chellur adjourned the matter for two weeks after which it will be
checked if the asbestos and asphalt have been removed.
Latest Comment

When is she going to come clean on TMC bribery case? In her next
birth? The idiot incompetent Chellur always "makes observations"
and then goes on hibernation, till next case comes.
W B New

The petition against the use of asbestos and asphalt on the roof
of the second floor of the main court building was moved by
Mitra's counsel Phiroze Edulji on May 18. Justice Dipankar Datta
had then expressed shock and listed the matter for a later date.
The matter was later released by him and reverted to the chief
justice's bench. On Friday, when advocate Rajdeep Biswas brought
the matter to the court's notice, Chief Justice Chellur made her
observations.

Mitra had earlier written to the PWD department and high court
registrars but no action was taken. Asbestos and asphalt are used
on the roofs of at least 10 courtrooms and the portico outside,
five Bar Association rooms, the Bar Library, study room of the Bar
Association and the department of 1st Assistant Registrar. The
carcinogenic material used for roofing poses a health risk to
litigants, judges and lawyers, it has been pointed out by the
petitioner.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Umi St. Families To Be Displaced Due to Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
Manolo Morales, writing for KHON2.com, reported that Umi Street
flood victims are looking at two more months before they can move
back into their homes.

The property manager tells us walls and some of the flooring will
have to taken out. Before that's done, each unit will have to be
tested for asbestos.

So now the families are challenged with finding a place to stay
for that long.

We wanted to know what's being done to speed up the process.

In this case, the councilman for the district, Joey Manahan, is
trying to help, and he's asked the Institute for Human Services to
find housing for the flood victims.

After days of hosing down their homes to get the mud out, and
picking through their belongings to see what they can save,
residents of Hale Umi Condominiums face another challenge. Where
can they stay for the next two months?

At least four families need help.

"We just gotta make do with what we have until we find more room
or another place," said flood victim Aaron Meyer.

Some families are lucky enough that their homes are still livable,
but even they will have to move out so that their units can be
completely cleaned out.

Manahan says IHS, the agency that works with the homeless, is
talking to the families to help them find low-cost housing.

"Through our service providers, they're able to work with other
landlords in the city to be able to place folks into an apartment
into a studio depending on the need," he said.

Meyer is among those in need, but affordability is the key. He's
already paying mortgage and maintenance fees for the home that he
can't live in.

"We gotta find out all the details, so if it's affordable for us,
if we could afford it, just go from there and see what happens,"
Meyer said.

We asked an expert who deals with flood victims if the process of
cleaning out the homes can be done any faster.

"Two months does not sound out of the ballpark if you've got
pretty extensive damage in nine units like that," said mediator
Chuck Crumpton.

He says the important thing is to get the right experts in there
to make sure that mold, fungus, asbestos, and anything that can
cause health problems is handled properly.

"Getting the right experts in there early on can really speed
things up and not doing that can really slow things down a lot,"
Crumpton said.

The property manager says testing for asbestos will start on
Monday, so temporary housing will be needed by then.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thornlie Resident Finds Asbestos in Fence
----------------------------------------------------------
Francis Curro, writing for Community News, reported that Thornlie
resident Norm Thompson could not believe it when he was told his
fence had asbestos in it.

When the 70-year-old got a quote for the removal of the fence
after a tree fell on it , two fencing removal companies told him
there was asbestos in the fence.

One quote also listed an extra $1360 charge to remove the asbestos
from his fence as it is dangerous to remove and those working on
it must wear protective gear.

Mr Thompson said the home was built in 1985 and he purchased it in
1987 and never thought the fence would have asbestos in it.

"This must be happening at homes all over the suburbs," he said.

He called the council to remove the asbestos from the fence.

City of Gosnells chief executive Ian Cowie said it was important
to note that local government approval was generally not required
for dividing fences.

"The City does not have a policy regarding asbestos as issues
relating to asbestos are governed by the State Government's Health
(Asbestos) Regulations 1992," he said.

Mr Thompson said he wanted to warn people because he believed
there would be more residents that may not realise they have
asbestos in their fences.

Asbestos Diseases Society of Australia president Robert Vojakovic
said one way around the issue was to spray paint fences.

"If you buy paint and spray it on the fence it can prevent the
release of the fibres," he said.

"A lot of houses still have it."

Mr Thompson said he did not worry about personally getting a
sickness from the asbestos as turns 71 next month.

He said he was more worried about children.

For more information, people can contact the society on 1800 646
690 or www.asbestosdiseases.org.au.

Facts box

Generally, if your house was built before the mid-1980s it is
highly likely that it has asbestos-containing products; between
the mid-1980s and 1990 it is likely that it has asbestos
containing products; after 1990 it is unlikely that it has
asbestos-containing products.

