CAR_Public/160819.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, August 19, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 166




                            Headlines


ABELARDO MONROY: Faces "Mendoza" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
AETNA INC: ERISA Benefits and Breach of Contract Claims Pending
AKAL SECURITY: Gelber Seeks Cert. of Air Security Officers Class
ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO: Certification of Investors Class Sought
AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC: Responds to Class Action Filing

ASCENA RETAIL: "Rougvie" Settlement Deal Has Final Okay
ASCENA RETAIL: Judge Lessens Attorneys' Fees and Incentive Awards
ASIAN MOON: Faces "Galicia" Suit in Eastern District of New York
AT&T INCORPORATED: Faces "Muhammad" Suit in S.D. of Alabama
AUDIOEYE INC: Agreement in Principle Reached in Securities Action

AVEO GROUP: Law Firm Mulls Class Action Over Veronica Gardens
AVON PRODUCTS: Settlement in Shareholders' Suit Remains Pending
AVON PRODUCTS: Oct. 11 Hearing on ERISA Litigation Settlement
BAYLOR COLLEGE: Aguocha-Ohakweh Seeks to Represent Victims Class
BC HYDRO: BC Court Refuses to Certify Smart Meter Class Action

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE: "Body Snatching" Victims File Class Action
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Settlement Deal in "Skeen" Has Final Okay
BOARDWALK AUTO: Accused by "Rashid" Suit of Illegal Termination
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Sued in Super. Ct. Over Pradaxa Safety
BOLLARE INC: "Greene" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under Labor Code

BORGATA CASINO: Players Lose Appeal in "Chipgate" Class Action
BREATHLESS INC: Court Grants Bid for Summary Judgment in "Moon"
BRENDAN STANTON: Certification of Class Sought in "Ramoutar" Suit
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Court Granted Final Approval of Settlement
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Court Granted Leave to Amended Complaint

CAPITAL ONE: Hedman Seeks Certification of Classes
CASTLIGHT HEALTH: October 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
CHARTER TOWNSHIP: Certification of Class & Subclasses Sought
CHEVRON CORPORATION: McQueen et al. Seek Certification of Class
CHICAGO, IL: Conyers et al. Seek Certification of Class

COOK SALES: Warren et al. Seek Collective Action Certification
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Stern Questions Sale of Kirkland Canned Chicken
DALLAS CENTRAL: Sued Over Excessive Property Appraised Value
DALLAS CENTRAL: Sued Over Excessive Property Appraised Value
DCOR LLC: Fails to Pay Wages and Overtime, "Robarge" Suit Asserts

DIRECTV LLC: First to File Rule Does Not Apply in "Swetra" Suit
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: To Defend Against "Davenport" Action
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Have Until August 25 to Respond to B&R Suit
DISTINCTIVE MAINTENANCE: Faces "Sequinot" Suit Over Unpaid Wages
DUN & BRADSTREET: Settlement in O&R Construction Case Pending

DUN & BRADSTREET: Settlement in Die-Mension Case Pending
DUN & BRADSTREET: Settlement in Vinotemp Case Pending
DUN & BRADSTREET: Settlement in Flow Sciences Case Pending
DUN & BRADSTREET: Settlement in Altaflo Case Pending
DUN & BRADSTREET: Settlement Reached in "Thomas" Case

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Brown" Suit in E.D. of Virginia
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Faces Class Action Over "Slamming" Practice
FANNIE MAE: Grant & Eisenhofer Not Entitled to More Fees
FASHION OPTIONS: Newbolt-White Sues for Pregnancy Discrimination
FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Settlement Completion Deadline Moved

FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Ludwick's Eighth Circuit Appeal Pending
FITCHBURG GAS: Class Certification in "Bellerman" Suit Vacated
FITNESS INTERNATIONAL: "Kinalis" Suit Seeks Unpaid Compensation
FORD AUSTRALIA: 1,500 Disgruntled Customers File Class Action
FREDDIE MAC: Dismissal of Retirement System's Case Reversed

FREDDIE MAC: Stay Lifted in Jacobs and Hindes Case
FRONTIER DRILLING: Court Grants Prelim. OK of "Miller" Suit Deal
GAW MINERS: Audet et al. Seek Certification of Class
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Shannon" Suit in District of New Jersey
GERON CORPORATION: Bid for Class Cert. Sought in Securities Case

GIA + 4 CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, "Bardles" Suit Alleges
GOLDEN ABACUS: "Garcia" et al. Seek Overtime Wages Under FLSA
GOOD SAMARITAN REGIONAL: Outcome Varies in Consolidated Appeal
GORDMANS STORES: Cox Seeks to Certify Class of Assistant Managers
HARBOR FREIGHT: Sued by Morgan for Selling Faulty Connection Kits

HONEST CO: MDL Panel Orders Transfer of Consumer Suit to L.A.
IMPRIVATA INC: Defending Against Securities Suit
INTEL: Recalls Basis Peak Smartwatch for Safety Reasons
IXIA: $3,500,000 Settlement Has Final Approval
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Class Certification Bid in "Zuniga" Continued

JETT PRO: Initial Bid for Class Certification Withdrawn
JETT PRO: Bernier, et al. Seek Certification of FLSA Class
JOHNSON & JOHNSONS: Plaintiffs Want Talcum Powder Case Stayed
JP MORGAN: Settles Class Action Over Inmate Debit Card Fees
KERYX PHARMACEUTICALS: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action in N.Y.

KING BEE: Judge Narrows Claims in "Williams" Suit
LES BRASSEURS: Faces "Comonfort" Suit in S.D. of New York
LEWIS ENERGY: Villarreal Seeks Certification of Class
LIFE INSURANCE: Certification of Classes Sought in "Dolemba" Suit
LOS ANGELES: Disabled Children May Intervene in "Smith" Suit

MAGELLAN HEALTHCARE: Suit Alleges Addiction Treatment Discrim.
MALCOLM S GERALD: Cert. of FDCPA Class Sought in "Holzman" Suit
MDL 2438: Court Grants Forrest's Bid to Quash Subpoena
META FINANCIAL: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on Sept. 12
METAL SALES: Faces Wendell Suit in W.D. of Pennsylvania

MICHAEL KORS: Galvan Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Cal. Labor Code
MINNESOTA: DHS Faces Discrimination Class Action
MINNESOTA: State Dismissed from "Guggenberger" Suit
MOSAIC SALES: "Bey" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
N. AM. BANCARD: Tendering Funds Doesn't Moot Case, Court Rules

NATIONAL RECOVERY: Court Certifies Class in "Stanley" Suit
NEST LABS: Cal. Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Darisse" Suit
NEW YORK LIFE: Faces Class Action Over Mainstay Index Fund
NRA GROUP: Automatic Dialing System Violates TCPA, Judge Rules
NYC TAXI: Court Refuses to Review Rulings in "Singh" Class Suit

OCWEN FINANCIAL: Certification of Investors Class Sought
ORCHESTRATE HOSPITALITY: Class Settlement in "Edwards" Granted
PETROLEOS BRASILEIRO: Appeals Court Puts Class Action on Hold
PLANET FITNESS: Court Narrows Claims in "Truglio" Suit
POKEMON: Faces Nuisance, Unjust Enrichment Class Actions

PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Court Granted 6-Month Stay of Class Suit
PTTEP AUSTRALASIA: Court Accepts Indonesian Seaweed Farmers' Suit
REGENCY CAR: Fails to Return Security Deposit, "Patel" Suit Says
REMINGTON ARMS: Judge Not Yet Ready to Approve Rifle Settlement
RFI CONSTRUCTION: Luna-Reyes Seeks Certification of FLSA Case

RONAN, MT: Class Action Against City Can Proceed
RTO MEDRESOURCE: Gress Seeks Certification of Classes
RTO MEDRESOURCE: Bid to Certify Class in "Gress" Suit Continued
S.C.R.A.P. INC: Chicago Car Wants Certification of Three Classes
SANTA MONICA, CA: Class Certification Sought in "Rosenblatt" Suit

SCARLETT'S G.P.: Judge Favors Dismissal of Exotic Dancers' Suit
SEDGWICK LLP: Removes "Ribeiro" Class Suit to N.D. California
SHAFER TROXELL: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Nusbaum Claims
SHELL OIL: Settles False Advertising Class Action
SOLARCITY CORP: Judge Dismisses Shareholder Fraud Case

SOUTH CAROLINA: "Kenny" Files Suit v. Atty. Gen., Police Officers
SPORT CLIPS: Pinnacle Removes "Perez" Class Suit to S.D. Cal.
STONE FUNDING: Chicago Car Seeks Certification of Three Classes
SUFFOLK BANCORP: Defending Merger-Related Class Suit
TEACHERS INSURANCE: Court Narrows Claims in "Luciano" Suit

TEAM HEALTH: Opposed Request for Attorneys' Fees
TENNESSEE: Dismissal of "O'Neal" Suit Affirmed
TOTAL NEW: Accused by Najjar of Sexual and Racial Discrimination
TROTT LAW: Court Narrows Claims in "Martin" Suit
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Judge Refuses to Release Trump Video Testimony

TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Judge Allows Students' Fraud Case to Proceed
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Denies Motion Compel Arbitration
UNITED AIRLINES: Ninth Circuit Review Sought in "Ward" Class Suit
UNITED SERVICES: Judge Reprimands Five Attorneys in Class Action
UNITED STATES: PTSD Disability Plaintiffs Win $3MM in Atty. Fees

UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE: Hill Seeks Certification of Class
VCA ANTECH: Graham's Bid to Certify Class Taken Under Submission
VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Removed as Defendant in Amended Suits
VITAL THERAPIES: Sept. 1 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Suit
WARREN RESOURCES: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Class Action

WERNER ENTERPRISES: Defending Drivers' Class Suit in Nevada
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Trial in Injury Case Postponed to Sept. 6
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Bid to Dismiss Delaware Suit Remains Pending
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Agrees to Pay Plaintiff's Fees & Expenses
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Amended Complaint Due Aug. 31 in Okla. Case

WOODFOREST NATIONAL: Faces "Fitzhenry" Suit in South Carolina
XPO LAST MILE: Court Reduces Class Members in "Reyes" Suit
* Democrats Call on CFPB to Finalize Consumer Arbitration Rules


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ga. High Court Flips $4M Judgment in "Knight"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Md. App. Junks Appeal in Lung Cancer Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Indiana Inmate Loses Summary Judgment Bid
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ky. Court Affirms Summary Judgment in "Mannahan"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Denies Bid to Remand "Lindsay"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Refuses to Review BorgWarner's Bid
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magistrate Denies Bid to Transfer Venue
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Bid to Remand "Hartfield"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ABB, 5 Others Win Summary Judgment in "Hillyer"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Vacate Privilege Waiver Ruling Denied

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Review Denial of Summary Judgment Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. App. Affirms $3.5MM Verdict vs. Nat'l Grid
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid Summary Judgment in "Haggwood" Partly OK'd
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants MDE's Summary Judgment Bid
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Worksafe Targets Poor Asbestos Record

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Pleads Guilty After Illegal Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: High School Closes for Asbestos Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Cases Rise in Iceland Despite Ban
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Delays High School Demolition Work
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Schenectady Asbestos Firm Files for Bankruptcy

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Delayed Asbestos Removal Raises Concerns
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tests Allay Asbestos Concerns for Senate Room
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flood Victims Displaced Due to Asbestos Testing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos-Filled Funeral Parlor Toppled
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Compensation Claims Could Be Denied

ASBESTOS UPDATE: German Asbestos Workers to Get CT Exams
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canberra Bldgs Tested for Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup in Johnson Controls Debris To Start
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Decision Not Good for Asbestos


                            *********


ABELARDO MONROY: Faces "Mendoza" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
HILDA MENDOZA, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b) v. ABELARDO MONROY, Case No. 1:16-cv-23454-DPG (S.D. Fla.,
August 10, 2016), is brought on behalf of similarly situated
employees, like the Plaintiff, who have not been paid overtime and
minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly from
the filing of the complaint back three years.

Ms. Mendoza worked for the Defendant as a domestic live-out
housekeeper from March 4, 2013, through August 7, 2016.

Abelardo Monroy is a resident of and regularly transacts business
within Miami-Dade County, in Florida.  Mr. Monroy was the Fair
Labor Standards Act employer of the Plaintiff during the relevant
time period.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


AETNA INC: ERISA Benefits and Breach of Contract Claims Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aetna Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2016, that in the Out-of-Network Benefit
Proceedings, the plaintiffs' remaining claims are for ERISA
benefits and breach of contract.

Aetna said, "We are named as a defendant in several purported
class actions and individual lawsuits arising out of our practices
related to the payment of claims for services rendered to our
members by health care providers with whom we do not have a
contract ("out-of-network providers"). Among other things, these
lawsuits allege that we paid too little to our health plan members
and/or providers for these services, among other reasons, because
of our use of data provided by Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of one
of our competitors ("Ingenix"). Other major health insurers are
the subject of similar litigation or have settled similar
litigation."

"Various plaintiffs who are health care providers or medical
associations seek to represent nationwide classes of out-of-
network providers who provided services to our members during the
period from 2001 to the present.  Various plaintiffs who are
members in our health plans seek to represent nationwide classes
of our members who received services from out-of-network providers
during the period from 2001 to the present.  Taken together, these
lawsuits allege that we violated state law, the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") and
federal antitrust laws, either acting alone or in concert with our
competitors.  The purported classes seek reimbursement of all
unpaid benefits, recalculation and repayment of deductible and
coinsurance amounts, unspecified damages and treble damages,
statutory penalties, injunctive and declaratory relief, plus
interest, costs and attorneys' fees, and seek to disqualify us
from acting as a fiduciary of any benefit plan that is subject to
ERISA.  Individual lawsuits that generally contain similar
allegations and seek similar relief have been brought by health
plan members and out-of-network providers.

"The first class action case was commenced on July 30, 2007.  The
federal Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (the "MDL
Panel") has consolidated these class action cases in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "New Jersey
District Court") under the caption In re: Aetna UCR Litigation,
MDL No. 2020 ("MDL 2020").   In addition, the MDL Panel has
transferred the individual lawsuits to MDL 2020.  On May 9, 2011,
the New Jersey District Court dismissed the physician plaintiffs
from MDL 2020 without prejudice.  The New Jersey District Court's
action followed a ruling by the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida (the "Florida District Court")
that the physician plaintiffs were enjoined from participating in
MDL 2020 due to a prior settlement and release.  The United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has dismissed the
physician plaintiffs' appeal of the Florida District Court's
ruling.

"On December 6, 2012, we entered into an agreement to settle MDL
2020. Under the terms of the proposed nationwide settlement, we
would have been released from claims relating to our out-of-
network reimbursement practices from the beginning of the
applicable settlement class period through August 30, 2013. The
settlement agreement did not contain an admission of wrongdoing.
The medical associations were not parties to the settlement
agreement.

"Under the settlement agreement, we would have paid up to $120
million to fund claims submitted by health plan members and health
care providers who were members of the settlement classes. These
payments also would have funded the legal fees of plaintiffs'
counsel and the costs of administering the settlement. In
connection with the proposed settlement, the Company recorded an
after-tax charge to net income attributable to Aetna of $78
million in the fourth quarter of 2012.

"The settlement agreement provided us the right to terminate the
agreement under certain conditions related to settlement class
members who opted out of the settlement. Based on a report
provided to the parties by the settlement administrator, the
conditions permitting us to terminate the settlement agreement
were satisfied. On March 13, 2014, we notified the New Jersey
District Court and plaintiffs' counsel that we were terminating
the settlement agreement. Various legal and factual developments
since the date of the settlement agreement led us to believe
terminating the settlement agreement was in our best interests. As
a result of this termination, we released the reserve established
in connection with the settlement agreement, net of amounts due to
the settlement administrator, which reduced first quarter 2014
other general and administrative expenses by $67 million ($103
million pretax).

"On June 30, 2015, the New Jersey District Court granted in part
our motion to dismiss the proceeding. The New Jersey District
Court dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs' RICO and federal
antitrust claims; their ERISA claims that are based on our
disclosures and our purported breach of fiduciary duties; and
certain of their state law claims. The New Jersey District Court
also dismissed with prejudice all claims asserted by several
medical association plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' remaining claims
are for ERISA benefits and breach of contract. We intend to
vigorously defend ourselves against the plaintiffs' remaining
claims."


AKAL SECURITY: Gelber Seeks Cert. of Air Security Officers Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff files with the Court his motion for conditional
collective action certification in the lawsuit titled ELLIOT
GELBER, & all others similarly situated v. AKAL SECURITY, INC.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-23170-FAM (S.D. Fla.).  Mr. Gelber seeks
preliminary certification of a Collective Class consisting of
these individuals:

     All current and/or former employees of Akal Security, Inc.
     employed at any time since July 22, 2013 with the title of
     air security officer or those who have substantially the
     same duties and responsibilities as Plaintiff who had a
     one-hour lunch break deducted from their pay.

Mr. Gelber asks the Court to require Akal to provide to him, in
electronic format, the names, addresses, e-mail addresses and
telephone numbers of all potential members of the Class within 20
days.  He also asks for an order (i) approving the proposed Notice
of Rights and the proposed Opt-In Consent Form, (ii) authorizing
and facilitating notice of the action to the Class, including
conspicuously posting the Notice of Rights and Opt-In Consent Form
on the premises of Akal's deportation operations, and (iii)
directing Akal to refrain from engaging in communications or
activities that may improperly influence, mislead or discourage
putative plaintiffs from joining the action.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Seth Sarelson, Esq.
          KAPLAN YOUNG & MOLL PARRON
          600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1715
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 330-6090
          E-mail: msarelson@kymplaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jenna Rinehart Rassif, Esq.
          Derek H. Sparks, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3500
          Two South Biscayne Boulevard
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 577-7651
          Facsimile: (305) 373-4466
          E-mail: jenna.rassif@jacksonlewis.com
                  derek.sparks@jacksonlewis.com


ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO: Certification of Investors Class Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit In re: Altisource Portfolio Solutions, S.A.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 9:14-cv-81156-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the
Lead Plaintiffs, Pension Fund and Annuity Fund for the Painters
and Allied Trades District Council 35 move the Court to certify a
class of investors, defined as:

     "all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly-
     traded Altisource Portfolio Solutions, S.A. common stock
     during the period from April 25, 2013 through December 21,
     2014, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby (the Class)."

Excluded from the Class are Defendants Altisource, William C.
Erbey, William Shepro, and Michelle Esterman, present or former
executive officers of Altisource, and their immediate family
members.

The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to appoint Lead Plaintiffs
and West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund as Class
Representatives; and appoint Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP as Class Counsel and Saxena White P.A. as Liaison Class
Counsel.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2iLWdM22

A copy of the Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YpjSvi4c

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Hannah G. Ross, Esq.
          Adam Wierzbowski, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
          & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 554 1400
                    Facsimile: (212) 554 1444
          E-mail: hannah@blbglaw.com
                  adam@blbglaw.com

               - and -

          Maya S. Saxena, Esq.
          Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601
          Boca Raton, FL 33486
          Telephone: (561) 394 3399
          Facsimile: (561) 394 3382
          E-mail: msaxena@saxenawhite.com
                  jwhite@saxenawhite.com


AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC: Responds to Class Action Filing
-----------------------------------------------------
The American Osteopathic Association responded to the announcement
of a class action against the organization.

Adrienne White-Faines, CEO of the American Osteopathic
Association, said "The lawsuit filed against the American
Osteopathic Association (AOA) has not yet been served, so our
ability to comment is limited.  All AOA policies, including those
related to board certification, have been developed by members and
are designed to meet the needs of a complex healthcare
environment, the growing profession of osteopathic medicine and
our physician members.  As the AOA assesses and reviews all
policies, this policy is currently under review, including recent
discussions at our House of Delegates Annual Business Meeting. AOA
board certification services are legally appropriate as a benefit
of membership."


ASCENA RETAIL: "Rougvie" Settlement Deal Has Final Okay
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mark A. Kearney granted the parties' joint motion for final
approval of the settlement in the case captioned CAROL ROUGVIE, et
al. v. ASCENA RETAIL GROUP, INC., et al., Civil Action No.
15-724 (E.D. Pa.).

Under the settlement, Claims Administrator RSM shall pay from the
$50.8 Million Cash Settlement Fund under the terms of the court's
October 27, 2015 order:

     -- the claims of class members electing a cash settlement;

     -- up to $8 million from the settlement fund to reimburse
demonstrated administrative costs and its reasonable fees and
incurred but unpaid expenses; and

     -- the attorneys' fees and incentive awards.

A full-text copy of Judge Kearney's July 29, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/GHVPtI from Leagle.com.

MELINDA MEHIGAN, FONDA KUBIAK, MARGUERITE SINKLER GILDER, CAROLINE
MANSOUR, CAROL ROUGVIE, TIFFANY BOLTON, KARA BELL, Plaintiffs,
represented by KEVIN E. RAPHAEL -- ker@pietragallo.com --
PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI LLP, WILLIAM
PIETRAGALLO, II -- wp@pietragallo.com -- ANTHONY J. COYNE --
acoyne@mggmlpa.com -- MANSOUR GAVIN LPA, pro hac vice, BRENDON P.
FRIESEN -- bfriesen@mggmlpa.com -- MANSOUR GAVIN LPA, pro hac
vice, EDWARD H. SKIPTON, III, Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick &
Raspanti, LLP, EDWARD J. WESTLOW, pro hac vice, ERNEST P. MANSOUR,
MANSOUR GAVIN LPA, pro hac vice, KENNETH D. MCARTHUR, JR.,
PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK, pro hac vice & ROBERT G.
MANSOUR, pro hac vice.

CAROL COWHEY, Plaintiff, represented by KEVIN E. RAPHAEL,
PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI LLP, EDWARD H.
SKIPTON, III, Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP,
EDWARD J. WESTLOW, pro hac vice & KENNETH D. MCARTHUR, JR.,
PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK, pro hac vice.

ASCENA RETAIL GROUP, INC., Defendant, represented by EZRA DODD
CHURCH -- ezra.church@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS,
LLP, CHRISTOPHER JOHN MANNION --
christopher.mannion@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
& GREGORY T. PARKS -- gregory.parks@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN,
LEWIS & BOCKIUS.

TWEEN BRANDS, INC., Defendant, represented by DAVID D. YEAGLEY --
dyeagley@ulmer.com -- ULMER & BERNE - CLEVELAND, EZRA DODD CHURCH,
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP, MICHAEL N. UNGAR -- mungar@ulmer.com
-- ULMER & BERNE, CHRISTOPHER JOHN MANNION, MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS
LLP & GREGORY T. PARKS, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS.