The vast majority of asbestos-containing products used in houses
were bonded asbestos cement materials, including roofing, shingles
and siding, exterior and interior wall cladding, eaves, fencing,
thermal boards around fireplaces and water or flue pipes.

Some friable asbestos products may also be found in houses, spray-
on insulation or soundproofing low-density asbestos fibre board,
insulation on hot-water pipes, domestic heaters and stoves (e.g.
lagging), backing material on floor tiles and vinyl flooring,
textured paints, decorative ceiling coatings and heat-resistant
fabrics.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Risk Does Not Decline Over Time
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Strauss, writing for Surviving Mesothelioma, reported that
another published study is highlighting one of the most deadly
aspects of malignant peritoneal mesothelioma -- the fact that risk
for the disease remains high even decades after asbestos exposure
has ended.

This latest study is focused on peritoneal mesothelioma, a form of
mesothelioma that begins on the membrane that surrounds the
abdominal organs.

Although asbestos is now widely known to be the primary cause of
mesothelioma, the Italian team that conducted the new research
observes that few studies have been able to quantify the risk of
peritoneal mesothelioma in the decades after exposure has stopped.

Peritoneal Mesothelioma Risk in Textile Workers
The study, conducted by scientists at several Italian
universities, used as its subject a group of former textile
workers. The group included 1,083 women and 894 men who were known
to have been heavily exposed to asbestos, although the exposure
was sometimes short-lived.

Among the 1,977 former textile workers, 1,019 had died. The
researchers found that these workers were 29% more likely to die
of peritoneal mesothelioma than the general public. These workers
also had a 33% higher-than-average risk of dying of pleural
mesothelioma.

The risk of these asbestos-exposed textile workers to die of lung
cancer or ovarian cancer was also elevated.

No Decline in Mesothelioma Risk Over Time
One of the most important -- and disturbing -- findings of the
study is that, although the risk of lung cancer began to drop off
25 years after exposure, the risk of contracting either pleural or
peritoneal mesothelioma did not decline over time.

"The findings of this unique cohort provide novel data for
peritoneal cancer, indicating that -- as for pleural cancer -- the
excess risk does not decline up to several decades after cessation
of exposure," writes Professor Enrico Pira, MD, PhD, with the
Department of Public Health Science and Pediatrics at Turin
University.

The Biopersistence of Asbestos
One of the reasons that mesothelioma risk remains high among
workers like the Italian textile employees even decades after
asbestos exposure has ended is a quality called "biopersistence".

Asbestos fibers are said to be biopersistent because their size
and shape make it extremely difficult for the body to rid itself
of them. The irritation and inflammation that happens at the
cellular level because of continuous exposure to sharp, iron-rich
asbestos fibers, is believed to trigger mesothelioma in some
people. Studies have shown that certain genetic factors can
compound the risk.

As with many cancers, mesothelioma survival is highest among
people who are diagnosed earliest. People who know they have been
exposed to asbestos, even if it was decades in the past, should
see their doctor regularly and should be aware of mesothelioma
symptoms, including fatigue, chest pain, breathing difficulty and
cough.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Accused of Exposing Workers
-------------------------------------------------------
Alex Nixon, writing for TribLive.com, reported that U.S. Steel
Corp. is facing fines totaling $170,000 after federal regulators
accused the company of giving some workers at its Clairton Coke
Works tasks that exposed them to asbestos.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration said this is the
second time since 2011 it fined U.S. Steel for exposing employees
to asbestos hazards. In 2011, the government cited U.S. Steel for
seven violations at the Clairton plant and fined the company
$6,750.

"Once again, we have found U.S. Steel Corp. failed to protect its
employees from the serious risks of asbestos exposure,"
Christopher Robinson, director of OSHA's Pittsburgh office, said
in a written statement. "Breathing airborne asbestos fibers can
cause lung damage that often progresses to disability and possible
death."

The fines, which U.S. Steel can contest, stem from incidents at
the Clairton plant in February and March. OSHA said it began
investigating after the United Steelworkers union complained that
U.S. Steel in February and March had directed seven Clairton plant
workers to handle materials that contained asbestos.

"We fully cooperated with the OSHA investigation and are in the
process of reviewing the citations," U.S. Steel spokeswoman Sarah
Cassella said. She declined further comment.

Michael Wright, director of health, safety and environment for the
union, said asbestos commonly is found as insulation around pipes
and inside equipment at older plants. Anything containing the
material should be labeled as such and not disturbed without
taking proper precautions to prevent asbestos from being released
into the air, where it can be inhaled and cause damage to the
lungs of workers, he said.

Local union officials told U.S. Steel that they suspected the
materials contained asbestos, Wright said. But he said the company
told them it was not asbestos. "They need to stop telling us,
'Don't worry it's not asbestos,' when it really is," he said.