DIANA AMAYA, Defendant, represented by GERARD M. MCCABE --
gmccabe@mittslaw.com -- Mitts Law, LLC.

BARBARA COMLISH, KATHRYN ARTLIP, Respondents, represented by ADAM
E. SCHULMAN, Competitive Enterprise Institute.

KELSEY D FOLIGNO, Respondent, represented by GLENN A. MANOCHI --
gmanochi@lightmanlaw.com -- LIGHTMAN & MANOCHI.


ASCENA RETAIL: Judge Lessens Attorneys' Fees and Incentive Awards
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Mark A. Kearney of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, granted in part class counsel's motion for
attorneys' fees, in the case CAROL ROUGVIE, et al. v. ASCENA
RETAIL GROUP, INC., et al., Civil Action No. 15-724 (E.D. Pa.)

Ascena Retail Group, Inc. and Tween Brands Inc. d/b/a/ Justice
Stores regularly advertised 40% off' sales but the so-called sales
were actually regular everyday prices. Consumers argue this
national advertising scheme fraudulently induced consumers to
spend money believing they were getting a sale. The consumers
sought injunctive relief and damages claiming Justice Stores
violated state consumer protection statutes, administrative
regulations and common law contract theories.

Melinda Mehigan and Fonda Kubiak, on behalf of a putative class of
New Jersey and New York consumers, sued Justice Stores asserting
common law breach of contract claims and violation of consumer
protection statutes. Carol Cowhey filed a similar case
individually and on behalf of a putative class of Pennsylvania
Justice Stores' consumers asserting common law breach of contract
and claims under Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer
Protection Law.

Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint seeking to certify a
nationwide class, excluding only Ohio residents covered by a
previously settled class action in Perez v. Tween Brands, Inc.
The retailer and 8 consumers entered into several rounds of
negotiations and then agreed to settle millions of claims through
immediate injunctive relief and offering consumers up to $27.8
million in cash or, if they wished, a voucher to use at Justice
Stores.

After notice, 3.3% of the class chose either cash or a voucher.
The remaining 96.7% of the class, having not filed a claim,
automatically receive a voucher. The parties concede consumers
will redeem approximately less than (3%) of these automatic
vouchers.

Based on the alleged immediate direct benefit of $50.8 million
deposited with the approved claims administrator, class counsel
asked for an award of over $14.1 million in attorneys' fees and a
$6,000 incentive fee for each of the 8 consumer plaintiffs.
Judge Kearney only awarded $5,311,470.24 in attorneys' fees and
declined to award the full amount of the requested $6,000
incentive award to each plaintiff based on counsel's belated
representations of their varied efforts. Six plaintiffs are
entitled to an incentive fee in the range of $2,000 to $3,000 but
not higher.  Two plaintiffs are not entitled to an incentive fee.

A copy of Judge Kearney's opinion dated July 29, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/eOPdXffrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by KEVIN E. RAPHAEL -- KER@Pietragallo.com
-- WILLIAM PIETRAGALLO, II -- WP@Pietragallo.com -- EDWARD H.
SKIPTON, III -- KENNETH D. MCARTHUR -- at PIETRAGALLO GORDON
ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI LLP; ANTHONY J. COYNE --
acoyne@mggmlpa.com -- BRENDON P. FRIESEN -- bfriesen@mggmlpa.com -
- ERNEST P. MANSOUR -- at MANSOUR GAVIN LPA; ROBERT G. MANSOUR;
EDWARD J. WESTLOW

TWEEN BRANDS, INC., Defendant represented by DAVID D. YEAGLEY --
dyeagley@ulmer.com -- MICHAEL N. UNGAR -- mungar@ulmer.com -- at
ULMER & BERNE; EZRA DODD CHURCH -- ezra.church@morganlewis.com --
CHRISTOPHER JOHN MANNION -- christopher.mannion@morganlewis.com
-- GREGORY T. PARKS -- gregory.parks@morganlewis.com -- at MORGAN
LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP

DIANA AMAYA, Defendant, represented by GERARD M. MCCABE --
gmccabe@mittslaw.com -- at Mitts Law, LLC

STEVEN F. HELFAND, In Propria Persona, Respondent, Pro Se

BARBARA COMLISH and KATHRYN ARTLIP, Respondents, represented by
ADAM E. SCHULMAN, Competitive Enterprise Institute

KELSEY D FOLIGNO, Respondent, represented by GLENN A. MANOCHI --
gmanochi@lightmanlaw.com -- at LIGHTMAN & MANOCHI

PAMELA SWEENEY, Respondent, Pro Se


ASIAN MOON: Faces "Galicia" Suit in Eastern District of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Asian Moon of Massapequa Park,
Inc. The case is styled Juan S. Galicia, individually and in
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Asian Moon of Massapequa Park, Inc., jointly and severally; Asian
Moon Restaurant Corp., jointly and severally; and Vickie S. Li,
jointly and severally, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-04498
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 11, 2016).

The Asian Moon offers Chinese, Thai & Japanese fare plus inventive
sushi served in stylish, modern digs with a patio.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


AT&T INCORPORATED: Faces "Muhammad" Suit in S.D. of Alabama
-----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against AT&T, Incorporated. The case is
titled Kalim A.R. Muhammad; The Family of Kalim A.R. Muhammad; The
Private Family Trust & Inheritance Contract; The Administrator of
K.A.R.M. Family Trust; K.A.R.M., in his Sovereign Citizen
Capacity; The Sovereign Citizens of the State of Alabama; AT&T
Customers Similarly Situated and at Large; K.A.R.M., in his Class
Representative Capacity of Similarly Situated Sovereign Citizens
of the State of Alabama; and The Alabama State Sovereign, the
Plaintiffs, v. AT&T, Incorporated,
The AT&T 'Plantation Centered' Contract, AT&T Incorporated of the
State of Delaware, AT&T Communications, AT&T Services,
AT&T Mobility, AT&T Affiliates, AT&T Advertising, Inc.,
AT&T Wireless Asset Management, LLC, AT&T Network Procurement
Management, LLC, AT&T Executives, and AT&T Directors of Board, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00428 (S.D. Ala., Aug. 11, 2016).

AT&T is an American multinational telecommunications corporation,
headquartered at Whitacre Tower in downtown Dallas, Texas.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Matthew Ryan Jackson, Esq.
          11 N. Water St., Suite 23200
          Mobile, AL 36602
          Telephone: (251) 433 3234
          E-mail: matt.jackson@arlaw.com


AUDIOEYE INC: Agreement in Principle Reached in Securities Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Audioeye, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company announced
on August 2, 2016, that it reached an agreement in principle to
settle the consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in
the United States District Court for the District of Arizona,
titled In re AudioEye, Inc. Sec. Litig. The consolidated case was
brought against the Company and two former officers following the
restatement of the Company's 2015 quarterly financial statements.
The agreement was reached in connection with a voluntary mediation
led by Bob Meyer, a mediator with JAMS in Los Angeles.


AVEO GROUP: Law Firm Mulls Class Action Over Veronica Gardens
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adele Ferguson, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that according to its promotional materials, Aveo Veronica Gardens
is "an enclave of contentedness".  But the vibe at a meeting of
its residents on Aug. 1 was anything but content.

Law firm Levitt Robinson was invited to address dozens of
residents, including a few from a neighboring Aveo village, about
management contracts and service agreements signed with the listed
retirement village operator Aveo Group.  They are offering free
advice on service agreements.

It follows an explosive submission into a parliamentary inquiry
into the Victorian retirement housing sector, signed by 18
Veronica Gardens residents in June.  The submission, hand
delivered by one of the residents, John Lander, a retired
ambassador for Australia, says "many of us feel trapped in a
situation of financial exploitation that we cannot escape".

It says "I, and many in other Aveo villages, bought freehold
independent living units so that we could be independent, but find
that our financial independence has been removed.

"Aveo so severely restricts freehold rights that they make it
virtually impossible to sell through or to anyone but Aveo.  Other
real estate agents have described my property as 'unsaleable' on
the open market, because of the restrictions imposed by Aveo
through its claimed status as village manager."

Aveo, formerly known as FKP, is one of the largest listed owners
and operators of retirement villages in Australia.  It has a
market capitalization of almost $2 billion and its major
shareholder is the Malaysian-based Mulpha.

According to broking house Morgans, Aveo is on track to lift net
profit a massive 57 per cent for 2016 "with risk to the upside if
non-retirement sales/margins momentum has continued".

But if some of the residents of Veronica Gardens have their way
Aveo could face a legal headache.  Stewart Levitt --
SLevitt@levittrobinson.com -- a partner at Levitt Robinson, says
he has looked at eight separate contracts from individual
residents.  He alleges misleading and deceptive conduct and says
if enough residents are interested in taking action he will launch
a class action that would be funded by a US-based litigation
funder.

Mr. Levitt's immediate interest is with Veronica Gardens, which
has 57 units, but he hasn't ruled out widening the legal action to
other Aveo villages.

Allegations include residents can lose the right to reside in the
village if they become bankrupt, if their health deteriorates to
the point where they require care not offered by Aveo at the
village, if they vacate their unit for more than one month without
Aveo's permission, if they mortgage their unit, or, in the case of
resident Geoff Richards, if the "owner" dies, his successor loses
the right to continue to reside in the village, even if it is a de
facto partner of 55 years.

Mr. Richards, a retired university lecturer with a string of
credentials, says he has received letters asking him to leave the
village.

Another resident from Sackville Grange village told the meeting
that he was cutting his losses because the capital gain on the
unit he had bought was so small.  He said when he sold his
apartment Aveo took 35 per cent.

Other concerns -- and there are many -- include a general clause
that says a resident can lose the right to reside in the village
if they cease being an "eligible resident".

They argue that if a resident loses that right, they have to
vacate the property and pay a Deferred Management Fee, generally
30 per cent of the value of the property, plus 3 per cent for
"capital maintenance" and a 3 per cent agent's commission to Aveo
Real Estate Pty, totaling 36 per cent.

Aveo says all the contracts of its residents at Veronica Gardens -
- and all its villages -- are compliant with the Retirement
Villages Act 1986 and the Owners Corporation Act 2006.  It says in
relation to "eligibility", eligible residents are those that can
live independently either on their own or with limited care or
other services.

A spokesman says the historical contract arrangements for many
residents can be confusing.  "This is precisely why in May 2015 we
introduced a new contract regime, what we call 'The Aveo Way'. In
essence, this contract regime discloses upfront all costs, has a
change of mind assurance, and provides less exposure to the
volatility of the real estate market by guaranteeing the sale of
the residence with no sales commission or marketing costs."  He
says all pre-existing contracts (pre-Aveo Way) remain in place."

But not everyone is so sure.


AVON PRODUCTS: Settlement in Shareholders' Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the court has not yet
entered a final judgment approving the settlement in a class
action lawsuit.

On July 6, 2011, a purported shareholder's class action complaint
(City of Brockton Retirement System v. Avon Products, Inc., et
al., No. 11-CIV-4665) was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company
and certain present or former officers and/or directors of the
Company.

On September 29, 2011, the Court appointed LBBW Asset Management
Investmentgesellschaft mbH and SGSS Deutschland
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH as lead plaintiffs and Motley Rice
LLC as lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
and the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on June
14, 2012.

On September 29, 2014, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss and also granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint.

On October 24, 2014, plaintiffs filed their second amended
complaint on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons
or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Avon's
common stock from July 31, 2006 through and including October 26,
2011. The second amended complaint names as defendants the Company
and two individuals and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly false or misleading
statements and omissions with respect to, among other things, the
Company's compliance with the FCPA, including the adequacy of the
Company's internal controls. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages
and declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief.

Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on
November 21, 2014. The parties have reached an agreement on a
settlement of this class action. The terms of settlement include
releases by members of the class of claims against the Company and
the individual defendants and payment of $62 million.

Under the terms of the settlement, approximately $60 million of
the settlement was paid by the Company's insurers and
approximately $2 million was paid by the Company (which
represented the remaining deductible under the Company's
applicable insurance policy) into escrow.

On August 21, 2015, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement, and on December 1, 2015 the court held a hearing to
consider final approval of the settlement and expressed an intent
to grant final approval. However, the court has not yet entered a
final judgment approving the settlement.

If the settlement is not approved by the court, or is otherwise
terminated before it is finalized, the Company will be unable to
predict the outcome of this matter. Furthermore, in that event, it
is reasonably possible that the Company may incur a loss in
connection with this matter, which the Company is unable to
reasonably estimate.


AVON PRODUCTS: Oct. 11 Hearing on ERISA Litigation Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the court scheduled a
hearing to consider final approval for October 11, 2016, of the
settlement in the ERISA Litigation.

Between December 23, 2014 and March 12, 2015, two purported class
actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York -- Poovathur v. Avon Products, Inc.,
et al. (No. 14-CV-10083) and McCoy et al. v. Avon Products, Inc.,
et al. (No. 15-CV-01828) asserting claims under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") against the Company, the
Plan's administrator, benefits board and investment committee, and
certain individuals alleged to have served as Plan fiduciaries.

On April 8, 2015, the Court consolidated the two actions and
recaptioned the consolidated case as In re 2014 Avon Products,
Inc. ERISA Litigation, (No. 14-CV-10083).

On May 8, 2015, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint,
asserting claims for alleged breach of fiduciary duty and failure
to monitor under ERISA on behalf of a purported class of
participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan who invested in
and/or held shares of the Avon Common Stock Fund between July 31,
2006 and May 1, 2014 and between December 14, 2011 and the
present.  Plaintiffs seek, inter alia, certain monetary relief,
damages, and declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief.

On July 9, 2015, Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
complaint. The parties have reached an agreement on a settlement
of this class action. The terms of settlement include releases by
members of the class of claims against the Company and the
individual defendants and payment of approximately $6 million.

Under the terms of the settlement, approximately $5 million of the
settlement will be paid by the Company's insurer and approximately
$1 million will be paid by the Company (which represents the
remaining deductible under the Company's applicable insurance
policy).

On June 7, 2016, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement and scheduled a hearing to consider final approval for
October 11, 2016.

If the settlement is not approved by the court, or is otherwise
terminated before it is finalized, the Company will be unable to
predict the outcome of this matter. Furthermore, in that event, it
is reasonably possible that the Company may incur a loss in
connection with this matter, which the Company is unable to
reasonably estimate.


BAYLOR COLLEGE: Aguocha-Ohakweh Seeks to Represent Victims Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled Emily-Jean Aguocha-Ohakweh,
et al. v. Baylor College of Medicine, Harris County Hospital
District, et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-00903 (S.D. Tex.), ask the
Court to issue an order deeming the Plaintiffs as class
representatives for this class definition:

      i. All harmed victims of 14th Amendment U.S. Constitutional
         Rights deprivations or subjections to deprivation of
         such rights in the course of providing health care
         services in Texas and by persons or entities acting
         under the color of law;

     ii. All harmed victims of conspiracy for the purpose of
         impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating in any
         manner, the due course of justice in any State or
         Territory with the United States with intent to deny to
         any citizen the equal protection of the laws, and said
         wrongful acts and resulting injury occurred in the
         course of providing health care services in Texas; and

    iii. All harmed victims of any conspiracy or any act in
         furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, to either
         directly or indirectly deprive any persons of the equal
         protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and
         immunities under the whereby another is injured in his
         person or property, or deprived of having and exercising
         any right or privilege of a citizen of Texas, and said
         wrongful acts and resulting injury occurred in the
         course of providing health care services.

In addition, the Plaintiffs ask that Ernest C. Adimora-Nweke, Jr.,
Esq. of Adimora Law Firm, PLLC, and his firm's designated co-
counsel and of counsel (if any) be appointed as Class Counsel.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ernest Adimora-Nweke, Jr., Esq.
          ADIMORA LAW FIRM
          5100 Westheimer Rd., Suite 200
          Telephone: (281) 940-5170
          E-mail: Ernest@adimoralaw.com

Defendant Harris County Hospital District d/b/a Harris Health
System d/b/a Ben Taub Hospital is represented by:

          Ebon Swofford, Esq.
          ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
          L. Sara Thomas, Esq.
          DEPUTY MANAGING ATTORNEY
          2525 Holly Hall, Suite 190
          Houston, TX 77054
          Telephone: (713) 566-6559
          Facsimile: (713) 566-6558
          E-mail: Ebon.Swofford@harrishealth.org
                  Sara.thomas2@harrishealth.org

Defendant Baylor College of Medicine and its employee defendants
are represented by:

          Jeffrey B. McClure, Esq.
          Laura Trenaman, Esq.
          ANDREWS KURTH LLP
          600 Travis Street, Suite 4200
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 220-4200
          Telecopier: (713) 220-4285
          E-mail: jeffmcclure@andrewskurth.com
                  ltrenaman@andrewskurth.com

Defendant John Michael Halphen is represented by:

          John R. Strawn Jr., Esq.
          Andrew L. Pickens, Esq.
          STRAWN PICKENS LLP
          Pennzoil Place, South Tower
          711 Louisiana, Suite 1850
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 659-9600
          Facsimile: (713) 659-9601
          E-mail: jstrawn@strawnpickens.com
                  apickens@strawnpickens.com


BC HYDRO: BC Court Refuses to Certify Smart Meter Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tristram Mallett, Esq. -- tmallett@osler.com -- Christopher
Naudie, Esq. -- choward@pierceatwood.com -- and Evan Thomas, Esq.,
of Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, in an article for Lexology, report
that the BC Supreme Court's recent refusal to certify a class
action re-affirms that although the evidentiary threshold for
certifying general causation as a common issue is not high, it is
also not non-existent.

Background

In a 2013 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the
argument that courts must take a "rigorous" approach to class
certification and confirmed that plaintiffs need only show a
"credible" or "plausible" methodology to try issues of loss or
harm on a class-wide basis in price-fixing class actions.  Lower
courts in BC and Alberta have subsequently extended the
requirement to show a "plausible methodology" to causation issues
in product liability and brokerage class actions.  In particular,
according to the BC Court of Appeal, there is no requirement for a
"gold standard" study proving a causal connection at the
certification stage.

The Smart Meters Class Action

Davis v BC Hydro concerned the introduction of so-called "smart
meters" by BC Hydro. In 2011, BC Hydro began replacing existing
meters with new "smart meters" that communicated wirelessly.  The
plaintiffs asserted that the radiofrequency (RF) emissions from
smart meters caused biological harm and claimed that legislation
making smart meters mandatory infringed the Charter of Rights.

Although the allegation that RF emissions were harmful clearly
raised a complex factual issue about the biological effects of RF
emissions on humans, the plaintiffs apparently made a tactical
decision not to file expert evidence as to how the plaintiffs'
allegations could be proven.  Instead, the plaintiffs attached
copies of certain material asserting the potential adverse health
effects of RF emissions and smart meters.  In the plaintiffs'
submission, it was enough for the plaintiffs to show only the
existence of such material to establish a basis in fact for a
methodology to prove the proposed common issues on a class-wide
basis.

In response, the defendant filed two expert reports describing the
multitude of sources of RF emissions, including mobile phones,
baby monitors, radios and microwave ovens.  The thrust of the
defendant's expert evidence was that a class member's exposure to
RF emissions from a smart meter would depend on a variety of
factors, including the distance from the smart meter, the presence
of other sources of RF emissions, and the existence of walls or
other barriers between the meter and the individual. The
defendant's expert concluded that there were millions of exposure
scenarios to be considered and a large variation in RF exposure
levels.

The court found that the defendant's expert evidence was
unchallenged because the plaintiffs' evidence was not admissible
to show a methodology by which the biological effects of smart
meter RF emissions could be plausibly proved on a class-wide
basis.  The plaintiffs therefore failed to meet their evidentiary
burden to show there were common issues. Indeed, the certification
motion judge described the failure to lead admissible evidence as
a "fundamental problem for the plaintiffs".

Key Takeaway

The BC courts have issued a series of decisions applying the
Supreme Court's "credible or plausible" methodology requirement to
cases involving allegedly harmful products.  At this stage the
takeaway from these cases can be succinctly summarized as follows:
some evidence of a methodology showing the potential harmfulness
of products is required at certification, but it need not rise to
the level of a "gold standard" medical study.


BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE: "Body Snatching" Victims File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Daily Hornet reports that the family of a man whose dead body
was cut up and sold for profit has filed a class action lawsuit
against Biological Resource Center.

The lawsuit was filed by the children of William E. Perkins, a man
from Illinois who died of a stroke in November 2013.

His daughter says she signed a form that donated his body to
science.  It assured her the remains would be treated with
"dignity and respect" and whatever was not used would be cremated.

The family received cremated ashes in December 2013.  However, in
April 2015, the family was contacted by the FBI and notified of a
criminal investigation into Biological Resource Center.

The case started in Detroit, when FBI agents raided a company
called International Biological.  They found un-embalmed body
parts from thousands of different people -- including arms, legs,
and heads -- being kept on ice so they would be fresh for the
black market.

The FBI said they found body parts belonging to William Perkins
during a search.  The family now believes the ashes they received
did not actually belong to their father.

In May 2015, the family filed a class action lawsuit in Cook
County, Illinois - Case No. 2015-CH-08513.

The class action names several "organ donor" companies.  They are
all accused of illegally selling human bodies for profit and lying
to victims and family members about what they were doing.

Companies named in the class action:

   -- Biological Resource Center (Phoenix, Arizona)
   -- Biological Resource Center of Illinois (Rosemont/Schiller
Park, Illinois)
   -- International Biological, Inc. (Detroit, Michigan)
   -- Arthroscopy Association of North America (Schiller Park,
Illinois)
   -- Anatomical Service, Inc. (Schiller Park, Illinois)
   -- Waukegan Hospice Corp., Vista Hospice, Mercy Hospital and
Medical Center (Illinois)

Stephen Gore, the owner of Biological Resource Center, pled guilty
to a Class III felony in October 2015.  He admitted selling
contaminated human tissue and harvesting body parts against the
wishes of donors.

The class action was filed by Kenneth T. Goldstien and Clinton A.
Krislov of Krislov & Associated, Ltd., in Chicago, Illinois.


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Settlement Deal in "Skeen" Has Final Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JOSHUA SKEEN and LAURIE FREEMAN, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
BMW (U.S.) HOLDING CORP., a Delaware corporation; and BAYERISCHE
MOTORENWERK AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, a foreign corporation, Defendants,
Civ. No. 2:13-cv-1531-WHW-CLW (D.N.J.), Judge William H. Walls
granted final certification of the settlement class, approved the
settlement, and granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for
attorneys' fees and expenses.