Cassella declined to comment on the union's claim.

OSHA said U.S. Steel needs to take immediate action to prevent
worker exposure, including informing employees of the presence of
asbestos-containing material and implementing appropriate
containment and disposal methods for handling it.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Fears as WorkSafe Proposes Cut
--------------------------------------------------------
Nick Toscano, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reported that
buildings constructed in Victoria after 2003 will no longer be
forced to undergo mandatory asbestos checks, under controversial
changes being proposed by the workplace regulator despite serious
safety concerns.

The proposed reform, contained in a draft set of new regulations,
comes just weeks after a recent string of health scares on
Australian building sites where potentially deadly asbestos fibres
have been discovered in materials imported from China.

Red tape cut could expose workers to asbestos

A new set of draft changes to Victorian legislation means
safeguards protecting workers from the deadly dust could soon be
stripped back.

WorkSafe's new proposal means Victorian builders would not need to
audit for the presence of asbestos when refurbishing or
demolishing structures built after December 2003 -- the year the
substance was outlawed from import and use.

The push has stirred division among the building industry, and
asbestos support groups have likened it to "industrial
manslaughter", in the wake of the troubling revelations that
asbestos is continuing to slip into the country unintentionally,
even with the ban in force.

A Perth hospital construction site went into lockdown after
asbestos was found in Chinese roof panels. The supplier, Yuanda
Australia, a subsidiary of Chinese manufacturing firm Yuanda
Holdings, had also provided asbestos-ridden gaskets to a high-rise
construction project in Brisbane.

And, in June, an investigation was launched into Adelaide company
Australian Portable Camps over imports from China that illegally
contained asbestos, prompting calls from Senator Nick Xenophon for
a Senate inquiry.

In the wake of the asbestos discoveries, the Australian Border
Force disclosed that it is only testing a small percentage of
shipping containers each year for the deadly substance.

Leaked minutes of a recent WorkSafe meeting, obtained by Fairfax
Media, reveal the regulator has sidelined warnings about the
impact of establishing a cut-off date.

"Asbestos ... has been imported unintentionally, which is
occurring when some building materials such as tiles are purchased
from overseas," a union occupational safety expert told the
meeting.

"Currently, if such materials are imported and the duty-holder is
unsure it contains asbestos, they need to assume that asbestos is
present or have the product tested ... By introducing a cut-off
date, this safeguard is removed."

WorkSafe Victoria said the decision to include the draft reform
was made after seeking submissions on asbestos management and
other safety issues, as part of the process to modernise the
legislation.

"WorkSafe has conducted a wide-ranging consultation process over
the past two years with key stakeholders, including employer and
union groups, in relation to a number of possible changes," a
spokesman said.

"The public has until September 9 to comment on the suggestions
and we welcome any feedback."

Developers in Victoria have been pressing the agency to introduce
the December 2003 cut-off date for asbestos exemptions, saying the
existing asbestos-testing requirements are unnecessary and
burdensome.

"This is a pragmatic date for the cut-off given that no asbestos
products have been authorised for manufacture/construction since
then," Housing Industry Association regional director Gil King
said.

"The focus should be on the higher risk period when asbestos
products were more commonplace particularly in the '70s and '80s."

Under the proposed new regulation, the exemption for newer
buildings would not apply in the event that asbestos has been
already identified or is "likely to be present".

But Asbestos Disease Foundation of Australia president Barry
Robson said WorkSafe's attempt to abolish the blanket requirement
for all buildings to be asbestos-audited would be "bordering on
industrial manslaughter".

"Is WorkSafe Victoria going to be a willing participant in the
fourth wave of asbestos deaths here in Australia by removing this
regulation?" he said.

"These bureaucrats obviously don't see people dying from asbestos
diseases ... if they did, they wouldn't come up with these lame-
brain ideas."

Building union officials said there was a real risk that workers
exposed to cheap, foreign-made building products could be the next
large group to suffer asbestos diseases in Australia, "but the
problem is these diseases don't present themselves for decades".

Gerry Ayers, the CFMEU's head of health and safety, said asbestos
fibres could cause asbestosis and the fatal disease mesothelioma.

"No one knows how much exposure is required to cause an asbestos-
related disease, but it is a horrific way to die," Dr Ayers said.

"Why would you want to take the risk of exposing someone to this
potentially deadly disease? It's very disappointing that the
regulator is willing to take this chance and play the game of
probability with someone's life."

Last week, in light of the recent asbestos scandals, federal
Immigration Minister Peter Dutton said Australian builders were
forced to "cut corners" and import cheap materials from China that
risked containing asbestos because the CFMEU had been driving up
the cost of doing business.

"There are a number of reasons that they're cutting corners; one
is that they are being driven into the ground by the CFMEU and
these other thugs . . . walking around on building sites," he told
Sydney radio station 2GB.

The union's state secretary, John Setka, accused Mr Dutton of
"making excuses" for ineffective border controls.

"At the same time as we have WorkSafe making grossly irresponsible
recommendations, we have an incompetent Immigration Minister
making excuses for Border Force's inability to halt the
importation of asbestos contaminated products," he said.

The Housing Industry Association said it had "great concerns"
about the importation of non-conforming building products,
including products that have included asbestos and formaldehyde.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Confirmed at Tasmania's Biggest Hosp.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ahn Jae Wook, writing for Sourceable.net, reported that material,
which was disturbed at the construction site of the new Royal
Hobart Hospital has been confirmed as asbestos as dangers
associated with what is currently the largest dollar value
construction project in Tasmania continues to come to light.

Following the discovery of material similar to that found in a
ceiling in a different building which necessitated the temporary
relocation of staff around a week earlier, Health Minister Michael
Ferguson has confirmed the material in question did in fact
contain asbestos.

According to Ferguson, a single fibre was identified in the sample
which was tested, and the individual who performed the work in
question was adequately protected whilst there was no danger to
public health arising out of the incident.

Long considered a critical project from a health perspective, the
$689 million redevelopment of the Royal Hobart Hospital will
deliver a new ten storey inpatient precinct and a new cancer
centre as well as new facilities including a new outpatient
clinic, a new medical imaging facility and a new assessment and
planning unit.

Its construction, however, has been dogged by delays and cost
blowouts along with the discovery of mold in a temporary building
which had been designed to house patients throughout the course of
the construction process.

The latest move follows earlier calls from Unions Tasmania for a
complete audit of all areas of construction throughout the
hospital -- moves the union's Kevin Harkins says are necessary
because of a current reliance on old and potentially out of date
asbestos registers to determine exposure.

Whilst the latest incident obviously relates to the redevelopment
of an older building which was built before asbestos was banned in
Australia, it also follows the discovery of asbestos within roof
panels imported from China on another major hospital at Perth.

The use of asbestos containing materials was banned throughout
Australia but there are growing fears about products which contain
the material being imported from places such as China and India.

In regard to the latest discovery, Ferguson said risks associated
with asbestos had been well known since the start of the
redevelopment and the need for care had been clearly identified
up-front.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coventry Bldg Burns Exposing Firefighters
----------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Duff, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that a
asbestos-containing industrial building in Coventry set fire last
week, causing firefighters to be exposed to the harmful substance.

Coventry has a longstanding history of asbestos due to its
industrialization in the 19th century. Because of this exposure to
asbestos in the workplace in Coventry, mesothelioma cancer has
been problematic.

Lamb commented, "We could actually see fire in the sky, the
building was completely involved when we arrived. Our firefighters
stayed out of the building. Obviously there was nobody in the
building at the time. It's a commercial building, " said Central
Coventry Fire Chief, Peter Lamb.

The fire was contained within 30 minutes, but the building was
made of a car storage company, landscaping business, and an
asbestos removal company.

"We had some material that contains asbestos, part of the asbestos
removal company, so obviously that's concern to firefighters."
said Lamb. The material was placed in bags by the removal company.

The huge dumpster by the building was full of these bags and
caught fire as well. As soon as the firefighters realized the
dumpsters contained asbestos, they stopped spraying water so
contaminated runoff wouldn't occur, and instead let it burn.

"Asbestos is generally not airborne. The only thing that would
make it airborne is the fire, per say, so it's contained to the
dumpster. We're relatively confident that's okay," said Lamb.

Coincidentally, the material was widely used for its immense heat-
resistant properties, but it can be even more dangerous with fire,
and pose an even greater risk to human health.

Insulation, roof materials, drywall, ceiling tiles, flooring, and
asphalt are all materials commonly known to contain asbestos. When
they're ignited with fire, the smoke made of carbon dioxide, water
vapor, carbon monoxide, fine particulate matter, hydrocarbons, and
other organic and non-organic substances can include the minute
asbestos fibers.

Debris should always be taken away from a fire site, but it must
first be thoroughly tested for the presence of asbestos before the
removal can begin.

Although Rhode Island is not widely known for its participation in
the asbestos industry, exposure was likely the result of the
asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and used in many building
supplies and incorporated into the construction of the state's
many older and historic buildings.

There is a deposit of serpentine (the source of common white
asbestos) located near Diamond Hill. Plus, Rhode Island was the
birthplace of the Industrial Age in North America and there are
still five power generation plants and a number of major port
facilities, which run a great risk to employees of developing
work-related asbestos disease.

Officials say the surrounding air and water near the half-burned
down Coventry building is safe.



                            *********

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  * * *