The class action arose from alleged defects in the MINI Cooper, a
line of vehicles produced by the defendants BMW of North America,
LLC, BMW (U.S.) Holding Corp., and Bayerische Motorenwerk
Aktiengesellschaft.

Under the settlement, the defendants have agreed to provide N14
Class members with four primary types of relief, as follows:

          (1) N14 Class Vehicles will receive a warranty
              extension for the timing-chain tensioner and timing
              chain for seven years or 100,000 miles from the
              date when the vehicle was first placed into
              service, whichever comes first, subject to certain
              exceptions.

          (2) N14 Class members who submit claims by the relevant
              deadlines are entitled to reimbursement for out-of-
              pocket expenses incurred before the effective
              settlement date for repair and/or replacement of
              the timing chain and/or timing-chain tensioner,
              subject to certain limitations.  Class members are
              entitled to 100% of costs incurred at authorized
              MINI dealers and up to $120 for timing-chain
              tensioners and $850 for timing chains repaired or
              replaced at independent service centers.

          (3) N14 Class members who submit timely claims are
              entitled to reimbursement for up to $4,500 in out-
              of-pocket expenses incurred before the effective
              settlement date for repair and/or replacement of an
              engine because of timing-chain tensioner and/or
              timing chain failure, subject to discounts based on
              mileage and the amount of time since their vehicle
              was first placed into service, as well as certain
              other limitations.

          (4) N14 Class members who submit timely claims are
              entitled to compensation of up to $2,250 if they
              had to sell their vehicle at a loss before the
              effective settlement date due to an unrepaired
              damaged or failed engine caused by timing-chain
              tensioner and/or timing chain failure, again
              subject to discounts based on mileage and the time
              since their vehicle was first placed into service,
              as well as certain other limitations.

Judge Walls also granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses, awarding the plaintiffs a
total of $2,100,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses and service
awards of $4,000 each for the 18 class representatives.

A full-text copy of Judge Walls's July 26, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/P9mZML from Leagle.com.

JOSHUA SKEEN, LAURIE FREEMAN, Plaintiffs, represented by JEFFREY
ALAN KONCIUS -- koncius@kbla.com -- Kiesel Law LLP & WILLIAM J.
PINILIS -- wpinilis@consumerfraudlawyer.com -- PINILIS HALPERN.

Scott Lamb, Gina Romaggi, Emmanuel Nomikos, Plaintiffs,
represented by WILLIAM J. PINILIS, PINILIS HALPERN.

PATRICIA CURRAN, Plaintiff Consolidated, represented by BRYAN L.
CLOBES -- bclobes@caffertyclobes.com -- CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER
& SPRENGEL LLP & WILLIAM J. PINILIS, PINILIS HALPERN.

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE
AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, Defendants, represented by CHRISTOPHER J.
DALTON -- christopher.dalton@bipc.com -- BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL &
ROONEY, PC, ROSEMARY JOAN BRUNO -- rosemary.bruno@bipc.com --
BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC & DANIEL ZEV RIVLIN --
daniel.rivlin@bipc.com -- BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC.

BMW (US) HOLDING CORP., Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER J.
DALTON, BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC & ROSEMARY JOAN BRUNO,
BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC.


BOARDWALK AUTO: Accused by "Rashid" Suit of Illegal Termination
---------------------------------------------------------------
DJIBRILL RASHID v. BOARDWALK AUTO CENTER, INC., a California
Corporation dba BOARDWALK AUTO MALL; and DOES 1 through 20,
Inclusive, Case No. 16CIV00854 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Mateo Cty.,
August 10, 2016), is brought over alleged wrongful termination and
retaliation pursuant to the California Labor Code.

Boardwalk is a business entity incorporated in the state of
California.  Boardwalk is authorized and is doing business in the
County of San Mateo, California.  Boardwalk sells automobiles and
arranges for automobile financing.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus Jackson, Esq.
          MARCUS JACKSON, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          41593 Winchester Road, Suite 200
          Temecula, CA 92590
          Telephone: (951) 375-4624
          Facsimile: (951) 375-4625
          E-mail: marcus@jacksonlitigation.com

               - and -

          Vincent D. Howard, Esq.
          Kim L. Anglin, Esq.
          VINCENT D. HOWARD & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          2099 S. State College Blvd., Suite 600
          Anaheim, CA 92806
          Telephone: (800) 872-5925
          Facsimile: (888) 533-7310
          E-mail: vhoward@howardlawpc.com
                  kanglin@vdhoward.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Sued in Super. Ct. Over Pradaxa Safety
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH,
in Connecticut Superior Court, Hartford Judicial District.

The case is DOROTHY JOHNSON AND ANDER JOHNSON, and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer Ingelheim International
Gmbh, the Defendants.

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

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

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

Plaintiff's Counsel:

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

               - and -

          Matthew R. McCarley, Esq.
          Fears Nachawati, PLLC
          4925 Greenville Avenue, Suite 715
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 890 0711
          Facsimile: (214) 890 0712
          E-mail: mccarley@fnlawfirm.com


BOLLARE INC: "Greene" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH GREENE, an individual, the Plaintiff, v. BOLLARE, INC., a
California Corporation; and DOES 1- 100, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC629667 (Cal. Super. Ct. Aug. 5, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, statutory penalties,
interest, costs, and attorney's fees, and for injunctive relief
pursuant to Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants and each of them failed to
provide Plaintiff with: (1) proper payment of overtime wages due
to her; (2) uninterrupted meal periods as required by law and
regulation; (3) uninterrupted rest periods as required by law and
regulation; and (4) complete written statements to Plaintiff
itemizing the precise number of regular and overtime hours she
labored during each pay period as well the applicable rate of pay
for the regular and overtime hours labored in addition to lawful
deductions and other withholdings, otherwise known as pay stubs.

Bollare is a bi-coastally headquartered, full-service, beauty,
fashion and lifestyle public relations firm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas M. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LAW OFFICES, APLC
          3435 Wilshire Blvd Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 251 5533
          Facsimile: (213) 251 5534
          E-mail: leethomas.esq@gmail.com

               - and -

          Barry G. Florence, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BARRY G. FLORENCE
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2000
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 232 4969
          Facsimile: (213) 232 4890
          E-mail: bgf@bgflawoffices.com


BORGATA CASINO: Players Lose Appeal in "Chipgate" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Graham, writing for PokerNews Report, that Borgata Players
attempting to recover losses from the opening event of the 2014
Borgata Winter Open have lost their appeal against the Borgata
Casino and NJDGE.

In January 2014, the $2 million guaranteed opening event of the
Borgata Winter Open was suspended with just 27 players remaining
when it was discovered that Christian Lusardi had introduced
800,000 worth of counterfeit chips into play during Day 1B.

Mr. Lusardi was arrested and charged with counterfeiting, and also
with criminal mischief after he tried to flush remaining
counterfeit chips down the toilet of his hotel room.  In October
last year, Mr. Lusardi was sentenced to five years for his role in
the "Chipgate" scandal.

An investigation into the fraud by the Borgata Casino and New
Jersey Department of Gaming Enforcement (NJDGE) resulted in non-
cashing players having their buy-ins returned if it was considered
they had been impacted by Mr. Lusardi's cheating.  The remaining
27 players left in the tournament had the remaining prize money
equally distributed between them.

Not everybody was happy with the outcome.  A class action lawsuit
filed on behalf of New Jersey player Jacob Musterel alleged that
the Casino had allowed a rigged gaming event to take place by
failing to have adequate security in place and ignoring players'
suspicions about "off-colour" counterfeit chips at an early stage
of the event.

Mr. Musterel claimed that he and the other 4,284 players that had
entered the tournament were entitled not only to a refund of their
$560 buy-ins, but also compensation for their travel expenses and
hotel accommodation.  It was also claimed that the failure of the
Borgata to adequately police the event had deprived the players of
the opportunity of a big win.

Bruce LiCausi -- the attorney representing Musterel et al --
commented at the time that this was the cleanest claims we've had,
adding that players had attended the Borgata Winter Open expecting
a carefully supervised event.  However, Mr. LiCausi's optimism was
dented earlier this year when Marina District Finance Co. Inc. --
the Borgata's owners -- won a summary judgment to dismiss the
case.

The players appealed the summary judgment on the grounds that
Mr. Lusardi's inflated stack had given him a better opportunity to
eliminate players.  They claimed that this leverage had a ripple
event throughout the whole tournament. An appeal was also lodged
against the dismissal of a civil claim against the NJDGE for
negligently upholding the Borgata's distribution of the prize
money.

Both appeals were consolidated into one case and heard by the
Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court on Aug. 1.  At
the end of the hearing, Judges Jack Sabatino, Allison Accurso and
Amy O'Connor found that the Borgata Casino and NJDGE had done
everything possible to provide a fair and abrupt resolution to a
regrettable event.

The panel of judges upheld the dismissal of the class action
against the Borgata Casino and the civil action against the NJDGE.
The judges noted that every player potentially affected Mr. by Mr.
Lusardi's cheating had already got their money back, that the
Borgata had acted fairly in its distribution of the prize money
and that the NJDGE's endorsement of the Casino's actions was
appropriate.  With regard to the loss of opportunity for a big
win, the judges said:

Because poker is a game of chance, none of these plaintiffs could
predict or quantify his chances of winning in a meaningful and
reliable way.  There is simply no fairly calculable award that
would put these plaintiffs in as good a position as if performance
had been rendered, and thus no basis for an award of compensatory
damages.


BREATHLESS INC: Court Grants Bid for Summary Judgment in "Moon"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Susan D. Wigenton granted the defendant's motion for summary
judgment in the case captioned ALISSA MOON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BREATHLESS,
INC. a/k/a VISION FOOD & SPIRITS d/b/a BREATHLESS MEN'S CLUB,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 15-06297(SDW)(LDW) (D.N.J.).

A full-text copy of Judge Wigenton's July 29, 2016 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/8lO0lU from Leagle.com.

Alissa Moon commenced the putative collective and class action
against Breathless, Inc., owner and operator of Breathless Men's
Club, an adult nightclub in Rahway, New Jersey, on August 19,
2015.  Moon sought relief from Breathless, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), the New Jersey Wage Payment Law (NJWPL), and
the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (NJWHL).

ALISSA MOON, YASMEEN DAVIS, Plaintiffs, represented by JEREMY
EDWARD ABAY -- jabay@sackslaw.com -- Sacks Weston Diamond, LLC.

BREATHLESS, INC, Defendant, represented by MARC J. GROSS --
mgross@greenbaumlaw.com -- GREENBAUM, ROWE, SMITH & DAVIS, LLP &
JUSTIN P. KOLBENSCHLAG -- jkolbenschlag@greenbaumlaw.com --
GREENBAUM ROWE SMITH & DAVIS LLP.


BRENDAN STANTON: Certification of Class Sought in "Ramoutar" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dale Ramoutar, one of the Plaintiffs, in the lawsuit captioned
DALE RAMOUTAR and JOHN WOJCIECHOWICZ v. BRENDAN STANTON, INC.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-04941-ER (E.D. Pa.), moves for class
certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint Woodley & McGillivary
LLP to act as class counsel.  The Plaintiff further asks the Court
to direct the (i) Defendants to provide the addresses and social
security numbers of the potential Rule 23 class members within 14
calendar days, and (ii) parties to submit a joint proposed class
notice within 21 calendar days.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=uGhbZ2LK

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq.
          Molly A. Elkin, Esq.
          Diana J. Nobile, Esq.
          Sarah M. Block, Esq.
          WOODLEY & McGILLIVARY LLP
          1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 833-8855
          E-mail: gkm@wmlaborlaw.com
                  mae@wmlaborlaw.com
                  djn@wmlaborlaw.com
                  smb@wmlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq.
          WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON
          1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (202) 833-8855
          E-mail: rhancock@wwdlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jonathan Landesman, Esq.
          COHEN SEGLIAS PALLAS GREENHALL & FURMAN, P.C.
          United Plaza, 19th Floor
          30 South 17th Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          E-mail: jlandesman@cohenseglias.com


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Court Granted Final Approval of Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a court has granted
final approval of the settlement of the consolidated securities
class action.

On July 13, 2012, a securities class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California by
Donald K. Franke naming the Company, Andrew Clark, Daniel Devine
and Jane McAuliffe as defendants for allegedly making false and
materially misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and financial results, specifically the concealment of
accreditation problems at Ashford University. The complaint
asserted a putative class period stemming from May 3, 2011 to July
6, 2012. A substantially similar complaint was also filed in the
same court by Luke Sacharczyk on July 17, 2012 making similar
allegations against the Company, Andrew Clark and Daniel Devine.
The Sacharczyk complaint asserted a putative class period stemming
from May 3, 2011 to July 12, 2012.

On July 26, 2012, another purported securities class action
complaint was filed in the same court by David Stein against the
same defendants based upon the same general set of allegations and
class period. The complaints alleged violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and sought
unspecified monetary relief, interest and attorneys' fees.

On October 22, 2012, the Sacharczyk and Stein actions were
consolidated with the Franke action and the Court appointed the
City of Atlanta General Employees' Pension Fund and the Teamsters
Local 677 Health Services & Insurance Plan as lead plaintiffs. A
consolidated complaint was filed on December 21, 2012 and the
Company filed a motion to dismiss on February 19, 2013.

On September 13, 2013, the Court granted the motion to dismiss
with leave to amend for alleged misrepresentations relating to
Ashford University's quality of education, the WSCUC accreditation
process and the Company's financial forecasts. The Court denied
the motion to dismiss for alleged misrepresentations concerning
Ashford University's persistence rates.

Following the conclusion of discovery, the parties entered into an
agreement to settle the litigation for $15.5 million, which was
recorded by the Company during the third quarter of 2015 and
funded by the Company's insurance carriers in the first quarter of
2016.  The settlement was granted preliminary approval by the
Court on December 14, 2015, proceeded through the shareholder
claims administration process, and was granted final approval by
the Court on April 25, 2016.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Court Granted Leave to Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the case, Zamir
v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc., et al., the Court has granted the
motions to dismiss and granted plaintiff leave to file an amended
complaint within 30 days.

On February 24, 2015, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California by Nelda Zamir naming the Company, Andrew Clark and
Daniel Devine as defendants. The complaint asserts violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, claiming that the defendants made false
and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose
material adverse facts regarding the Company's business,
operations and prospects, specifically regarding the Company's
improper application of revenue recognition methodology to assess
collectability of funds owed by students. The complaint asserts a
putative class period stemming from August 7, 2012 to May 30, 2014
and seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest and attorneys'
fees.

On July 15, 2015, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff and for appointment of lead counsel.
On September 18, 2015, the plaintiff filed a substantially similar
amended complaint that asserts a putative class period stemming
from March 12, 2013 to May 30, 2014. The amended complaint also
names Patrick Hackett, Adarsh Sarma, Warburg Pincus & Co., Warburg
Pincus LLC, Warburg Pincus Partners LLC, and Warburg Pincus
Private Equity VIII, L.P. as additional defendants.

On November 24, 2015, all defendants filed motions to dismiss. On
July 25, 2016, the Court granted the motions to dismiss and
granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 30
days.

"The outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point
because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise.
Based on information available to the Company at present, it
cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action.
Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any liability associated
with this action," the Company said.


CAPITAL ONE: Hedman Seeks Certification of Classes
--------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled MICHELLE HEDMAN, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL
ONE BANK (USA), N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-1079 (E.D.
Wis.), Michelle Hedman moves the Court to certify classes.

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CASTLIGHT HEALTH: October 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Labaton Sucharow LLP on Aug.
11 issued a statement regarding the Castlight Health, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation:

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

In re CASTLIGHT HEALTH, INC.
SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION

Lead Case No. CIV533203
CLASS ACTION

Assigned for All Purposes to the
Honorable Marie S. Weiner

Dept. 2
Date Action Filed: 04/02/15

This Document Relates To:

ALL ACTIONS.


SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

TO:    ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES ("PERSONS") THAT PURCHASED
CASTLIGHT HEALTH, INC. ("CASTLIGHT" OR THE "COMPANY") CLASS B
COMMON STOCK PURSUANT OR TRACEABLE TO THE COMPANY'S REGISTRATION
STATEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE COMPANY'S MARCH 14, 2014 INITIAL
PUBLIC OFFERING ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 10, 2014

THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT.  IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION.  PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on
October 28, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Marie S.
Weiner at the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo,
Department 2, Courtroom 2E, 400 County Center, Redwood City, CA
94063, to determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement as set
forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated June 2, 2016
("Stipulation") of the above-captioned action ("Litigation") for
$9,500,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) to award Plaintiffs' Counsel
attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as
defined in the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action
("Notice"), which is discussed below); (3) to pay Plaintiffs for
their time and expenses they incurred in representing the Class in
this Litigation out of the Settlement Fund; and (4) the Plan of
Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable,
and adequate.

This Litigation is a securities class action brought on behalf of
those Persons who purchased the Class B common stock of Castlight
pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in
connection with the Company's March 14, 2014 initial public
offering ("IPO") on or before September 10, 2014 ("Class
Members"), against Castlight, certain of its key executives and
directors, and underwriters of Castlight's IPO (collectively,
"Defendants") for allegedly misstating and omitting material facts
from the Registration Statement filed with the SEC in connection
with the IPO, including, among other things: allegedly failing to
disclose in the Registration Statement that, at the time of the
IPO, Castlight was experiencing implementation delays, increased
expenses and inability to maintain pricing on its principal
product.  Defendants deny all of Plaintiffs' allegations.

IF YOU PURCHASED CASTLIGHT CLASS B COMMON STOCK PURSUANT OR
TRACEABLE TO THE COMPANY'S REGISTRATION STATEMENT FILED WITH THE
SEC IN CONNECTION WITH THE COMPANY'S MARCH 14, 2014 IPO ON OR
BEFORE SEPTEMBER 10, 2014, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE
SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION.

To share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must
submit a Proof of Claim by mail (postmarked no later than November
1, 2016) or electronically no later than November 1, 2016.  Your
failure to submit your Proof of Claim by November 1, 2016, will
subject your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of
the recovery in connection with the settlement of this Litigation.
If you are a Member of the Class and do not request exclusion, you
will be bound by the settlement and any judgment and release
entered in the Litigation, including, but not limited to, the
Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim.

If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more
completely describes the settlement and your rights thereunder
(including your right to object to the settlement or exclude
yourself from the Class), and a Proof of Claim form, you may
obtain these documents, as well as a copy of the Stipulation
(which, among other things, contains definitions for the defined
terms used in this Summary Notice) and other settlement documents,
online at www.castlightshareholderlitigation.com, or by writing
to:

          Castlight Shareholder Litigation
          Claims Administrator
          c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
          P.O. Box 30223
          College Station, TX  77842-3223
          Phone: 1-844-848-1253

Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court.  Inquiries may also be made to a
representative of Class Counsel:

          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          Shareholder Relations
          Rick Nelson
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 1-800-449-4900

          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          Nicole Zeiss
          Settlement Counsel
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 1-888-219-6877

IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A
REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN
OCTOBER 7, 2016, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.
ALL MEMBERS OF THE CLASS WHO HAVE NOT REQUESTED EXCLUSION FROM THE
CLASS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT ENTERED IN THE LITIGATION
EVEN IF THEY DO NOT FILE A TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM.

IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE
SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY PLAINTIFFS'
COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES, AND/OR THE
PAYMENT TO PLAINTIFFS FOR THEIR TIME AND EXPENSES.  ANY OBJECTIONS
MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO CLASS COUNSEL BY OCTOBER
7, 2016, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.

DATED:  August 3, 2016

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
HONORABLE MARIE S. WEINER


CHARTER TOWNSHIP: Certification of Class & Subclasses Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled GARNER PROPERTIES & MANAGEMENT, LLC,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF REDFORD, JOHN DOE CODE
OFFICIALS, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-14100-MAG-APP (E.D.
Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify class and sub-
classes consisting of:

     a) "all persons and entities who currently own and manage or
        at the time owned or managed any parcel of real property
        located within the Charter Township of Redford who have
        been issued tickets, fines, and/or civil infractions for
        failing to obtain a certificate of occupancy/compliance,
        and subsequent paid them, stemming from inspections under
        the IPMC and the Code, at any time since November 23,
        2009 and through the date of final judgment";

     b) "all persons and entities who have made repairs pursuant
        to a deficiency report issued by Redford without being
        provided with notice of the violation or their ability to
        appeal such determination to an impartial board"; and

     c) "all persons and entities who paid registration and
        inspection fees to the Township of Redford pursuant to
        the ordinance permitting searches without a warrant in
        violation of the 4th Amendment".

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GyFGa88m

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron D. Cox, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF
          AARON D. COX, PLLC
          23380 Goddard Rd.
          Taylor, MI 48180
          Telephone: (732) 287 3664

               - and -

          Mark K. Wasvary, Esq.
          MARK K. WASVARY PC
          2401 W. Big Beaver Rd., Ste 100
          Troy, MI 48084
          Telephone: (248) 649 5667
          E-mail: markwasvary@hotmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jeffrey R. Clark, Esq.
          CUMMINGS, McCLOREY,
          DAVIS & ACHO, PLC
          33900 Schoolcraft Rd.
          Livonia, MI 48150
          Telephone: (734) 261 2400
          E-mail: jclark@cmda.com


CHEVRON CORPORATION: McQueen et al. Seek Certification of Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Christopher McQueen, James O'Neal, and
Donnie Cummings, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiffs, v.
Chevron Corporation, Chevron U.S.A., Inc., and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-02089-JSW (N.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiffs move for conditional certification of:

     "all persons who worked as Consultant Site Managers, and in
     other positions with similar job titles and/or job duties
     for Defendants, at any time from three years prior to the
     filing of the action".

The Plaintiffs also ask that within ten days of the Court's order,
Defendants be required to provide Plaintiffs' counsel with a list
of all persons who worked as Consultant Site Managers (in
Excel or similar format) who are, or were, performing work for
Defendants at any time during the three years prior to the filing
of the action.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=A8Beg6A3

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHICAGO, IL: Conyers et al. Seek Certification of Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Blake Conyers, Lamar Ewing, and Kevin Flint,
individually and for a class, the Plaintiffs, v. City of Chicago,
Case No. 1:12-cv-06144 (N.D. Ill), the Plaintiffs move the Court
to certify a class of:

     "all persons who, following an arrest, had property
     inventoried as available for return to Owner by the Chicago
     Police Department from December 1, 2011 to December 31,
     2013, who were then held in custody for more than 30 days
     and whose property was destroyed or sold by the Chicago
     Police Department".

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gmsSNx4M

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kenneth N. Flaxman, Esq.
          Joel A. Flaxman, Esq.
          200 S Michigan Ave, Ste 201
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 427 3200

The Defendant is represented by:

          Allan T. Slagel, Esq.
          Brian Weinthal, Esq.
          Jonathan B. Amarilio, Esq.
          TAFT STETTINIUS &HOLLISTER LLP
          111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 527 4000
          Facsimile: (312) 527 4011
          E-mail: aslagel@taftlaw.com
                  bweinthal@taftlaw.com
                  jamarilio@taftlaw.com


COOK SALES: Warren et al. Seek Collective Action Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ALLISON WARREN, et al., the Plaintiffs,
v. COOK SALES, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-
00603-WS-M (S.D. Ala.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an
order:

     a. certifying the case as a collective action for settlement
        purposes;

     b. authorizing distribution of a Notice of Settlement to
        Cook's sales representatives employed at one of Cook's
        sales lots during the Collective Period (Potential Opt-
        ins) of their opportunity to participate in the
        settlement and to file objections with the
        Court; and

     c. setting a date to address final approval of the
        Settlement Agreement, including approval of Plaintiffs'
        counsel's fees, costs, and expenses, and service and
        damages payments to Plaintiffs.

The Parties' settlement provides that Cook will pay $495,000 into
a common settlement fund (Gross Fund) to compensate Plaintiffs and
Future Opt-Ins. Cook will also pay for the fees for mediation with
Ms. Singer. The Gross Fund will fund a service payment of up to
$5,000 to each of the Plaintiffs for an aggregate total of $40,000
in recognition of the efforts they made for the benefit of other
Cook sales representatives during the litigation, which included
participation in discovery by responding to Court interrogatories
and preparing for and attending mediation for the benefit of
themselves and all of the Potential Opt-Ins.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Bp7deSrn

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sam J. Smith, Esq.
          BURR & SMITH, LLP
          111 2nd Ave. N.E., Suite 1100
          St. Petersburg, FL 33701
          Telephone: (813) 253 2010
          Facsimile: (727) 823 2126
          E-mail: ssmith@burrandsmithlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert Childs, Esq.
          WIGGINS, CHILDS,
          PANTAZIS, FISHER & GOLDFARB
          The Kress Building
          301 19th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 314 0500
          Facsimile: (205) 254 1500
          E-mail: RChilds@wigginschilds.com

               - and -

          Robert C. Epperson, Esq.
          ROBERT C. EPPERSON, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          P O Box 477
          Foley, AL 36536
          Telephone: (251) 943 8870
          E-mail: repperson@rcelaw.com

               - and -

          Elliott Britton Monroe, Esq.
          Taffi Smith Stewart, Esq.
          Michelle McClafferty, Esq.
          LLOYD, GRAY, WHITEHEAD
          & MONROE, P.C.
          2501 Twentieth Place S., Ste. 300
          Birmingham, AL 35223
          E-mail: bmonroe@lgwmlaw.com
                  mmcclafferty@lgwmlaw.com
                  tstewart@lgwmlaw.com


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Stern Questions Sale of Kirkland Canned Chicken
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HOWARD S. STERN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Case No. 3:16-cv-04884-
MAS-DEA (D.N.J., August 10, 2016), is brought on behalf of all
citizens of New Jersey, who purchased cans of Kirkland Canned
Chicken at any time within the last six years.

Mr. Stern contends that Costco has continuously engaged in
unconscionable business practices and deceptive acts in connection
with the marketing and sale of its Kirkland Canned Chicken during
the Class Period, which have injured him and the Class and which
will continue to injure consumers unless the practices are
stopped.

Costco, a Washington corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
operates membership warehouses.  The Company offers branded and
private-label products in a range of merchandise categories (such
as canned chicken breast), including Kirkland Signature, its house
brand.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey W. Herrmann, Esq.
          Peter S. Pearlman, Esq.
          COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP
          Park 80 Plaza West-One
          Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
          Telephone: (201) 845-9600
          E-mail: psp@njlawfirm.com
                  jwh@njlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Patricia I. Avery, Esq.
          Matthew Insley-Pruitt, Esq.
          Robert Plosky, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 759-4600
          E-mail: pavery@wolfpopper.com
                  MInsley-Pruitt@wolfpopper.com
                  rplosky@wolfpopper.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Sued Over Excessive Property Appraised Value
------------------------------------------------------------
SEMPLE JOHN H & MARSHA D, the Plaintiffs, v. DALLAS CENTRAL
APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-09466 (Dal. Cty.
Ct., Aug. 5, 2016), asks the Court to enter an order setting the
appraised value of the Plaintiffs' Property at a value required by
law.

According to the complaint, the appraised value of their Property
exceeds the market value and/or fair cash market value of the
Property in violation of Tex. Tax Code. The appraised value of the
Plaintiffs' Property is allegedly excessive and unlawful.

Dallas Central is responsible for appraising all real and business
personal property within Dallas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gavin Mcbride, Esq.
          Kathleen J. Santos
          MCBRYDE FIRM, PLLC
          7600 Burnet Road, Suite 500
          Austin, TX 78757
          Telephone: (512) 296 2115
          Facsimile: (512) 691 9072
          E-mail: Serv.gavin@mcbrydefirm.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Sued Over Excessive Property Appraised Value
------------------------------------------------------------
EG REFLECTIONS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL
DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-09455 (Dal. Cty. Ct., Aug.
5, 2016), asks the Court to enter an order setting the appraised
value of the Plaintiffs' Property at a value required by law.

The Plaintiff alleges that the value placed on the Property by the
District represents a value in excess of fair market value for tax
year 2016 in violation of Tex. Tax Code.

Dallas Central is responsible for appraising all real and business
personal property within Dallas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Long, Esq.
          Heather H. Long, Esq.
          LANG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          Plano, TX 75026
          Telephone: (972) 731 6758
          Facsimile: (469) 854 3336
          E-mail: mike@langlawtx.com


DCOR LLC: Fails to Pay Wages and Overtime, "Robarge" Suit Asserts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN ROBARGE, an individual; and MATTHEW SCHUMANN, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of a Class of all other person, similarly
situated v. DCOR, LLC, a Texas limited liability corporation; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC630278 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Los Angeles Cty., August 10, 2016), accuses the Defendants of
failure to pay wages, including overtime compensation and to
provide meal and rest periods, among other failures.

DCOR is a Texas limited liability corporation headquartered in
Dallas, Texas.  DCOR is a company that explores and produces oil
and natural gas in California and operates throughout California
through the operation of off-shore platforms where the Class
Members worked.  The true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants are currently unknown.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard E. Quintilone II, Esq.
          Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq.
          QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES
          22974 El Toro Road, Suite 100
          Lake Forest, CA 92630-4961
          Telephone: (949) 458-9675
          Facsimile: (949) 458-9679
          E-mail: req@quintlaw.com
                  abl@quintlaw.com


DIRECTV LLC: First to File Rule Does Not Apply in "Swetra" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert B. Kugler of the District of New Jersey
denied defendant's motion to dismiss in the case GREGORY SWETRA,
Plaintiff, v. DIRECTV, LLC, Defendant, Civil No. 15-8761 (RBK/AMD)
(D.N.J.)

Throughout 2015, DirectTV, LLC placed numerous calls to Gregory
Swetra's cellularphone.  The calls all used an automated or
prerecorded voice when Swetra answered, and many of them had
unnatural periods of silence when Swetra picked up the phone.
Swetra never gave DirectTV his prior express consent to make the
calls, and Swetra's requests that DirectTV stop these calls have
gone unheeded.

Swetra filed a complaint on December 19, 2015, requesting
statutory damages and injunctive relief. Swetra brought his claim
against DirectTV based solely on violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, specifically violations of 47 U.S.C.
Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).

DirectTV filed a motion to dismiss on February 5, 2016 on the
grounds that pursuant to the first-to-file rule, Swetra's case
should be dismissed, transferred, or stayed in light of a
previously pending action in the Central District of California or
the action between DirectTV and Jenny Brown.

DirectTV argues that the proposed class in the Brown action
includes Swetra, and that both the Brown Action and the present
case involve injunctive and monetary relief for violations of the
TCPA. In response, Swetra submits, that without a certified class
DirectTV's arguments are premature, that he does not necessarily
fall within the proposed class definition, and that DirectTV is
taking contrary positions in the litigation and in the Brown
action. Swetra also argues that even if the first-filed rule
applies, the private and public factors in the 28 U.S.C. Section
1404 analysis do not favor transfer of the case.

Judge Kugler denied defendant's motion to dismiss.  A copy of
Judge Kugler's opinion dated August 9, 2016, is available at
http://goo.gl/JPDrEofrom Leagle.com.

GREGORY SWETRA, Plaintiff, represented by JEREMY M. GLAPION --
jmg@glapionlaw.com -- at The Glapion Law Firm

DIRECTV, LLC, Defendant, represented by RICHARD H. BROWN, III --
rbrown@daypitney.com -- at DAY PITNEY, LLP


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: To Defend Against "Davenport" Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Discover Financial Services said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company will
seek to vigorously defend against all claims asserted in the class
action lawsuit by Sumner Davenport.

On July 9, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois (Polly Hansen v. Discover Financial Services and Discover
Home Loans, Inc.). The plaintiff alleges that the Company
contacted her, and members of the class she seeks to represent, on
their cellular and residential telephones without their express
consent or after consent was revoked in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Plaintiff seeks statutory
damages for alleged negligent and willful violations of the TCPA,
attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief. The TCPA provides
for statutory damages of $500 for each violation ($1,500 for
willful violations).

On March 9, 2016, Sumner Davenport was substituted as lead
plaintiff for Polly Hansen. The Company will seek to vigorously
defend against all claims asserted by the plaintiff.


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Have Until August 25 to Respond to B&R Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discover Financial Services said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Defendants have
until August 25, 2016 to respond to the amended complaint in the
case by B&R Supermarket, Inc.

On March 8, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (B&R Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Milam's Market, et al. v.
Visa, Inc. et al.) alleging violations of the Sherman Antitrust
Act, California's Cartwright Act, and unjust enrichment.
Plaintiffs allege a conspiracy to shift fraud liability to
merchants with the migration to the EMV security standard and chip
technology. Plaintiffs seek damages, attorneys' fees, costs and
injunctive relief.

On July 15, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
Defendants have until August 25, 2016 to respond to the amended
complaint.

The Company is not in a position at this time to assess the likely
outcome or its exposure, if any, with respect to this matter, but
will seek to vigorously defend against all claims asserted by the
plaintiffs.


DISTINCTIVE MAINTENANCE: Faces "Sequinot" Suit Over Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Sequinot, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Distinctive Maintenance Company Inc., and
Julio Goris, Case No. 1:16-cv-06372 (S.D.N.Y., August 10, 2016),
alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Minimum Wage Act, the Plaintiff and the proposed class
members are entitled to:

    (i) unpaid wages from the Defendants for working more than
        40 hours in a week and not being paid an overtime rate of
        at least 1.5 times the regular rate for each and all such
        hours over 40 in a week; and

   (ii) entitled to maximum liquidated damages and attorneys'
        fees pursuant to the FLSA and the NYMWA.

Distinctive Maintenance Company Inc. is a New York for-profit
corporation.  Julio Goris owns/controls/manages the Company and is
in charge of the Company's operations and management.  The
Defendants' principal place of business is in Bronx County, New
York.  The Defendants provide building maintenance and repair
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
          ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
          215-28 Hillside Avenue
          Queens Village, NY 11427
          Telephone: (718) 740-1000
          Facsimile: (718) 740-2000
          E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


DUN & BRADSTREET: Settlement in O&R Construction Case Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
plaintiff's filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of
the Class Action Settlement in the case, O&R Construction, LLC v.
Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp., et al., No. 2:12 CV 02184
(TSZ) (W.D. Wash.), remains pending.

On December 13, 2012, plaintiff O&R Construction LLC filed a
putative class action in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington against the Company and Dun &
Bradstreet Credibility Corp.

In May 2015, the Company acquired the parent company of DBCC,
Credibility. The complaint alleged, among other things, that
defendants violated the antitrust laws, used deceptive marketing
practices to sell the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products and
allegedly misrepresented the nature, need and value of the
products. The plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a putative
class of purchasers of CreditBuilder and seeks recovery of damages
and equitable relief.

DBCC was served with the complaint on December 14, 2012. The
Company was served with the complaint on December 17, 2012. On
February 18, 2013, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint. On April 5, 2013, plaintiff filed an amended complaint
in lieu of responding to the motion. The amended complaint dropped
the antitrust claims and retained the deceptive practices
allegations. The defendants filed new motions to dismiss the
amended complaint on May 3, 2013.

On August 23, 2013, the Court heard the motions and denied DBCC's
motion but granted the Company's motion. Specifically, the Court
dismissed the contract claim against the Company with prejudice,
and dismissed all the remaining claims against the Company without
prejudice. On September 23, 2013, plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Complaint ("SAC"). The SAC alleges claims for negligence,
defamation and unfair business practices under Washington state
law against the Company for alleged inaccuracies in small business
credit reports.

The SAC also alleges liability against the Company under a joint
venture or agency theory for practices relating to
CreditBuilder(R). As against DBCC, the SAC alleges claims for
negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, unfair and
deceptive acts, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. DBCC
filed a motion to dismiss the claims that were based on a joint
venture or agency liability theory. The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the SAC.

On January 9, 2014, the Court heard argument on the defendants'
motions. It dismissed with prejudice the claims against the
defendants based on a joint venture or agency liability theory.
The Court denied the Company's motion with respect to the
negligence, defamation and unfair practices claims. On January 23,
2014, the defendants answered the SAC. At a court conference on
December 17, 2014, plaintiff informed the Court that it would not
be seeking to certify a nationwide class, but instead limit the
class to CreditBuilder purchasers in Washington. On May 29, 2015,
plaintiff filed motions for class certification against the
Company and DBCC. On July 29, 2015, Defendants filed oppositions
to the motions for class certification.

On September 16, 2015, plaintiff filed reply briefs in support of
the motions for class certification. At the request of the
parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court entered an order striking
plaintiff's class certification motions without prejudice and
striking all upcoming deadlines while the parties negotiated a
written settlement agreement.

On February 11, 2016, the parties entered into a written
settlement term sheet, and on May 16, 2016, the parties executed a
settlement agreement, which is subject to Court approval. On May
17, 2016, plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of the Class Action Settlement.

"Our ultimate liability related to this matter is contingent upon
our insurance coverage and we do not expect the impact will be
material to our financial results," the Company said.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Settlement in Die-Mension Case Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
plaintiff's filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of
the Class Action Settlement in the case, Die-Mension Corporation
v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp. et al., No. 2:14-cv-00855
(TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 1:14-cv-392 (N.D. Oh.)), remains
pending.

On February 20, 2014, plaintiff Die-Mension Corporation ("Die-
Mension") filed a putative class action in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the
Company and DBCC, purporting to sue on behalf of a putative class
of all purchasers of a CreditBuilder product in the United States
or in such state(s) as the Court may certify. The complaint
alleged that DBCC used deceptive marketing practices to sell the
CreditBuilder credit monitoring products. As against the Company,
the complaint alleged a violation of Ohio's Deceptive Trade
Practices Act ("DTPA"), defamation, and negligence. As against
DBCC, the complaint alleged violations of the DTPA, negligent
misrepresentation and concealment.

On March 4, 2014, in response to a direction from the Ohio court,
Die-Mension withdrew its original complaint and filed an amended
complaint. The amended complaint contains the same substantive
allegations as the original complaint, but limits the purported
class to small businesses in Ohio that purchased the CreditBuilder
product. On March 12, 2014, DBCC agreed to waive service of the
amended complaint and on March 13, 2014, the Company agreed to
waive service. On May 5, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint
Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of
Washington. On June 9, 2014, the Ohio court issued an order
granting the Defendants' Joint Motion to Transfer. On June 22,
2014, the case was transferred to the Western District of
Washington. Pursuant to an order entered on December 17, 2014 by
the Washington court, this case was coordinated for pre-trial
discovery purposes with related cases transferred to the Western
District of Washington.

On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order
setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015,
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. In
response, Die-Mension filed a second amended complaint on March
13, 2015. On April 3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss
the second amended complaint, and on May 22, 2015, Die-Mension
filed its oppositions to the motions. Defendants filed reply
briefs on June 12, 2015. On July 17, 2015, Die-Mension filed
motions for class certification against the Company and DBCC. On
September 9, 2015, the Washington court entered an order denying
the Company's motion to dismiss, and on September 10, 2015, it
entered an order granting DBCC's motion to dismiss without
prejudice.

At the request of the parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court
entered an order striking plaintiff's class certification motions
without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines while the
parties negotiated a written settlement agreement.

On February 11, 2016, the parties entered into a written
settlement term sheet, and on May 16, 2016, the parties executed a
settlement agreement, which is subject to Court approval. On May
17, 2016, plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of the Class Action Settlement.

"Our ultimate liability related to this matter is contingent upon
our insurance coverage and we do not expect the impact will be
material to our financial results," the Company said.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Settlement in Vinotemp Case Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
plaintiff's filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of
the Class Action Settlement in the case, Vinotemp International
Corporation and CPrint(R), Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility
Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv-01021 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No.
8:14-cv-00451 (C.D. Cal.)), remains pending.

On March 24, 2014, plaintiffs Vinotemp International Corporation
("Vinotemp") and CPrint(R), Inc. ("CPrint") filed a putative class
action in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California against the Company and DBCC. Vinotemp and
CPrint purport to sue on behalf of all purchasers of DBCC's
CreditBuilder product in the state of California. The complaint
alleges that DBCC used deceptive marketing practices to sell the
CreditBuilder credit monitoring products, in violation of
Sec.17200 and Sec.17500 of the California Business and Professions
Code. The complaint also alleges negligent misrepresentation and
concealment against DBCC. As against the Company, the complaint
alleges that the Company entered false and inaccurate information
on credit reports in violation of Sec.17200 of the California
Business and Professions Code, and also alleges negligence and
defamation claims.

On March 31, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the
complaint and on April 2, 2014, DBCC agreed to waive service. On
June 13, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Unopposed Motion
to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington.
On July 2, 2014, the California court granted the Defendants'
Joint Motion to Transfer, and on July 8, 2014, the case was
transferred to the Western District of Washington. Pursuant to an
order entered on December 17, 2014 by the Washington court, this
case was coordinated for pre-trial discovery purposes with related
cases transferred to the Western District of Washington.

On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order
setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015,
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. In response,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 13, 2015. On April
3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaint, and on May 22, 2015, plaintiffs filed their oppositions
to the motions. Defendants filed reply briefs on June 12, 2015. On
July 17, 2015, Plaintiffs filed motions for class certification
against the Company and DBCC. On September 9, 2015, the Washington
court entered an order denying the Company's motion to dismiss. At
the request of the parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court entered
an order striking plaintiff's class certification motions and
DBCC's motion to dismiss without prejudice and striking all
upcoming deadlines while the parties negotiated a written
settlement agreement.

On February 11, 2016, the parties entered into a written
settlement term sheet, and on May 16, 2016, the parties executed a
settlement agreement, which is subject to Court approval. On May
17, 2016, plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of the Class Action Settlement.

"Our ultimate liability related to this matter is contingent upon
our insurance coverage and we do not expect the impact will be
material to our financial results," the Company said.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Settlement in Flow Sciences Case Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
plaintiff's filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of
the Class Action Settlement in the case, Flow Sciences Inc. v. Dun
& Bradstreet Credibility Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv-01404 (TSZ)
(W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 7:14-cv-128 (E.D.N.C.)), remains
pending.

On June 13, 2014, plaintiff Flow Sciences Inc. ("Flow Sciences")
filed a putative class action in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina against the Company and
DBCC. Flow Sciences purports to sue on behalf of all purchasers of
DBCC's CreditBuilder product in the state of North Carolina. The
complaint alleges that the Company and DBCC engaged in deceptive
practices in connection with DBCC's sale of the CreditBuilder
credit monitoring products, in violation of North Carolina's
Unfair Trade Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 75-1.1 et seq. In
addition, as against the Company, the complaint alleges negligence
and defamation claims. The complaint also alleges negligent
misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC.

On June 18, 2014, DBCC agreed to waive service of the complaint
and on June 26, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the
complaint. On August 4, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint
Unopposed Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western
District of Washington. On September 8, 2014, the North Carolina
court granted the motion to transfer, and on September 9, 2014,
the case was transferred to the Western District of Washington.
Pursuant to an order entered on December 17, 2014 by the
Washington court, this case was coordinated for pre-trial
discovery purposes with related cases transferred to the Western
District of Washington.

On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order
setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015,
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. In response,
Flow Sciences filed an amended complaint on March 13, 2015. On
April 3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaint, and on May 22, 2015, Flow Science filed its oppositions
to the motions. Defendants filed reply briefs on June 12, 2015. On
July 17, 2015, Flow Sciences filed motions for class certification
against the Company and DBCC. On September 9, 2015, the Washington
court entered an order denying the Company's motion to dismiss and
on October 19, 2015, it entered an order denying DBCC's motion to
dismiss.

At the request of the parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court
entered an order striking plaintiff's class certification motions
without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines while the
parties negotiated a written settlement agreement.

On February 11, 2016, the parties entered into a written
settlement term sheet, and on May 16, 2016, the parties executed a
settlement agreement, which is subject to Court approval. On May
17, 2016, plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of the Class Action Settlement.

"Our ultimate liability related to this matter is contingent upon
our insurance coverage and we do not expect the impact will be
material to our financial results," the Company said.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Settlement in Altaflo Case Pending
----------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
plaintiff's filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of
the Class Action Settlement in the case, Altaflo, LLC v. Dun &
Bradstreet Credibility Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv-01288 (TSZ)
(W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 2:14-cv-03961 (D.N.J.)), remains
pending.

On June 20, 2014, plaintiff Altaflo, LLC ("Altaflo") filed a
putative class action in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey against the Company and DBCC. Altaflo
purports to sue on behalf of all purchasers of DBCC's
CreditBuilder product in the state of New Jersey. The complaint
alleges that the Company and DBCC engaged in deceptive practices
in connection with DBCC's sale of the CreditBuilder credit
monitoring products, in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act, N.J. Stat. Sec. 56:8-1 et seq. In addition, as against the
Company, the complaint alleges negligence and defamation claims.
The complaint also alleges negligent misrepresentation and
concealment against DBCC.

On June 26, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the
complaint, and on July 2, 2014, DBCC agreed to waive service. On
July 29, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Unopposed Motion
to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington.
On July 31, 2014, the New Jersey court granted the Defendants'
Joint Motion to Transfer, and the case was transferred to the
Western District of Washington on August 20, 2014. Pursuant to an
order entered on December 17, 2014 by the Washington court, this
case was coordinated for pre-trial discovery purposes with related
cases transferred to the Western District of Washington.

On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order
setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015,
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. In response,
Altaflo filed an amended complaint on March 13, 2015. On April 3,
2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint,
and on May 22, 2015, Altaflo filed its oppositions to the motions.
Defendants filed reply briefs on June 12, 2015. On July 17, 2015,
Altaflo filed motions for class certification against the Company
and DBCC. On September 9, 2015, the Washington court entered an
order denying the Company's motion to dismiss, and on October 19,
2015, it entered an order granting DBCC's motion to dismiss
without prejudice.

At the request of the parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court
entered an order striking plaintiff's class certification motions
without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines while the
parties negotiated a written settlement agreement.

On February 11, 2016, the parties entered into a written
settlement term sheet, and on May 16, 2016, the parties executed a
settlement agreement, which is subject to Court approval. On May
17, 2016, plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of the Class Action Settlement.

"Our ultimate liability related to this matter is contingent upon
our insurance coverage and we do not expect the impact will be
material to our financial results," the Company said.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Settlement Reached in "Thomas" Case
-----------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
parties in the case, Jeffrey A. Thomas v. Dun & Bradstreet
Credibility Corp., No. 2:15 cv 03194-BRO-GJS (C.D. Cal.), are in
the process of drafting a written settlement agreement and all
attendant documents.

On April 28, 2015, Jeffrey A. Thomas ("Plaintiff") filed suit
against DBCC in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. The complaint alleges that DBCC violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") (47 U.S.C. Sec.
227) because it placed telephone calls to Plaintiff's cell phone
using an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS"). The TCPA
generally prohibits the use of an ATDS to place a call to a cell
phone for non-emergency purposes and without the prior express
written consent of the called party.  The TCPA provides for
statutory damages of $500 per violation, which may be trebled to
$1,500 per violation at the discretion of the court if the
plaintiff proves the defendant willfully violated the TCPA.
Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of similarly situated
individuals who received calls on their cell phones from an ATDS.

DBCC was served with a copy of the summons and complaint on April
30, 2015. On May 22, 2015, the Company made a statutory offer of
judgment. Plaintiff did not respond to the offer. DBCC filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint on June 12, 2015, which the Court
denied on August 5, 2015. DBCC filed an Answer and asserted its
Affirmative Defenses on November 12, 2015. Discovery commenced and
the Court issued a schedule for amended pleadings, discovery, the
filing of any class certification motion and trial.

During the discovery period, the parties agreed to attempt to
settle the dispute through mediation. On June 2, 2016 the parties
conducted one day of mediation, and shortly after the mediation,
the parties reached an agreement to settle the dispute on a class-
wide basis.

The parties are in the process of drafting a written settlement
agreement and all attendant documents. The parties informed the
Court of their agreement, and on June 22, 2016 the Court entered
an Order requiring the parties to file a motion for preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement, together with all
accompanying documents, on or before August 4, 2016, or otherwise
provide the Court with a Joint Status Report with an update on the
settlement. In the same Order the Court vacated all previously
scheduled dates and deadlines.


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Brown" Suit in E.D. of Virginia
------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Experian Information Solutions,
Inc. The case is entitled Frances D. Brown, Robert G. Green,
Willie Stanley, Jr., Brenda M. Walker, and Valerot W. Whitlow, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals,
the Plaintiff, v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00670-MHL (E.D. Va., Aug. 11, 2016).
The assigned District Judge is Hon. M. Hannah Lauck.

Experian, an information services company, provides information,
analytical, and marketing services to organizations and consumers.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Casey Shannon Nash, Esq.
          Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
          Matthew James Erausquin, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITGATION
          ASSOCIATES PC (ALEX)
          1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 600
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: (703) 273 7770
          Facsimile: (888) 892 3512
          E-mail: casey@clalegal.com
                  lenbennett@clalegal.com
                  matt@clalegal.com

               - and -

          Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
          Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
          KELLY & CRANDALL PLC
          4084 University Drive, Suite 202A
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424 7570
          Facsimile: (703) 591 0167
          E-mail: aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com
                  kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Faces Class Action Over "Slamming" Practice
------------------------------------------------------------
Brian E. Dickerson, Esq. -- Brian.Dickerson@fisherbroyles.com --
Nicole Hughes Waid, Esq. -- Nicole.Waid@fisherbroyles.com --
Anthony J. Calamunci, Esq. -- anthony.calamunci@fisherbroyles.com
-- and Amy L. Butler, Esq. -- Amy.Butler@fisherbroyles.com -- of
FisherBroyles, in an article for Lexology, report that on August
1, five pharmacies joined together and filed a class action
lawsuit against Express Scripts Inc. (ESI), alleging ESI
systematically stole customers to boost its mail order business.
Initiated by Trone Health Services, Inc. (Idaho), Reddish
Pharmacy, Inc. (Idaho), Jabos Pharmacy, Inc. (Tennessee), Oak Tree
Pharmacy (Oregon), and Amrut JAL, LLC (Indiana), the lawsuit was
filed in United States District Court Eastern District of Missouri
on behalf of the plaintiff's and all others similarly situated.
The Plaintiff's estimate the class action would include
approximately 50,000 pharmacies.

The complaint alleges ESI improperly used customer information and
prescription data to divert customers to its own mail order
pharmacy business.  ESI is the largest Pharmacy Benefit Manager
(PBM) in the U.S., responsible for processing prescription drug
benefits of more than 25% of insured patients, processing an
estimated 1.4 billion prescriptions per year.  ESI has contracts
with many of the largest providers of insured and pre-paid
prescription drug benefits, including for example, the Department
of Defense (TRICARE), UnitedHealth Group, and Wellpoint.
Allegations against ESI include unfair competition, breach of
contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, interference with prospective economic advantage,
violation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and fraud.

ESI's PBM contracts give them access to customer data to verify
that beneficiaries are eligible for prescription coverage and to
collect insurance payments.  The lawsuit alleges that ESI has
improperly used this information to divert pharmacy customers via
a practice of prescription "slamming," a practice that has
generated billions of dollars in illegal profits for ESI and
denied the pharmacies of revenue.  ("Slamming" is a situation in
which a consumer's service is switched without the consumer's
permission, a practice the Federal Trade Commission has deemed
illegal in the telecommunications industry.)  Pursuant to the PBM
contractual language and HIPAA regulations, ESI's use of the
customer data to divert business to its mail order pharmacy
violates the both the PBM contract and HIPAA regulations.  HIPPA
requires that personal health information (PHI) data be used only
for the purpose for which it was provided and, PBM contractual
language states the PHI data is for two purposes: (1) confirm
eligibility, and (2) collect payment for filling the prescription.

ESI's mail order pharmacy business has tripled since 2009, largely
due to its "mail conversion program," which generated 41.8 million
prescriptions in 2009 with revenues of $8 billion and grew to
141.2 million prescriptions with revenues of $37.6 billion in
2013.  The lawsuit alleges all or nearly all of the $37.6 billion
collected by ESI's mail conversion program in 2013 would have been
collected by retail pharmacies.

ESI's contracts require pharmacies to provide customer and
prescription information that is not actually necessary to confirm
eligibility or collect payment.  According the complaint, ESI has
used the data to identify the most profitable prescriptions for
their mail conversion program in order to switch refills without
the customer's knowledge or consent.  Brand prescription drugs,
particularly name brand drugs for chronic conditions, generally
produce more net profit than generic drugs.  Pharmacies understood
that PBM contracts required the filling of generic drug
prescriptions at very little profit or in some cases, at a loss.
However, they also understood and relied upon the profitability of
filling prescriptions for brand name drugs.  By converting the
more profitable prescriptions to mail order, ESI has effectively
harmed the pharmacies ability operate a profitable business and in
some cases, may have driven small independent pharmacies out of
business.

Pharmacies and customers typically learn that a prescription has
been converted to mail order when a refill is requested by the
customer and submitted to ESI by the pharmacy.  However, rather
than receiving a confirmation that the prescription is covered by
the customer's insurance, as was the case when the prescription
was originally filled, pharmacies are notified that the
prescription has been switched to "mandatory mail order" and that
only Express Scripts will be permitted to fulfill the
prescription's refills.  The customer has no recourse to convert
the prescription back to the retail pharmacy.

ESI's mail order conversion program does not benefit customers or
insurers according to the complaint.  In fact, the program
benefits only ESI.  State "Any Willing Provider" laws prohibit ESI
from requiring patients to pay different co-pay, co-insurance or
deductibles based on whether they fill a prescription at a local
pharmacy or via mail order.  Insurers do not gain any financial
benefit either because the "Any Willing Provider" laws dictate
that a licensed pharmacy that is willing to accept the same
financial terms as ESI, must be allowed to fill the prescriptions.

Also included in the complaint is the efficacy of mail order
prescriptions due to exposure to temperature and humidity levels
higher than FDA regulations for storage of the same drugs.  Most
prescription drugs are supposed to be stored at temperatures
between 68 and 77 degrees Fahrenheit and kept in relatively dry
conditions, standards that cannot be controlled when mailing
prescriptions.

This is not the first lawsuit filed against ESI for unfair
practices.  In January several independent compounding pharmacies
filed a lawsuit against ESI, CVS Caremark, OptumHealth, Inc., and
Prime Therapeutics LLC, alleging they caused more than $100
million in damages and alleged the focus of their anticompetitive
conduct was to drive the pharmacies out of business in favor of
ESI's mail order business.  The complaint was later amended to ESI
as the sole defendant.


FANNIE MAE: Grant & Eisenhofer Not Entitled to More Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A., Plaintiff, v.
BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD, LLP, Defendant, No. 14-CV-9839 (JMF)
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jesse M. Furman granted Bernstein Liebhard's
motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.

The case concerns a fee-sharing dispute between two law firms that
did work on behalf of the plaintiffs in In re Fannie Mae
Securities Litigation, No. 04-CV-1639 (D.D.C.), a class action
brought in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia.  Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A. (G&E) contended that it did
not receive all of what it was owed by Bernstein Liebhard, LLP
pursuant to a fee-sharing agreement between the two firms.
Following unsuccessful motions to dismiss and to transfer venue,
Bernstein Liebhard moved, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, for summary judgment.

Based on the unambiguous language of the agreement between G&E and
Bernstein Liebhard, Judge Furman concluded that G&E was entitled
to 26% of Bernstein Liebhard's fees only if Bernstein Liebhard
received fees pursuant to the Waite Schneider Fee Agreement.
Because Bernstein Liebhard did not receive fees pursuant to that
Agreement, and Bernstein Liebhard did not do anything to frustrate
or prevent that condition precedent from being fulfilled, Judge
Furman held that G&E is not entitled to recover additional fees
from Bernstein Liebhard based on breach of the parties' contract.

A full-text copy of Judge Furman's July 28, 2016 opinion and order
is available at https://is.gd/Tm2Bzr from Leagle.com.

Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Plaintiff, represented by Deborah A.
Elman -- delman@gelaw.com --  Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., James
Joseph Sabella -- jsabella@gelaw.com -- Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.,
Jay W. Eisenhofer -- jeisenhoofer@gelaw.com -- Grant & Eisenhofer
P.A., Robert Daniel Gerson, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.

Bernstein Liebhard LLP, Defendant, represented by Christian
Patrick Siebott -- siebott@bernlieb.com -- Bernstein Liebhard, LLP
& Michael S. Bigin -- bigin@bernlieb.com -- Bernstein Liebhard,
LLP.


FASHION OPTIONS: Newbolt-White Sues for Pregnancy Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
SIMONE NEWBOLT-WHITE v. FASHION OPTIONS, INC., MICHAEL HADDAD,
EDWARD HADDAD, and PAUL ABSERASTURI, Case No. 156691/2016 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., August 10, 2016), challenges the Defendants' alleged
practice of pregnancy, gender, disability and caregiver status
discrimination in the terms, conditions, and privileges of the
Plaintiff's employment in violation of the Administrative Code of
the City of New York.

Fashion Options, Inc., is a foreign business corporation
headquartered in New York City.  Fashion Options is a privately
held family owned company and has operated in the licensing and
apparel manufacturing business for over three generations.  The
Individual Defendants are officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan Serrins, Esq.
          SERRINS FISHER LLP
          233 Broadway, Suite 2340
          New York, NY 10279
          Telephone: (212) 571-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 233-3801
          E-mail: alan@serrinsfisher.com


FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Settlement Completion Deadline Moved
---------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity & Guaranty Life said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the parties in a class
action lawsuit have sought to extend the deadline for settlement
completion from January 28, 2016 to October 24, 2016.

On July 5, 2013, Plaintiff Eddie L. Cressy filed a putative class
Complaint captioned Cressy v. Fidelity Guaranty [sic] Life
Insurance Company, et. al. in the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles (the "Court"), Case No. BC-514340. The
Complaint was filed after the Plaintiff was unable to maintain an
action in federal court. The Complaint asserts, inter alia, that
the Plaintiff and members of the putative class relied on
Defendants' advice in purchasing allegedly unsuitable equity-
indexed insurance policies.

On January 2, 2015, the Court entered Final Judgment in Cressy,
certifying the class for settlement purposes, and approving the
class settlement reached on April 4, 2014. On August 10, 2015, the
Company tendered $1 million to the Settlement Administrator for a
claim review fund.

The Company implemented an interest enhancement feature for
certain policies as part of the class settlement, which
enhancement began on October 12, 2015. On December 11, 2015, the
parties filed a Joint Motion to amend the January 2, 2015 Final
Order and Judgment, to extend the deadline for settlement
completion from January 28, 2016 to October 24, 2016.

At June 30, 2016, the Company estimated the total cost for the
settlement, legal fees and other costs related to Cressy would be
$9 million, with a liability for the unpaid portion of the
estimate of $1 million. The Company has incurred and paid $5
million related to legal fees and other costs and $3 million
related to settlement costs as of June 30, 2016.

Based on the information currently available the Company does not
expect the actual cost for settlement, legal fees and other
related costs to differ materially from the amount accrued.


FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Ludwick's Eighth Circuit Appeal Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity & Guaranty Life said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Plaintiff Ludwick's
appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit remains pending.

On January 7, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court, Western District of Missouri
(the "District Court"), captioned Dale R. Ludwick, on behalf of
Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Harbinger Group Inc.,
Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance Company, Raven Reinsurance
Company, and Front Street Re (Cayman) Ltd. The complaint alleges
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act ("RICO"), requests injunctive and declaratory relief seeks
unspecified compensatory damages for the putative class in an
amount not presently determinable, treble damages, and other
relief, and claims Plaintiff Ludwick overpaid at least $0 for her
annuity.

On April 13, 2015, the Company joined in the filing of a Joint
Motion to Dismiss the complaint. On February 12, 2016, the
District Court granted the defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss.
Judgment was entered on February 12, 2016.  On March 3, 2016,
Plaintiff Ludwick filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (the "Court of Appeals")
from the District Court's Order and Judgment.

As of June 30, 2016, the Company did not have sufficient
information to determine whether the Company is exposed to any
losses that would be either probable or reasonably estimable
beyond an expense contingency estimate of $1 million, which was
accrued during the nine months ended June 30, 2016.


FITCHBURG GAS: Class Certification in "Bellerman" Suit Vacated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester vacated the
order certifying the class in the case captioned MARCIA D.
BELLERMANN & others vs. FITCHBURG GAS AND ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANY,
No. SJC-11979 (Mass.).

Following the Supreme Judicial Court's decision affirming the
denial of their first motion for class certification, the
plaintiffs filed a renewed motion in the Superior Court for class
certification, contending that, beginning in 1992, and extending
for a period of some sixteen years, Fitchburg Gas and Electric
Light Company (FG&E) failed to comply with Department of Public
Utilities (DPU) regulations regarding emergency storm
preparedness.  The plaintiffs maintained that they suffered
economic injury by overpaying for a level of emergency
preparedness required by DPU's regulations, which FG&E unfairly
and deceptively failed to provide, although the rates charged were
based on FG&E's assumed compliance with those regulations.  The
plaintiffs did not assert that members of the putative class
suffered any loss of power or interruption of service, as a class,
during this period.

Following a hearing, the Superior Court judge certified two
classes of FG&E business and residential customers who paid rates
for electric service at any point between January 7, 2005, and
January 7, 2009.  The judge then reported the class certification
order to the Appeals Court on FG&E's motion, and the Supreme
Judicial Court allowed FG&E's application for direct appellate
review.

The Supreme Judicial Court, however, concluded that, in these
circumstances, the plaintiffs' assertion of overpayment for FG&E's
services does not set forth a cognizable injury under G. L. c.
93A, sections 9(1) and 11, and thus does not support class
certification pursuant to that statute.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 29, 2016 ruling is available
at https://is.gd/jNoiIZ from Leagle.com.

Gavin J. Rooney -- grooney@lowenstein.com -- of New Jersey (Anne
W. Chisholm -- awc@brickleysears.com -- and Eric R. Passeggio with
him) for the defendant.

C. Deborah Phillips (Barry M. Altman & Edwin H. Howard with her)
for the plaintiffs.

Robin L. Main -- rmain@hinckleyallen.com -- for Massachusetts
Electric Company & others, amici curiae, submitted a brief.


FITNESS INTERNATIONAL: "Kinalis" Suit Seeks Unpaid Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alexis Kinalis, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Fitness International, LLC, Louis Welch,
Todd McSeveney and/or any related entities or individuals,
Defendants, Case No. 605990/2016 (N.Y. Sup., August 5, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid commissions, unpaid wages, illegal
reductions in wages, and penalties under New York Labor Laws.

Defendant owns and operates fitness clubs under the name of La
Fitness with main office located at 2600 Michelson Dr., Suite 300,
Irvine, CA, and with New York facilities located at Commack, New
York where Plaintiff worked as a salesperson and fitness advisor.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Tel: (516) 873-9550
      Email: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com


FORD AUSTRALIA: 1,500 Disgruntled Customers File Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Sullivan, writing for news.com.au, reports that 1,500
disgruntled Ford customers filed a class action.

David Storos was driving his Ford Focus home from the shops last
month when an unmarked police car pulled him over, just as he was
about to turn into his driveway.

The 56-year-old lives on a quiet cul-de-sac in suburban Sydney, so
the police siren and its blue and red flashing lights soon drew
curious neighbors out onto the street.

"The cop comes over and says 'Can I see your license please? We're
going to do a random breath test'.  I said sure, but I hadn't been
drinking, so I asked why she wanted to do a random breath test,"
Mr. Storos told news.com.au.

"She said 'We feel that you don't have control over your car'.  I
tried to explain to her that I have this dodgy lemon Ford Focus
that lurches and jerks, but she didn't believe me.

"She said 'Look, I'm very close to issuing you with a traffic
infringement notice for not having proper control over your
vehicle, but I can see that you're almost home'." (NSW Police
couldn't confirm the incident to news.com.au because no warning
was issued).

By this point, Mr. Storos' neighbors and his family were all
watching.

"They were probably wondering 'What on earth has this guy done?'
Even my granddaughter said to my daughter, 'Is grandad going to
the police?'"

Mr. Storos, who bought his car for $27,500 in 2014, says this is
the fourth Ford Focus he's owned.

"I've always been a Ford person," he said.  "You'll never see me
in a Holden, but after this experience I'm never buying a Ford
again."

He is one of the 1,500 disgruntled Ford customers who are suing
the company as part of a class action case, which recently
returned to court. (The law firm representing the case says they
have been contacted by more than 7,000 Ford owners).

Lawyers are accusing Ford of misleading and deceptive conduct in
selling 22 different models of Fiesta, Focus and EcoSport vehicles
between 2011 and this year.  More than 70,000 allegedly dodgy cars
could be affected.

The affected models are equipped with the Ford PowerShift
transmission, which promises to deliver "acceleration much
smoother than a conventional automatic".  This technology has the
features of a manual gearbox but is designed to drive like an
automatic.

But cars with Ford's PowerShift transmission technology have been
nicknamed "shutterboxes" by unhappy customers because they shudder
and jerk unexpectedly.

"This car doesn't know what the f*** it's doing," Mr. Storos said.
"It's shuddering and slipping and jerking.  The gear changes are
quite bumpy and quite chunky.  Driving on freeways is OK, but at
low speeds, it's a piece of s***.

"The dealers feed you so much bulls*** and say, 'You need to learn
how to drive the car', but they never told me that when I bought
the car."

Mr. Storos, who works as a law agent, now only drives the car from
his home to the train station and the local shops.

"Even if I wanted to sell it, no one wants to buy it.  The car has
19,000 kilometers on it, but I'd be lucky to get $10,000 for it,"
he said.

On Aug. 3, when the case returned to the Federal Court, it was
revealed that members of the class action had contacted Ford and
tried to arrange out-of-court settlement deals.  These deals
usually involved a trade in on a more expensive car.

Professor Peter Cashman, acting for Bannister Law, said Ford
owners were not being provided with "any explanation of the legal
consequences" before entering into the agreements, which often
include a confidentiality clause.

"Normally when you buy a car you're not expected to enter into a
confidentiality agreement. It's an odd requirement," Prof Cashman
said.

As news.com.au reported in June, many disgruntled customers who
have tried to trade in their dodgy Ford cars have been asked to
sign confidentiality agreements as part of the deal.

"You agree that you will not take any actions . . . which would
have the effect of interfering with or preventing the normal
trading activities of Ford Australia or any other authorized Ford
dealer," the agreement says.

"This offer is subject to being kept strictly confidential between
you and Ford Australia."

A Ford Australia spokesman said it was "standard commercial
practice" for legal settlements to include a confidentiality
agreement.

"Where we settle a claim with a customer by providing a refund or
replacement vehicle or other financial contribution, it is
standard practice for the agreement to include a confidentiality
clause, and the confidentiality obligation only applies to the
terms of the settlement," he said.

"We encourage any customers who have questions to work with their
local dealers on their individual circumstances."

Prof. Cashman argued that Ford, who had asked the law firm running
the case for its list of clients, should be restrained from
contacting people involved in the class action.

He asked that Ford be open and honest with people before offering
out-of-court settlements, including an acknowledgment at the top
of the letter that they could no longer be involved in the class
action.

It will take up to two weeks for the court to decide whether it
will require Ford to include more detail and transparency in its
settlement deals.

The class action case against Ford is built on the experience of a
Victorian woman Billie Capic who was "frightened for her life"
after a power loss while driving her 2012 Focus Sport in February
this year.  Miss Capic also experienced uncontrolled movement of
the car, sudden gear changes and gear-skipping.

The lawsuit alleges the cars are not of acceptable quality, as
defined under Australian Consumer Law and that Ford knew of the
problems.  The vehicles have never been recalled.

The action seeks refunds or the difference between the purchase
price and the true value of the vehicles, as well as aggravated
damages.

The cost of refunding 70,000 cars at an average price of $25,000
would be $1.75 billion.


FREDDIE MAC: Dismissal of Retirement System's Case Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
Court of Appeals has reversed the District Court's dismissal of
the case, OHIO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM VS. FREDDIE MAC,
SYRON, ET AL., and remanded the case to the District Court for
further proceedings.

This putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against
Freddie Mac and certain former officers on January 18, 2008 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio purportedly
on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from
August 1, 2006 through November 20, 2007. FHFA later intervened as
Conservator, and the plaintiff amended its complaint on several
occasions.

The Company said, "The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that
the defendants violated federal securities laws by making false
and misleading statements concerning our business, risk
management, and the procedures we put into place to protect the
company from problems in the mortgage industry. The plaintiff
seeks unspecified damages and interest, and reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorney and expert fees."

In October 2013, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint. In October 2014, the District Court granted defendants'
motions and dismissed the case in its entirety against all
defendants, with prejudice. In November 2014, plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit. On July 20, 2016, the Court of Appeals reversed the
District Court's dismissal and remanded the case to the District
Court for further proceedings.

"At present, it is not possible for us to predict the probable
outcome of this lawsuit or any potential effect on our business,
financial condition, liquidity, or results of operations. In
addition, we are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss
or range of possible loss in the event of an adverse judgment in
the foregoing matter due to the following factors, among others:
the inherent uncertainty of pre-trial litigation and the fact that
the District Court has not yet ruled upon motions for class
certification or summary judgment. In particular, absent the
certification of a class, the identification of a class period,
and the identification of the alleged statement or statements that
survive dispositive motions, we cannot reasonably estimate any
possible loss or range of possible loss," the Company said.


FREDDIE MAC: Stay Lifted in Jacobs and Hindes Case
--------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
stay has been lifted in the litigation in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Delaware, Jacobs and Hindes vs. FHFA and
Treasury.

This case was filed on August 17, 2015 as a putative class action
lawsuit purportedly on behalf of a class of holders of preferred
stock or common stock issued by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae. The
case was also filed as a shareholder derivative lawsuit,
purportedly on behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as "nominal"
defendants. The complaint alleges, among other items, that the
August 2012 amendment to the Purchase Agreement violated
applicable state law and constituted a breach of contract, as well
as a breach of covenants of good faith and fair dealing.

Plaintiffs seek equitable and injunctive relief (including
restitution of the monies paid by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to
Treasury under the net worth sweep dividend), compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses. The case was stayed
pending resolution of FHFA's motion to the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to transfer this case to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia. This motion was
denied on June 2, 2016, and the stay was lifted on July 13, 2016.


FRONTIER DRILLING: Court Grants Prelim. OK of "Miller" Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Based upon a review of the parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class and Collective Action Settlement, as well as all
corresponding exhibits and papers submitted in connection with the
Joint Motion, Hon. David Nuffer granted preliminary approval of
the settlement memorialized in the parties' settlement agreement
in the lawsuit styled JUSTIN MILLER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. FRONTIER DRILLING, LLC, Case No.
2:15-cv-00423-DN (D. Utah).

Mr. Miller brought the Action, on behalf of himself individually
and others similarly-situated, alleging that Frontier Drilling
denied him and other Field Specialists overtime pay due under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and similar state laws.  The parties have
filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and
Collective Action Settlement.

For settlement purposes only, this FLSA Class is provisionally
certified:

     All hourly employees of Frontier Drilling who worked
     overtime hours, received a bonus during the period
     October 1, 2012 to present, and who are eligible to receive
     a minimum of $5 for alleged overtime damages.

For settlement purposes only, this Rule 23 Class is provisionally
certified under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  The Rule 23 Class will be defined as consisting of:

     All hourly employees of Frontier Drilling who worked
     overtime hours in North Dakota, received a bonus during the
     period October 1, 2012 to present, and who are eligible to
     receive a minimum of $5 for alleged overtime damages.

Judge Nuffer also appointed Bruckner Burch PLLC as Class Counsel.
Mr. Miller is appointed as the class representative.

The Final Approval Hearing is scheduled for January 10, 2017, at
3:00 p.m.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AKovQH3L


GAW MINERS: Audet et al. Seek Certification of Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled DENIS MARC AUDET, MICHAEL PFEIFFER, DEAN
ALLEN SHINNERS, and JASON VARGAS, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. HOMERO JOSHUA
GARZA, STUART A. FRASER, GAW MINERS, LLC, and ZENMINER, LLC,
(d/b/a ZEN CLOUD), the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00940-MPS
(D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs move for class certification and a stay
of all briefing and other proceedings in connection with pending
entry of a Scheduling Order setting a schedule for all briefing
and other proceedings concerning class certification.

The Plaintiffs made the motion solely for the purpose of avoiding
any dispute over whether this case would become moot in the event
Defendant files an offer of judgment.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=a3HMjL8t

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
          Robert A. Izard, Esq.
          IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP
          29 S. Main St., Suite 305
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 493 6292
          Facsimile: (860) 493 6290
          E-mail: mkindall@ikrlaw.com
                  rizard@ikrlaw.com

               - and -

          Marc Seltzer, Esq.
          Kathryn Hoek, Esq.
          Seth Ard, Esq.
          Matthew Allen, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 789 3100
          Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
          E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
                  khoek@susmangodfrey.com
                  sard@susmangodfrey.com
                  mallen@susmangodfrey.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Shannon" Suit in District of New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against General Motors, LLC. The case is
captioned CHARLES SHANNON, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04932-RMB-AMD (D.N.J., Aug. 11,
2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Renee Marie Bumb.

General Motors, commonly known as GM, is an American multinational
corporation headquartered in Detroit, Michigan, that designs,
manufactures, markets, and distributes vehicles and vehicle parts,
and sells financial services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce Heller Nagel, Esq.
          NAGEL RICE, LLP
          103 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 201
          ROSELAND, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 618 0400
          Facsimile: (973) 618 9194
          E-mail: bnagel@nagelrice.com

               - and -

          Joseph Lopiccolo, Esq.
          POULOS LOPICCOLO PC
          1305 South Roller Road
          OCEAN, NJ 07757
          Telephone: (732) 757 0165
          E-mail: lopiccolo@pllawfirm.com


GERON CORPORATION: Bid for Class Cert. Sought in Securities Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit In re: GERON CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Case No. 3:14-cv-01224-CRB (N.D. Cal.), Lead Plaintiff Vinod Patel
asks the Court to certify a class of:

     "all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Geron
     common stock between December 10, 2012 and March 11, 2014,
     inclusive, at artificially inflated prices, and who were
     damaged thereby (the Class)".

The Plaintiff further asks the Court for an order:

     a. appointing Lead Plaintiff Vinod Patel as Class
        Representative;

     b. appointing Faruqi Firm as Class Counsel; and

     c. granting Lead Plaintiff any further relief the Court
        deems just and proper.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=c33mubXs

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard W. Gonnello, Esq.
          Megan M. Sullivan, Esq.
          Katherine M. Lenahan, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983 9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983 9331
          E-mail: rgonnello@faruqilaw.com
                  msullivan@faruqilaw.com
                  klenahan@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Barbara Rohr, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256 2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256 2885
          E-mail: brohr@faruqilaw.com


GIA + 4 CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, "Bardles" Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Ramos Bardles, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Gia + 4 Corp., a/k/a Puma Body Works, Case
No. 2:16-cv-04479 (E.D.N.Y., August 10, 2016), alleges that the
Plaintiff and the proposed class members are entitled to unpaid
wages from the Defendant for working more than 40 hours in a week
and not being paid an overtime rate of at least 1.5 times the
regular rate for each and all those hours over 40 in a week.

Gia + 4 Corp. is a New York for-profit corporation.  The Company
provides auto body services and repairs.  The Company operated a
place of business in Island Park, New York, where the Plaintiff
was employed.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
          215-28 Hillside Avenue
          Queens Village, NY 11427
          Telephone: (718) 740-1000
          Facsimile: (718) 355-9668
          E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


GOLDEN ABACUS: "Garcia" et al. Seek Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
ADELFO GAVILAN GARCIA, CESAR GAYOSSO, GABRIEL TECUN, HAGEO
CARDONA, LUIS FERNANDEZ ESCOBAR FLORES and MIGUEL ANGEL DIAZ
GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. GOLDEN ABACUS INC. (d/b/a BARKOGI),
DANNY P. LOUIE, LAURA WONG and ALBERT C. YUEN, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-06252 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 5, 2016), seeks to recover
minimum and overtime wages and liquidated damages, interest,
costs, and attorneys' fees for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were employed as
dishwasher, chicken fryers, cooks, and ostensibly as bus boy, food
runner, and delivery workers.

The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage or overtime compensation
for the hours that they worked. Rather, Defendants failed to
maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, failed to pay
Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium.

The Defendants own, operate, and/or control a Korean restaurant
located at 957 2nd Avenue, New York, New York 10022 under the name
BarKogi.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE &
          ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317 1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317 1620


GOOD SAMARITAN REGIONAL: Outcome Varies in Consolidated Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marsha Siegel Berzon of the United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit, ruled on the consolidated appellate case entitled
SUSAN KOBOLD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GOOD SAMARITAN REGIONAL
MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant-Appellee. LARRY BARR; ANTHONY BARTON;
STEPHEN BUSCH; BRIAN CARLSON; PETER DENNIS; DAN DORR; CLARK GOBLE;
WARREN MARTIN; BILLY PIERCE; JESSE ROBINSON; DAVID SHATTO; DOUGLAS
TOELKES, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ROSS ISLAND SAND & GRAVEL CO.,
Defendant-Third-Party-Plaintiff-Appellee, v. OREGON TEAMSTERS
EMPLOYERS TRUST; GENERAL TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 162, Third-
Party-Defendant. ONA C. ALLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTHWEST
PERMANENTE, P.C., an Oregon corporation, Defendant-Appellee, Nos.
13-35528, 13-35590, 13-35265 (9th Cir.)

The three cases in the consolidated appeal, Kobold v. Good
Samaritan Regional Medical Center, Barr v. Ross Island Sand &
Gravel Co., and Allen v. Northwest Permanente, involved different
parties and facts, but are similar in important ways, according to
the Ninth Circuit.

All 3 cases involved employees represented by labor unions who
seek remedies under state law against their employers. In all 3,
there is a collective bargaining agreement between the union and
the employer setting out a grievance and arbitration procedure to
govern disputes arising under the agreement. And in all 3, a
grievance was filed but did not provide full relief, prompting the
employee to turn to the courts. All the employees initially filed
their cases in state court, but the cases were removed to federal
court on the basis of preemption under Section 301 of the Labor
Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 185(a). In all the
cases, the district court denied a motion to remand and held the
state law claims preempted.

Judge Berzon affirmed the district court's grant of summary
judgment to Good Samaritan in Kobold case. In Barr suit, Judge
Berzon affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to
RISG as Barr's money had and received claim, but reversed as to
plaintiffs' Or. Rev. Stat. Section 652.610(4) and breach of
fiduciary duty claims, and remanded to the district court to
decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
Section 652.610(4) and breach of fiduciary duty claims. In Allen,
Judge Berzon affirmed the district court's denial of Allen's
motion to remand as well as its grant of summary judgment to
Northwest Permanente, P.C..

A copy of Judge Berzon's opinion dated August 9, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/xCLUoXfrom Leagle.com.

Thomas K. Doyle -- doylet@bennetthartman.com -- at Bennett,
Hartman, Morris & Kaplan, for Plaintiff-Appellant Susan Kobold

Kirk Peterson -- kpeterson@bullardlaw.com -- at Bullard Law, for
Defendant-Appellee Good Samaritan Regional Medical Center

Elizabeth Farrell Oberlin; Benjamin Rosenthal, for Plaintiffs-
Appellants Larry Barr, et al.

Ankur H. Doshi; Kamyavathana Sivanesan; Sheeba Suhaskumar, for
Defendant-Third-Party-Plaintiff-Appellee Ross Island Sand & Gravel
Co.

Matthew Caruso Ellis; George P. Fisher, for Plaintiff-Appellant
Ona C. Allen

Chris Kitchel -- chris.kitchel@stoel.com -- James N. Westwood --
james.westwood@stoel.com -- Brenda K. Baumgart --
brenda.baumgart@stoel.com -- at Stoel Rives LLP for Defendant-
Appellee Northwest Permanente, P.C.


GORDMANS STORES: Cox Seeks to Certify Class of Assistant Managers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Plaintiffs ask for an order certifying the case styled STEVE COX
and SAMUEL R. MASON, individually and on behalf of a class of
others similarly situated v. GORDMANS STORES, INC., Case No. 4:16-
cv-00219-RLW (E.D. Mo.), as a collective action for a class
consisting of:

     any person employed by Gordmans Stores, Inc. as an Assistant
     Store Manager, Assistant Store Manager Operations, or any
     Assistant Manager position, however variously titled, from
     February 18, 2013 through the present. (the "FLSA
     Collective").

The Plaintiffs also seek an order directing Gordmans to provide
the Plaintiffs' counsel with computer-readable contact data for
the members of the FLSA Collective, and authorizing notice to all
members of the FLSA Collective.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=sue9ScAt

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          George A. Hanson, Esq.
          Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
                  ricke@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Gregg I Shavitz, Esq.
          Susan H. Stern, Esq.
          Camar Jones, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          1515 S. Federal Highway, Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                  sstern@shavitzlaw.com
                  cjones@shavitzlaw.com


HARBOR FREIGHT: Sued by Morgan for Selling Faulty Connection Kits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RANDY M. MORGAN, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case
No. 2:16-cv-05980 (C.D. Cal., August 10, 2016), is brought on
behalf of persons in the United States, who purchased Thunderbolt
Magnum Solar Power Connection Cable Kits marketed and distributed
by Harbor Freight.

The Connection Kits have defects that are inherent in the battery
clamp and the result of the manufacturing flaws manifest during
the warranty period and the useful life of the product, Mr. Morgan
alleges.

Harbor Freight is an entity formed under the laws of the state of
Delaware with its principal place of business located in
Calabasas, California.  The Company operates more than 600 stores
nationwide offering tools and related items in automotive, shop
equipment, and air and power tools.  The Company also markets,
distributes, and sells the Connection Kits both directly to
consumers and through an established network of retailers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Barbara A. Rohr, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256-2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
          E-mail: brohr@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Adam Gonnelli, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: agonnelli@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Bonner C. Walsh, Esq.
          WALSH PLLC
          P.O. Box 7
          Bly, OR 97622
          Telephone: (541) 359-2827
          Facsimile: (866) 503-8206
          E-mail: bonner@walshpllc.com


HONEST CO: MDL Panel Orders Transfer of Consumer Suit to L.A.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that Jessica Alba's The Honest Co. will face lawsuits by its
customers in its hometown of Los Angeles after a federal panel
ordered about a dozen cases to be transferred to U.S. District
Judge Andre Birotte.

About a dozen class actions have accused The Honest Co. of
misrepresenting the ingredients in several of its products.  The
company was founded in 2012 as a healthier alternative for most
baby, cosmetic and household products. Most of the suits allege
that its laundry detergent, dish soap and multiple-surface cleaner
contain sodium lauryl sulfate, which can irritate the skin,
despite statements by the company that it doesn't use the harsh
chemical.  Others claim its organic infant formula isn't actually
organic and that its sunscreen doesn't work at all.

Two suits also name Alba, co-founder of the company and an actress
best known for her roles in the TV show "Dark Angel" and the film
"Fantastic Four."

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered on
Aug. 5 that the litigation be transferred to Judge Birotte, who is
overseeing about half of the cases.  In a growing trend, the panel
noted that Judge Birotte, who was the U.S. attorney in the Central
District of California for four years before President Obama
appointed him to the bench in 2014, had not yet overseen an MDL.
In June, the panel selected U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown
Jackson of the District of Columbia to oversee her first MDL.
About 40 lawsuits filed on behalf of the families of those who
died in the presumed crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 two
years ago.

The suits against The Honest Co. come as the company, valued at
about $1.7 billion, has been working this year to go public, and
after The Wall Street Journal published an article citing
independent lab tests that found sodium lauryl sulfate in its
laundry detergent.  The Honest Co. has denied the claims.


IMPRIVATA INC: Defending Against Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------
Imprivata, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company intends to
defend a securities class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "On February 2, 2016, we and certain of our
executive officers and directors were named as defendants in a
purported securities class action lawsuit.  The complaint, brought
on behalf of all persons who purchased our common stock between
July 30, 2015 and November 2, 2015, generally alleges that we and
such executive officers made false and/or misleading statements
about the demand for our IT security solutions and sales trends
and failed to disclose facts about our business, operations and
performance."

"Although we believe this action has no merit and intend to defend
it vigorously, this lawsuit and any future lawsuits to which we
may become a party are subject to inherent uncertainties and may
be expensive and time-consuming to investigate, defend and
resolve, and it may divert our management's attention and
financial and other resources. The outcome of any litigation is
necessarily uncertain, and we could be forced to expend
significant resources in the defense of this and other suits, and
we may not prevail."


INTEL: Recalls Basis Peak Smartwatch for Safety Reasons
-------------------------------------------------------
Richard Waters, writing for Financial Times, reports that Intel
has suffered a setback in its efforts to become a leader in the
emerging market for wearable devices, after being forced to recall
a smartwatch for safety reasons.

The world's biggest chipmaker said it had taken the drastic step
of telling all customers to return the watch, called the Basis
Peak, after finding it "can overheat, which could result in burns
or blisters on the skin surface".  It had already warned users to
stop wearing the device in June after first hearing complaints.

"We are aware that a small number of customers have reported
discomfort, blistering or burns on their wrist under the watch
body," Intel said.  It did not say how many watches it had sold or
how many had malfunctioned, though it put the number of "reported
cases" of problems at one in 500 at the time of its first warning.

Intel had also said some customers had complained of "overheating
and melting of their charging cradles".

The Peak was developed by Basis Science, a start-up that Intel
acquired in 2014 as it tried to get a jump on what, at the time,
was expected to be a big new market for smartwatches and fitness
trackers.

Expectations were rising that smartwatches could become a popular
extension of the smartphone computing platform, though Apple's
Watch, launched a year later, has failed to give the category the
lift many in the tech world had hoped.

Described as "the ultimate sleep and fitness tracker", the Peak
went on sale in November 2014.  It was part of an effort by Intel
to develop basic designs and so-called "systems-on-a-chip" for
wearable devices, which it could then sell to a wide range of
manufacturers.

Intel said the smartwatch had been made by an unnamed company in
China, reflecting the widespread use of contract manufacturers
there to produce devices for the rapid product cycles often seen
in consumer electronics.

Preventing devices from becoming warm is a common problem in the
wearable market, given that they pack considerable computing power
into a small form factor and are worn next to the skin. Fitbit,
for instance, has been on the receiving end of lawsuits claiming
overheating and other issues with its range of fitness and health
monitoring wristbands, settling a class action case in 2014 over
complaints that adhesives in one of its wristbands caused skin
irritation.

Intel said it would pay a full refund, including the tax and
shipping costs, of $234 to customers in the US and EUR244 in
Europe.


IXIA: $3,500,000 Settlement Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------
Ixia said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, that on August 1, 2016,
following a hearing on July 29, 2016, the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California (the "Court") entered an order
(the "Final Order") granting final approval of the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement, dated November 11, 2015, providing for
the settlement of the securities class action, captioned Oklahoma
Firefighters Pension & Retirement System, et al. v. Ixia, et al.,
filed against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors (the "Class Action Settlement Agreement").
The Class Action Settlement Agreement provides, among other terms,
for a settlement payment in the amount of $3,500,000.

The Court had granted preliminary approval of the settlement in an
order dated February 29, 2016. In March 2016, one of the Company's
insurance carriers funded the settlement payment into an escrow
account established pursuant to the Class Action Settlement
Agreement. The Final Order also approved the award of attorneys'
fees and expenses to Plaintiffs' counsel in the amount of
$1,135,000, which will be paid from the settlement payment that is
being held in the escrow account.

The Final Order is subject to appeal. In the event no appeal is
filed, the settlement will become effective at the end of the
appeal period, which is 30 days from August 1, 2016, the date the
Final Order was entered by the Court.


JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Class Certification Bid in "Zuniga" Continued
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DOMINGO ZUNIGA, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS, LLC; and FINANCIAL BUSINESS AND
CONSUMER SOLUTIONS, INC., d/b/a FBCS INC. and FBCS, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00526-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge
Amos L. Mazzant on Aug. 12 granted Plaintiff's request to continue
the motion for class certification.

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


JETT PRO: Initial Bid for Class Certification Withdrawn
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Cortney Bernier and Brian Cope, the
Plaintiffs, v. Jett Pro Line Maintenance Corp., the Defendant,
Case No. 5:16-cv-11368-JEL-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the parties stipulate
and agree that Plaintiffs are granted leave to file their First
Amended Complaint and that Plaintiffs' pending motion for
conditional certification is withdrawn without prejudice.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=S7lySB7g

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1457 S. High Street
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Telephone: (614) 949 1181
          E-mail: mcoffman@coffmanlegal.com

               - and -

          Matthew B. Bryant, Esq.
          Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
          BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
          6600 W. Sylvania Avenue, Suite 260
          Sylvania, OH 43560
          Telephone: (419) 824-4439
          E-mail: mbryant@bryantlegalLLC.com
                  dbryant@bryantlegalLLC.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Allan S. Rubin, Esq.
          Paul A. Caligiuri, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          2000 Town Center, Suite 1650
          Southfield, MI 48075
          Telephone: (248) 936 1900
          E-mail: rubina@jacksonlewis.com
                  paul.caligiuri@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          Gregory W. Guevara, Esq.
          BOSE McKINNEY & EVANS LLP
          111 Monument Circle, Suite 2700
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 684 5000
          E-mail: GGuevara@boselaw.com


JETT PRO: Bernier, et al. Seek Certification of FLSA Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Cortney Bernier, et al., Individually and
on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Jett Pro Line Maintenance, Corp.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-11368-JEL-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the
Plaintiffs move the Court for entry of an order pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA):

(1) conditionally certifying the collective FLSA class of:

     a) "All current and former misclassified station managers of
        Defendant, who worked over 40 hours in any workweek
        during the previous three (3) years through the date of
        final disposition of this case, and were not paid time
        and half for the hours they worked over 40 due to
        Defendant's misclassification as exempt and the improper
        automatic meal period deduction policy when they worked
        in excess of six hours on any shift, but were unable to
        take a 0.5 hour uninterrupted meal break", and

     b) "All current and former hourly, non-exempt technicians of
        Defendant, who worked over 40 hours in any workweek
        during the previous three (3) years through the date of
        final disposition of this case, and were not paid time
        and half for the hours they worked over 40 due to
        Defendant's improper automatic meal period deduction
        policy when they worked in excess of six hours on any
        shift, but were unable to take a 0.5 hour uninterrupted
        meal break";

(2) implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
     Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-mail)
     to the class; and

(3) requiring Defendant to, within 14 days of the Court's order,
     identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by providing a list
     in electronic and importable format, of the names,
     addresses, and e-mail addresses of all potential opt-in
     plaintiffs who worked for Defendant at any time in any
     location in the United States for the three years
     immediately preceding the filing of this motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cxFxyDA8

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew B. Bryant, Esq.
          Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
          BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
          6600 W. Sylvania Avenue, Suite 260
          Sylvania, Ohio 43560
          Telephone: (419) 824 4439
          Facsimile: (419) 932 6719
          Email: mbryant@bryantlegalLLC.com
                 dbryant@bryantlegalLLC.com

               - and -

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, Ohio 43207
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSONS: Plaintiffs Want Talcum Powder Case Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reports that Plaintiffs in a class action
talcum powder lawsuit filed against Johnson & Johnsons two years
ago in California have asked the federal court overseeing the
lawsuit to stay the proceeding in light of the recent motion to
create a coordinated docket for the pending talc-based powder
product litigation.

In a July 28 motion filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California, the plaintiffs noted that the
discovery in the case had been stayed pending the court's ruling
on a defense motion to dismiss the first amended complaint.


JP MORGAN: Settles Class Action Over Inmate Debit Card Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ben McLannahan, writing for The Financial Times, reports that it
was a program designed to help prisoners back into society with a
bit of cash and a bank account.  But according to a class-action
lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase, which recently settled, it stung
former inmates with a string of unusual and exorbitant charges.
The biggest US bank by assets won a government contract in 2008 to
supply former inmates of all federal prisons across the country
with a prepaid, non-refillable debit card, which they could use to
access money they had earned, or been sent, while behind bars.

But former inmates complained that they were not allowed to review
or approve the terms and conditions attached to the cards, which
were much tougher than those available to regular customers on the
outside.  For example, former inmates paid $10 to get money from a
teller window, which was a service offered for free to regular
cardholders.  Chase, JPMorgan's retail banking arm, would charge
former inmates $24.50 to replace a lost card quickly, almost five
times the regular fee, and would charge $1.50 if the account was
inactive for a month.

Ex-convicts also had to pay 45 cents -- perhaps the equivalent of
two hours' labour inside -- just to check their account balance.
"This was a 'take it or leave it' endeavor," said Ken Grunfeld, an
attorney at Golomb & Honik, a Philadelphia law firm which led the
class action.  "Talk about a captive audience; these people had to
take this card, or their money would be denied to them."
JPMorgan agreed to pay $446,822 to reimburse thousands of former
inmates, according to a filing on Aug. 1 in federal court in
Philadelphia.  The bank also agreed to pay as much as $250,000 in
plaintiffs' fees and costs, the filing said.

JPMorgan declined to comment on the lawsuit, which was filed last
September, or the debit card program, which began in 2012.  The US
Department of Treasury, which awarded the bank the contract, was
not immediately available to comment.

Chase has started waiving charges associated with the program in
recent weeks, according to a person briefed on the fee schedule.

The suit was led by Jesse Krimes, a Philadelphia-based artist who
was sent to prison in 2009 for possession of cocaine with intent
to distribute.  After his release to a halfway house almost six
years later, with about $250 to his name, he was dismayed to see a
"slew" of charges on his first Chase statement.  He said he had
been given no notice of the fees.

"Everything about the federal prison system is designed to grind
you into hopelessness," he said.  "Coming home and trying to piece
together a stable life, to have this very wealthy bank preying on
you, was just unconscionable."

Mr. Krimes, 33, was arrested with 157g of cocaine soon after his
graduation from art school.


KERYX PHARMACEUTICALS: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on Aug. 3 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors
who purchased Keryx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Keryx" or the
"Company") securities between February 25, 2016, and
August 1, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Keryx investors
have sixty days from the date of this notice to file a lead
plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their Keryx investments are
encouraged to contact Lesley Portnoy of GPM to discuss their legal
rights in this class action at 310-201-9150 or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com

The complaint filed in this lawsuit alleges that throughout the
Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company was experiencing
production-related difficulties in converting API to finished drug
product; (2) that the issue was resulting in decreased production
yields of finished drug product; (3) that, as a result, the
Company would, and did exhaust its reserve of finished drug
product; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
statements about Keryx's business, operations, and prospects, were
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased shares of Keryx during the Class Period you have
sixty days from the date of this notice to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal
requirements.  To be a member of the Class you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the Class.  If you wish
to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire,
of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California
90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
http://glancylaw.com

If you inquire by email please include your mailing address,
telephone number and number of shares purchased.


KING BEE: Judge Narrows Claims in "Williams" Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Joseph M. Hood of the Eastern District of
Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington, granted in part and denied
in part defendants' motion to dismiss in the case CRAIG WILLIAMS,
On behalf of himself & all others similarly situated, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. KING BEE DELIVERY, LLC, and BEE LINE COURIER
SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Action, No. 5:15-cv-306-JMH (E.D. Ky.)

Defendants King Bee Delivery, LLC and Bee Line Courier Services,
Inc., are in the delivery business and provide delivery services
for a range of businesses, including hospitals. Plaintiffs Craig
Williams, John Williams, and Fred Berry are the individual
couriers who load and drive vehicles, delivering retail
merchandise to defendants' customers' businesses. Plaintiffs claim
that defendants have unlawfully misclassified them as independent
contractors when, in fact, they are defendants' employees.
Plaintiffs contend that the misclassification constitutes
violations of the Federal Labor Standards Act, as well as the
Kentucky Wage and Hour Act, and has deprived them of overtime pay
to which they are entitled. Additionally, plaintiffs claim
defendants violated the Kentucky Act by making deductions from
their pay for administrative fees and equipment that defendants
required them to use in the course of their jobs.

Defendants contend plaintiffs' amended complaint should be
dismissed in its entirety because the allegations do not
sufficiently allege that plaintiffs are defendants' employees and,
even if they have, plaintiffs have failed to state a plausible
claim for unpaid overtime wages or any other relief under FLSA or
the KWHA. Defendants further argue that some of the relief sought
is unavailable under both the FLSA and the KWHA.

Senior District Judge Hood granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss.

A copy of Senior District Judge Hood's memorandum opinion and
order dated August 8, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/m54iWI
from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Benjamin J. Weber -- bweber@llrlaw.com
-- Harold L. Lichten -- hlichten@llrlaw.com -- at Lichten & Liss-
Riordan, PC; Trent Taylor -- ttaylor@barkanmeizlish.com -- at
Barkan Meizlish Handelman Goodin DeRose Wentz

Defendants, represented by Keith Moorman -- kmoorman@fbtlaw.com
-- Kyle Donald Johnson -- kjohnson@fbtlaw.com -- Robert C. Webb
-- bwebb@fbtlaw.com -- at Frost Brown Todd LLC


LES BRASSEURS: Faces "Comonfort" Suit in S.D. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Les Brasseurs Inc. The case is
styled Albino Comonfort, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Les Brasseurs Inc., doing
business as La Mangeoire; Gerardo Donato; and Eric Cerato, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-06389 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 11, 2016).

Les Brasseurs is a microbrewery located in Montreal, Quebec,
Canada.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


LEWIS ENERGY: Villarreal Seeks Certification of Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ARNOLD VILLARREAL, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LEWIS
ENERGY GROUP, L.P. and LEWIS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 5:15-cv-00240 (S.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to certify a class of:

     "all current and former drilling welders who worked for
     Lewis Energy Group, L.P. and Lewis Resource Management, LLC
     in the past 3 Years and were paid hourly but no overtime".

The Plaintiff further asks the Court for an order:

     (1) conditionally certifying the action for purposes of
         notice and discovery;

     (2) ordering that judicially-approved notice be sent to all
         Putative Class Members;

     (3) approving the form and content of Plaintiff's proposed
         judicial notice and reminder notice;

     (4) ordering Defendants to produce to Plaintiff's counsel
         the contact information (including the name, address,
         and e-mail address) for each Putative Class Member in a
         usable electronic format such as Excel;

     (5) authorizing a 60-day notice period for Putative Class
         Members to join the case; and

     (6) authorizing notice to be sent via First Class Mail and
         e-mail to the Putative Class Members.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7VZRB2yT

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
          ANDERSON2X, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452 1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452 1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  austin@a2xlaw.com
                  lauren@a2xlaw.com


LIFE INSURANCE: Certification of Classes Sought in "Dolemba" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Dolemba asks that the Court enter an order determining that
the action captioned SCOTT DOLEMBA, on behalf of plaintiff and the
classes defined below v. THE LIFE INSURANCE CENTER, LLC, CRUMP
LIFE INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., doing business as INSURENOW DIRECT;
and DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-08091 (N.D. Ill.), may proceed as
a class action against the Defendants.  The Plaintiff alleges
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

The classes the Plaintiff seeks to represent are defined as:

     Count I, TCPA: (a) all persons (b) who, on or after a date
     four years prior to the filing of this action (28 U.S.C.
     Section 1658), (c) received calls on their cell phones
     soliciting business for the Life Insurance Center, (d)
     placed using an automated dialer or a prerecorded or
     artificial voice.

     Count II, ICFA: (a) all persons with phone numbers in the
     Illinois area codes (b) who, on or after a date three years
     prior to the filing of this action, (c) received calls on
     their cell phones soliciting business for the Life Insurance
     Center, (d) placed using an automated dialer or a
     prerecorded or artificial voice.

Mr. Dolemba also asks that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin,
LLC, be appointed counsel for the class.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          Julie Clark, Esq.
          Michelle A. Alyea, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, L.L.C.
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jclark@edcombs.com
                  hkolbus@edcombs.com


LOS ANGELES: Disabled Children May Intervene in "Smith" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CHANDA SMITH; ELIZA THOMPSON, Guardian ad
Litem for Chanda Smith, individually & on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated; JAVIER MEJIA; GLORIA MEJIA; QUINN
SULLIVAN; MADO MOST, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT, a California public entity; ROY ROMER, in his
official capacity as Superintendent of the LA Unified School
District, Defendants-Appellees, v. APRIL MUNOZ; JULIA FLORES;
CHERYL AYAPANA; V. P.; A. F.; M. H.; J. A., Movants-Appellants.
CHANDA SMITH; ELIZA THOMPSON, Guardian ad Litem for Chanda Smith,
individually & on behalf of all other persons similarly situated;
JAVIER MEJIA; GLORIA MEJIA; QUINN SULLIVAN; MADO MOST, Plaintiffs-
Appellees, and APRIL MUNOZ; JULIA FLORES; CHERYL AYAPANA; V. P.;
A. F.; M. H.; J. A., Movants, and MINA LEE; FRANCES MORENO,
Movants-Appellants, v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, a
California public entity, Defendant-Appellee, Nos. 14-55224, 14-
55256 (9th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth
Circuit reversed the district court's denial of the appellants'
motion to intervene and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The appellants are a sub-class of moderately to severely disabled
children who have moved to intervene in a class action brought on
behalf of all disabled students in the Los Angeles Unified School
District (LAUSD) against LAUSD.  The appellants sought to
intervene to challenge the legality of a new policy, adopted by
LAUSD in 2012 as part of a renegotiation of the Chanda Smith
parties' settlement.  That settlement requires a class of LAUSD's
most severely disabled students to go to the same schools as the
district's general, non-disabled student body.  LAUSD calls this
"integration"; The appellants want their children to be schooled
separately.

The district court denied the appellants' motion to intervene.

The Ninth Circuit, however, found that the appellants have
established all four elements of intervention as of right under
Fed R. Civ. P. Rule 24(a).  The appellate court also concluded
that the district court abused its discretion in denying the
appellants' motion as untimely, and further erred when it found
intervention unnecessary to protect the appellants' interest in
ensuring the receipt of public education consistent with their
disabilities and federal law.

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

David Ward German (argued) and Robert Myers, Newman, Aaronson &
Vanaman, Sherman Oaks, California; Catherine Blakemore, Melinda
Bird, and Candis Watson Bowles, Disability Rights California, Los
Angeles, California; for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Barrett Green (argued) and Maggy Athanasious --
mathanasious@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Los Angeles,
California; D. Deneen Cox, Associate General Counsel, and Belinda
D. Stith, Interim Chief Education and Litigation Counsel, LAUSD
Office of General Counsel, Los Angeles, California; for Defendant-
Appellee Los Angeles Unified School District.

Suzanne Nancy Snowden (argued) -- s.snowden@sjmlawgroup.com -- SJM
Law Group, LLP, Los Angeles, California; Eric Scott Jacobson, Law
Offices of Eric S. Jacobson, Encino, California; for Movants-
Appellants Mina Lee, et al.

Seymour I. Amster (argued), Law Offices of Seymour I. Amster;
Angela Gilmartin, Law Offices of Angela Gilmartin, Woodland Hills,
California; for Movants-Appellants April Munoz, et al.


MAGELLAN HEALTHCARE: Suit Alleges Addiction Treatment Discrim.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Malvern Institute for Psychiatric and Alcoholic Studies, Inc.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Magellan Healthcare, Inc., Magellan Behavioral
Health, Inc., Magellan Behavioral Health Of Pennsylvania, Inc.,
Magellan Behavioral Health Systems, LLC, Magellan Health, Inc.,
And Magellan Health Services, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 60800738,
(Pa. Com. Pleas, August 5, 2016), seeks declaratory, supplemental
and injunctive relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and such other
relief under the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of
2008 (MHPAEA).

Plaintiff operates addiction treatment programs at several
locations in Pennsylvania. Malvern's programs include an inpatient
non-hospital (residential) addiction treatment facility in
Malvern, Pennsylvania.

Magellan requires treatment facilities that are requesting
preauthorization for residential addiction treatment to submit a
copy of their license and accreditation certificates as part of a
preauthorization request despite having State licenses to operate.
If a patient fails to obtain preauthorization before physical
health inpatient admission, benefits will be reduced by $500 but
will not be foreclosed entirely. Plaintiff alleges that this is
discrimination against addiction treatment and is expressly
prohibited by MHPAEA implementing regulations.

The Magellan entities administer behavioral health benefits for
hundreds of thousands of federal employees and retirees and their
families.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gregory B. Heller, Esq.
     YOUNG RICCHIUTI CALDWELL & HELLER, LLC
     1600 Market Street, Suite 3800
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: (267) 546-1004

           - and -

     David S. Senoff, Esq.
     ANAPOL WEISS
     One Logan Square
     130 North 18th Street, Suite 1600
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: (215) 790-1130


MALCOLM S GERALD: Cert. of FDCPA Class Sought in "Holzman" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Holzman moves the Court for an order certifying the action
captioned STEPHEN HOLZMAN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. MALCOLM S. GERALD & ASSOCIATES, INC. and
LVNV FUNDING, LLC, Case No. 9:16-cv-80643-RLR (S.D. Fla.), as a
class action alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Mr. Holzman also seeks his appointment as the representative and
Weisberg Consumer Law Group, PA as class counsel.  He seeks to
represent a class consisting of:

     All consumers in the state of Florida to whom Defendants
     sent a letter based on the same form as the letter attached
     as Exhibit A to Plaintiff's complaint in the year prior to
     the filing of the original complaint.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fdiCjY4n

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex D. Weisberg, Esq.
          WEISBERG CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PA
          Attorney for Plaintiff
          5846 S. Flamingo Rd., Suite 290
          Cooper City, FL 33330
          Telephone: (954) 212-2184
          Facsimile: (866) 577-0963
          E-mail: aweisberg@afclaw.com


MDL 2438: Court Grants Forrest's Bid to Quash Subpoena
------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned WILLIAM FORREST and MELISSA FORREST,
Plaintiffs, RANDALL SETH CROMPTON, Movant, v. 5-HOUR ENERGY, et
al., Defendants, No. 4:16-mc-00348 JAR (E.D. Mo.), Judge John A.
Ross granted Melissa Forrest's Motion to Quash Subpoena, which was
construed in part as a motion for protective order.

The subpoena relates to multidistrict litigation pending in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, In re: 5-Hour Energy Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, Case No. 2:13-ml-02438 PSG (PLA).  Mrs. Forrest is not
a party in that case.  The MDL is brought on behalf of a
nationwide class defined as "all persons in the United States who
purchased a 5-hour ENERGY product" in addition to several state
subclasses of purchasers.  The named plaintiffs alleged that the
defendants have mispresented, falsely advertised, falsely labeled,
falsely marketed, and falsely promoted their 5-hour Energy
products to the detriment of purchasers in that 5-hour Energy
products do not provide five (5) hours of energy.

On March 22, 2016, William Forrest, a named plaintiff in the MDL,
was deposed by counsel for the defendants.  On April 11, 2016, his
wife Melissa Forrest received a subpoena to testify at a
deposition on April 26, 2016 and produce the certain documents and
communications.

When the defendants would not withdraw the subpoena, Mrs. Forrest
filed the motion to quash on the grounds that she is a non-party
witness in the matter and that her deposition would result in an
undue burden.

Judge Ross found the information sought by the defendants is
relevant and that Mrs. Forrest will not be unduly burdened by
compliance.  At the hearing, the parties agreed that the court
could construe the plaintiff's motion to quash in part as a motion
for protective order.  Judge Ross, therefore, allowed the subpoena
but ordered the parties to agree to a convenient time and place
for Mrs. Forrest's deposition and to limit the deposition to one
hour.  The judge will consider granting the defendants additional
time if the defendants can show good cause after the deposition.

A full-text copy of Judge Ross' July 29, 2016 memorandum and order
is available at https://is.gd/1USItG from Leagle.com.

William Forrest, Melissa Forrest, Plaintiffs, Randall Seth
Crompton, Movant, represented by Randall S. Crompton --
scrompton@allfela.com -- HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC.

5-Hour Energy, Defendant, represented by Gerald E. Hawxhurst --
jerry@cronehawxhurst.com -- CRONE HAWXHURST LLP.

Living Essentials, LLC, Innovation Ventures, LLC, Bio Clinical
Development, Inc., Manoj Bhargava, Defendants, represented by
Bradley A. Winters -- bwinters@scwstl.com -- SHER CORWIN WINTERS
LLC.


META FINANCIAL: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on Sept. 12
-------------------------------------------------------------
Meta Financial Group, Inc.(R) said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a final approval
hearing for the settlement of a class action lawsuit has been
scheduled for September 12, 2016.

The Company and the Bank have been named as defendants, along with
other defendants, in four class action litigations commenced in
three different federal district courts between October 23, 2015
and November 5, 2015: (1) Fuentes, et al. v. UniRush LLC, et al.
(S.D.N.Y. Case No. 1:15-cv-08372-JPO); (2) Huff et al. v. UniRush,
LLC et al. (E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:15-cv-02253-KJM-CMK); (3)
Peterkin v. UniRush LLC, et al. (S.D.N.Y. Case No. 1:15-cv-08573-
PAE); and (4) Jones v. UniRush, LLC et al. (E.D. Pa. Case No.
5:15-cv-05996-JLS). The same defendants, including the Company and
the Bank, were also named as defendants in an additional class
action litigation commenced in yet another federal district court
on April 13, 2016: (5) Smith v. UniRush LLC, et al. (C.D. Cal.
Case No. 2:16-cv-02533-SVW-E). More recently, the same defendants,
including the Company and the Bank, were named as defendants in a
lawsuit filed by an individual plaintiff in a Texas state court on
June 24, 2016: (6) Jacobs v. UniRush LLC et al. (Harris County,
Texas County Civ. Ct. Cause No. 1079432).

The complaints in each of these six actions seek monetary damages
for the alleged inability of customers of the prepaid card product
RushCard to access the product for up to two weeks starting on or
about October 12, 2015. The plaintiffs allege claims for breach of
contract, fraud, misrepresentation, negligence, unjust enrichment,
conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty and violations of various
state consumer protection statutes prohibiting unfair or deceptive
acts or trade/business practices. In addition, the OCC and the
CFPB are examining the events surrounding the allegations with
respect to the Company and the other defendants, respectively. The
OCC has broad supervisory powers with respect to the Bank and
could seek to initiate supervisory action if it believes such
action is warranted.

A settlement was negotiated with class counsel in actions (1)-(4)
under which neither the Company nor the Bank will make any
payment, and on May 17, 2016 the Court filed an Order Certifying a
Settlement Class, Preliminarily Approving the Class Action
Settlement, and Directing Notice to the Settlement Class. Notice
has been given to the potential class members, and a final
approval hearing for the settlement has been scheduled for
September 12, 2016.

Action (5) was recently settled for a nominal amount, with no
payment by the Company or the Bank, and the case was formally
resolved with the filing of a dismissal notice on July 15, 2016.

While action (6) was only recently commenced and is in its
earliest stages, the petition specifically alleges that the
maximum damages, costs and attorneys' fees that plaintiff seeks do
not exceed $74,000. The Company's estimate of a range of
reasonably possible loss for all six actions is approximately $0
to $0.1 million.


METAL SALES: Faces Wendell Suit in W.D. of Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Metal Sales Manufacturing
Corporation. The case is captioned WENDELL H. STONE COMPANY, INC.,
doing business as STONE & COMPANY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. METAL SALES
MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, a Kentucky corporation, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:16-cv-01219-DSC (W.D. Pa., Aug. 11, 2016). The assigned
Judge is Hon. David S. Cercone.

Metal Sales provides metal panels for the commercial, agricultural
and residential construction industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart C. Gaul, Jr., Esq.
          100 Ross Street, Suite 510
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1425
          Telephone: (412) 370 1515
          E-mail: stuart.gaul@gaul-legal.com


MICHAEL KORS: Galvan Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Cal. Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
TANIA GALVAN, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly
situated current and former employees of Defendants, the
Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL KORS (USA) HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware
corporation; MICHAEL KORS (USA), INC., a Delaware corporation;
MICHAEL KORS RETAIL, INC., a Delaware corporation; MICHAEL KORS
STORES (CALIFORNIA), INC., a Delaware corporation; MICHAEL KORS
STORES, L.L.C.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
BC629804 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 5, 2016), seeks to recover all
unpaid wages, interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly failed to
provide all timely meal and rest period, failed to pay for all
hours worked, including minimum wage, straight time and overtime
pay, failed to furnish accurate statements and maintain required
records, and failed to notify and provide sick leave, in
accordance with California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare
Commission Order.

Michael Kors designs, manufactures, and sells apparel,
accessories, and footwear in the United States and
internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Farzad Rastegar, Esq.
          Candace Kwon, Esq.
          Joshua Lange, Esq.
          RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, A.P.C.
          22760 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 200
          Torrance, CA 90505
          Telephone: (310) 961 9600
          Facsimile: (310) 961 9094
          E-mail: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com
                  candace@rastegarlawgroup.com
                  josh@rastegarlawgroup.com


MINNESOTA: DHS Faces Discrimination Class Action
------------------------------------------------
KSTP reports that a lawsuit against the Minnesota Department of
Human Services alleges claims of discrimination, segregation and a
restriction of choice.

The lawsuit seeking class action status was filed Aug. 3 on behalf
of eight people -- four with disabilities and their guardians --
who rely on Medicaid vouchers for housing.  It claims those people
were forced into living situation that "needlessly segregated"
from loved ones and the communities in which they want to live.

Attorneys for those filing the lawsuit claim the DHS violated the
Americans With Disabilities Act's integration mandate.

The lawsuit goes on to state the DHS has also limited where and
how the plaintiffs can spend their free time, how their days are
structured and what opportunities they are given to interact with
the community outside their "Community Residential Setting"
facilities.

The lawsuit states one plaintiff with cerebral palsy says that
because of staffing patterns in the facility where she lives, she
is forced to go to bed at 7:00 or 8:00 p.m. because "there is no
other way for her to receive necessary care."

Another plaintiff, the lawsuit states, with physical and cognitive
disabilities as the result of degenerative brain cancer must use a
wheelchair on a regular basis because "there is often not enough
staff available or willing to assist him when he wants to walk."


MINNESOTA: State Dismissed from "Guggenberger" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Judge Donovan W. Frank granted, in part, and denied, in part, the
motion to dismiss filed by the defendants, the State of Minnesota,
the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS), and DHS
Commissioner Emily Johnson Piper in the case captioned Kyle
Guggenberger, by his parents and guardians, Keith and Ginger
Guggenberger; Jay Hannon, by his parent and guardian, Patricia
Hannon; Abigail Pearson, by her parents and guardians, Ellen and
Jeff Pearson; Amber Brick, by her parents and agents, Robert and
Anne Brick; and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. State of Minnesota; the Minnesota Department of
Human Services, an agency of the State of Minnesota; and Emily
Johnson Piper, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human
Services, Defendants, Civil No. 15-3439 (DWF/BRT) (D. Minn.).

Judge Frank granted the motion to the extent it sought dismissal
of the State of Minnesota as a party.  The State of Minnesota was
thus dismissed as a party to the action.

Judge Frank also dismissed the Minnesota Department of Human
Services as a party to the action, but all claims against
Commissioner Johnson Piper, Commissioner of the Minnesota
Department of Human Services, in her official capacity shall
proceed.

The motion was denied in all other respects.

A full-text copy of Judge Frank's July 28, 2016 memorandum opinion
and order is available at https://is.gd/Orf1Zj from Leagle.com.

The plaintiffs brought their claims on their own behalf and on
behalf of a putative class of similarly situated individuals with
disabilities in Minnesota who have been deemed eligible for Home
and Community Based Waiver Services but are currently on a waiting
list for such services.  The plaintiffs alleged that their
continued placement on waiting lists for Waiver Services violates
federal law in several respects.

Kyle Guggenberger, Jay Hannon, Abigail Pearson, Plaintiffs,
represented by Barnett I. Rosenfield -- brosenfield@mylegalaid.org
-- Minnesota Legal Aid, Mark R. Azman -- mrazman@olwklaw.com --
O'Meara Leer Wagner & Kohl, PA, Pamela S. Hoopes --
phoopes@mylegalaid.org -- Minnesota Disability Law Center & Shamus
P. O'Meara -- spomeara@olwklaw.com -- O'Meara Leer Wagner & Kohl,
PA.

Amber Brick, Plaintiff, represented by Barnett I. Rosenfield,
Minnesota Legal Aid.

Amber Brick, Plaintiff, represented by Mark R. Azman, O'Meara Leer
Wagner & Kohl, PA, Pamela S. Hoopes, Minnesota Disability Law
Center & Shamus P. O'Meara, O'Meara Leer Wagner & Kohl, PA.

State of Minnesota, The Minnesota Department of Human Services,
Lucinda E Jesson, Defendants, represented by Alethea M. Huyser,
Minnesota Attorney General's Office, Ian M. Welsh &Scott H. Ikeda,
Minnesota Attorney General's Office.


MOSAIC SALES: "Bey" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elijah Bey, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Mosaic Sales Solutions US Operating
Co., LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and Does 1-100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC601773, was removed from Los
Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-Cv-06024 to the
proceeding.

Mosaic Sales is a management consulting service located in Irving,
Texas.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael David Mandel, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          1800 Century Park East 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 315 8200
          Facsimile: (310) 315 8210
          E-mail: mmandel@mcguirewoods.com


N. AM. BANCARD: Tendering Funds Doesn't Moot Case, Court Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
federal appeals court, taking up an issue left open by a recent
U.S. Supreme Court ruling, said in a decision last month that
tendering funds to a class action plaintiff -- not just offering
to tender -- still does not moot a case.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in its July 6
opinion in Mey v. N. Am. Bancard LLC, was forced to take up a
question the Supreme Court declined to answer in Campbell-Ewald
Co. v. Gomez.

In its January decision, the Supreme Court ruled an unaccepted
offer of complete relief to a named plaintiff in a class action
lawsuit does not moot the plaintiff's claim.

But the nation's highest court said in Gomez it would not decide
whether the result would be different if a defendant deposits the
full amount of the plaintiff's individual claim in an account
payable to the plaintiff, and the court then enters judgment for
the plaintiff in that amount.

"That question is appropriately reserved for a case in which it is
not hypothetical," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the
majority in the 6-3 ruling.

The defendant in Mey, credit-card processing company North
American Bancard LLC, unlike the defendant in Gomez, mailed the
plaintiff's attorney a cashier's check for $4,500 for three calls
that NAB believes it made to Diana Mey.

NAB argues that because the Supreme Court drew a distinction
between offering funds -- which does not moot a plaintiff's claim
-- and tendering -- which does -- its sending Ms. Mey a cashier's
check is a tender that moots Ms. Mey's claims.

But the Sixth Circuit rejected NAB's argument, at least in light
of the facts before it.

"Even if we assume that an unaccepted cashier's check could moot a
claim, NAB has not shown that its tender satisfies Mey's demand
for relief, which the tender must do if it is to moot Mey's
individual claims," Circuit Judge Danny Boggs wrote for a three-
judge panel including Circuit Judge Karen Moore and Judge Danny
Reeves of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Kentucky, sitting by designation.

The panel pointed out that NAB admits that it made three calls to
Ms. Mey, not just the one call that it mentioned in its Rule 68
offer of judgment.

"But the district court never made any finding as to just how many
calls NAB made, and NAB's recent admission to making three
suggests that there may be more that Mey and NAB are not aware
of," Judge Boggs noted in the Sixth Circuit's nine-page opinion.

"The upshot is that at this point, whether $4,500 provides Mey
with all the relief she is entitled to remains unclear.  That lack
of clarity means that NAB cannot show that Mey has received all of
the money damages she has claimed."

The Sixth Circuit vacated the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan's order dismissing Ms. Mey's class claims and
remanded the case back to the court for further proceedings
consistent with the appellate court's opinion.

In January 2014, NAB used an automatic dialing system to make a
marketing call to Ms. Mey's cell phone number, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Ms. Mey then brought a federal action against NAB, individually
and on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of persons whom NAB
had also autodialed without permission.

The district court denied without prejudice Ms. Mey's motion for
class certification, citing the need to hold a scheduling
conference.  NAB then made an offer of judgment to Ms. Mey, in
which it agreed to pay Mey's statutory damages and consented to
her demand for injunctive relief.

When Ms. Mey rejected the offer, NAB moved the court to enter
judgment on her individual claims on the ground that the offer of
judgment mooted Ms. Mey's claims.

The Eastern District of Michigan agreed, entered judgment in favor
of NAB on Ms. Mey's individual claims, and dismissed the class
claims.  Ms. Mey appealed to the Sixth Circuit.

The TCPA restricts telephone solicitations, i.e. telemarketing,
and the use of automated telephone equipment.

In particular, the law limits the use of automatic dialing
systems, artificial or prerecorded voice messages, SMS text
messages and fax machines.  It also specifies several technical
requirements for fax machines, autodialers and voice messaging
systems -- principally with provisions requiring identification
and contact information of the entity using the device to be
contained in the message.

Generally, the act makes it unlawful "to initiate any telephone
call to any residential telephone line using an artificial or
prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express
consent of the called party" except in emergencies or in
circumstances exempted by the Federal Communications Commission.

The law permits any "person or entity" to bring an action to
enjoin violations of the statute and/or recover actual damages or
statutory damages ranging from $500 to $1,500 per violation.


NATIONAL RECOVERY: Court Certifies Class in "Stanley" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge William T. Lawrence granted the plaintiff's third amended
motion to certify class in the case captioned DIMITRIUS STANLEY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL RECOVERY AGENCY, Defendant, Cause No. 1:15-
cv-239-WTL-MJD (S.D. Ind.).

The proposed class has been redefined as "all persons similarly
situated in the State of Indiana from whom Defendant attempted to
collect a delinquent consumer debt, allegedly owed for a Six Flags
account, via a collection letter identical to the letter that is
attached to the Complaint (Dkt. 1-3), as to which a flat 20%
charge for "Costs" had been added to the debt, from one year
before the date of this Complaint to the present."

A full-text copy of Judge Lawrence's July 29, 2016 ruling is
available at https://is.gd/rPZcgu from Leagle.com.

Dimitrius Stanley brought the action against National Recovery
Agency (NRA) to recover damages for alleged violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practice Act (FDCPA).  Stanley alleged that a form
collection letter sent to him and the other members of his
proposed class violated the FDCPA.  Stanley alleged that in
addition to the principal balance of $268.29, NRA also demanded
that Stanley pay $53.66 for "Costs," which did not represent the
actual cost to collect the debt but appeared to be a flat 20% fee.
Stanley alleged that NRA had no right to impose a flat 20% fee and
made a false, deceptive, or misleading statement in violation of
Section 1692e of the FDCPA.

DIMITRIUS STANLEY, Plaintiff, represented by Angie K. Robertson,
PHILIPPS AND PHILIPPS, LTD., John Thomas Steinkamp, JOHN T.
STEINKAMP AND ASSOCIATES, Mary E. Philipps, PHILIPPS AND PHILIPPS,
LTD. & David J. Philipps, PHILIPPS AND PHILIPPS, LTD..

NATIONAL RECOVERY AGENCY, a Pennsylvania limited liability
company, Defendant, represented by Charity A. Olson, Olson Law
Group.


NEST LABS: Cal. Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Darisse" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Beth Labson Freeman denied the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification in the lawsuit styled Justin Darisse v. Nest
Labs, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-01363-BLF (N.D. Cal.).

Mr. Darisse sued Nest alleging that the Nest Learning Thermostat
did not perform as advertised, and moved to certify a nationwide
class of similarly disappointed consumers.

But because Mr. Darisse has not satisfied the required
commonality, typicality and adequacy requirements or the
predominance requirement of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Judge Freeman denied the Motion.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9tVr7dfC


NEW YORK LIFE: Faces Class Action Over Mainstay Index Fund
----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Menickella, writing for Forbes.com, reports that New York
Life Insurance Company can now add itself to the list of companies
sued by its employees for breach of fiduciary responsibility but
this case is a little different, and the first of its kind.
Although suits of these kind typically involve allegations made
against multiple types of investments, this case is the first to
include allegations exclusively against an index fund.

The insurance company sponsors two employee 401(k) plans -- one
with $600 million in assets and one with $2.5 billion.  Of all the
investments between those two accounts, one index fund (based on
the S&P 500) appeared a greater moneymaker for the investment
company than the plan participants: the MainStay S&P 500 index
fund.  This investment charged far higher fees than other
investment options, allege the plaintiffs in the class-action suit
formally called the suit expects a class of 25,000 New York Life
401(k) plan participants.

New York Life and its subsidiaries own and operate the MainStay
index fund.  According to the formal complaint filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York contends,
"the Plans' fiduciaries took advantage of the opportunity to
promote New York Life's financial interests by using the Plans to
promote MainStay mutual funds."

The index fund in question required maintenance fees that were 17
times more-costly than comparable funds.  The formal complaint
also mentions the MainStay index fund cost 35 basis points,
whereas similar investments cost considerably less; Vanguard Group
offers a fund at two basis points and State Street Global Advisors
at four basis points.  The employees contend New York Life could
have saved plan participants $3 million over the course of five
years had the plan sponsor invested with Vanguard.

According to ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974), employers must ensure that "fees paid to service providers
and other expenses of the plan are reasonable in light of the
level and quality of services provided."  Sponsoring investments
with excessive fees violates this federal regulation, and the
plaintiffs argue the plan sponsors "improperly and unjustly
benefited from the excessive fees and expenses."

Nichols Kaster, a law firm specializing in employee protection
law, filed the class action suit on behalf of two New York Life
employees.  This year the firm filed several suits alleging other
employers also breached their fiduciary responsibility as New York
Life did.  The other suits include litigation between the
following companies and their employees:

   -- Putnam Investments LLC
   -- Deutsche Bank
   -- American Airlines Inc.
   -- M&T Bank Corp.
   -- American Century Services LLC

Although the "index-fund-only" angle of this lawsuit makes it
unique, cases like this one appear far too often in US pension
news.  Over the past few years, the fate of US 401(k)'s hung in
the balance after the surfacing of multiple court cases similar to
this one and the resulting call for industry reform from the
federal government.

In a sea of fiduciary lawsuits, one case had a particular impact
on the 401(k) landscape: Tibble vs. Edison.  The Supreme Court
granted this case certiorari in October of 2014, making it the
first suit of its kind to reach the highest court.

Initially filed in 2007, petitioners contended Edison
International breached its fiduciary duty on six accounts.  The
plaintiffs added three expensive mutual funds to their case in
1999 and three more in 2002.  Twenty-five thousand employees
strong, the class action suit claimed the plan sponsor chose
expensive retail mutual funds while other institutional class
products offered plan participants a better option.

ERISA's six-year statute of limitations states complaints of a
fiduciary breach must be brought to the court within six years of
the breach being committed.  In 2007, both the District and
Appellate court found in favor of the plaintiffs for the mutual
fund breaches in 2002 (as those complaints were brought to the
court after five years), but the complaints brought against the
three mutual funds in 1999 were dismissed due to the amount of
time that had passed.

A few months after the case was presented in the chamber of the
Supreme Court in February of 2015, the court issued a unanimous
decision in favor of the plaintiffs, claiming fiduciaries have an
continual duty to monitor plan investments.  The Supreme Court
referenced the common law of trust in the opinion mentioning, "a
trustee has a continuing duty to monitor trust investments and
remove imprudent ones."

The court's decision reinforced the obligation employers have to
supervise and examine plan investments.  Additionally, the outcome
increased awareness about revenue sharing models enabled by 12(b)1
and sub-TA fees.

After the stage was set with one court case after the other, the
Department of Labor passed its Fiduciary Rule as an attempt to
mitigate these reoccurring problems -- the rule will affect both
plan sponsors and plan participants moving forward when the rule
takes effect in April of next year.  Cases like the ones mentioned
continue to draw attention to the pension problem the US faces.

Brian Menickella is a co-founder and managing partner of The
Beacon Group of Companies, a broad-based financial services firm
based in King of Prussia, Pa.


NRA GROUP: Automatic Dialing System Violates TCPA, Judge Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that a
collection agency's use of a predictive dialer was a violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a Pennsylvania federal
judge has ruled in a decision granting summary judgment to a man
whose cellphone was called by the agency nearly 150 times in two
years.

U.S. District Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner of the Middle
District of Pennsylvania ruled in Manuel v. NRA Group that the
collections agency had violated the ban against using automatic
dialing systems to call a cellphone for anything other than
emergencies where the party has previously given consent.

According to Judge Conner, the Mercury Predictive Dialer is an
electronic dialing device that works with other software that
selects which accounts the dialer can call each day.  The dialer
can work in several modes, one of which is a predictive mode where
it makes calls based on its predictions regarding when a
collection agent will be available to accept a call.

Although the collections agency had contended that when its
calling device was in predictive dialer mode it still required an
agent to initiate the call, Judge Conner pointed to the deposition
testimony of the company's director of collections regarding how
the system worked, and said the calls were clearly placed in
violation of the act.

"The court perceives a significant difference between predictive
mode, on the one hand, and power and preview modes, on the other.
In the latter operational settings, collection agents must
affirmatively prompt [Mercury Predictive Dialer] to place each
individual call," Judge Conner said.  "Contrastively, it is clear
that Mercury Dialer initiates calls in predictive mode without
human intervention.  NRA miscomprehends this key distinction and
presents no evidence to the contrary."

The plaintiff, Peterson Manuel, had also sought summary judgment
on the issue of treble damages, but Judge Conner said the record
was "unsettled as to whether the NRA deliberately called Manuel's
cellphone as opposed to his landline," and that the issue should
go before a jury.

Mr. Manuel's attorney, Jenny D. DeFrancisco of Lemberg Law in
Wilton, Connecticut, said she was pleased with Judge Conner's
ruling in the case, and noted that the use of predictive dialers
has been on the rise.

"We see dialers like these being used quite a bit," she said.
"These types of cases are definitely on the rise given that, as
more and more people are becoming aware of the law, more and more
are getting filed."

According to Judge Conner, the collection agency received a
collections account in Mr. Manuel's name from the city of Fort
Lauderdale, Florida, for an outstanding parking ticket.  According
to Conner, the number was for Mr. Manuel's cellphone.

The collections agency obtained the name through a third party,
which had allegedly told the company the number for Mr. Manuel was
a landline. Although the company had a "cellular telephone scrub"
to find mislabeled cellphone numbers in the system, the scrubbing
technology failed to identify the number for Mr. Manuel as a cell
number.

Judge Conner said Mr. Manuel received 149 calls from the
collections agency between May 2012 and June 2014.  Mr. Manuel
also claimed he received voicemails from the company, but none
included live messages from a company representative, and when he
answered the calls from the agency, he experienced "conspicuous"
delays, Judge Conner said.  According to Judge Conner, Mr. Manuel
also said that, a few months after the calls began, he told a
representative to stop calling his cellphone.

Judge Conner also said the NRA used the Mercury Predictive Dialer
device, which is designed to "expedite revenue recovery," to
initiate 146 of the 149 phone calls made to Mr. Manuel.

Mr. Manuel filed a complaint against the collection agency in
February 2015, claiming the company knowingly violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by using an automatic dialing
system without Mr. Manuel's consent.

NRA contended that the Mercury Dialer was incapable of making a
phone call without an agent first striking the F4 key on their
computer.  Judge Conner, however, cited testimony from Charlene
Sarver, the company's collections director, which indicated that
the predictive dialer places a series of calls in advance and then
tries to predict when the next collection agent will hit F4.


NYC TAXI: Court Refuses to Review Rulings in "Singh" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Frederic Block entered a memorandum and order titled
JASWINDER SINGH, BALBIR NAGI, MAN SINGH and NYC YELLOW CAB DRIVERS
ASSOCIATION, INC. v. MEERA JOSHI, THE NEW YORK CITY TAXI AND
LIMOUSINE COMMISSION, BILL DE BLASIO and THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
Case No. 1:15-cv-05496-FB-VMS (E.D.N.Y.), denying the Plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration and granting the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment.

Earlier this year, according to the Order, the Court denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.  The Court upheld
rules promulgated by the New York City Taxi and Limousine
Commission to increase the availability of wheelchair-accessible
yellow cabs against challenges under the Due Process and Equal
Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.  The Plaintiffs
further challenged the regulations under (1) the constitutional
prohibition against the taking of property without just
compensation, and (2) Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice
Law and Rules.  The prior decision did not address those claims
because they did not form the basis for the Plaintiffs' request
for preliminary injunctive relief.

The Plaintiffs now move for reconsideration of several matters
they claim the Court overlooked or misapprehended, Judge Block
said.  They also move to certify a class, and for summary judgment
on two of their claims.  For their part, the Defendants move for
summary judgment on all claims.

For reasons set forth in the Order, Judge Block denies
reconsideration and grants the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment.  Consequently, the Plaintiffs' motion for partial
summary judgment is denied and their motion to certify a class is
denied as moot.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=uD3IlCrn

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel L. Ackman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL L. ACKMAN
          222 Broadway, 19th Floor
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (917) 282-8178
          E-mail: d.ackman@comcast.net

               - and -

          Andrew St. Laurent, Esq.
          HARRIS, ST. LAURENT & CHAUDHRY LLP
          40 Wall Street, 53rd Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (646) 248-6010
          E-mail: andrew@sc-harris.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Zachary W. Carter, Esq.
          CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-1000
          Facsimile: (212) 356-1148

Amici Curiae The Taxis for All Campaign, The 504 Democratic Club,
and Disabled in Action are represented by:

          Daniel L. Brown, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP
          30 Rockefeller Plaza, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10112
          Telephone: (212) 332-3879
          Facsimile: (212) 332-3888
          E-mail: dlbrown@sheppardmullin.com


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Certification of Investors Class Sought
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit In re OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 9:14-cv-81057-WPD (S.D. Fla.), Lead Plaintiff
Sjunde AP-Fonden asks the Court to certify this class of
investors:

     "all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
     acquired Ocwen common stock from May 2, 2013 through
     December 19, 2014, inclusive (Class Period), and were
     damaged thereby".

Excluded from the Class are Defendants and members of Defendants'
immediate families, any person, firm, trust, corporation, officer,
director, or other individual or entity in which any Defendant has
or had a controlling interest, or which is
related to or affiliated with any Defendant, and the legal
representatives, agents, affiliates, heirs, successors-in-
interest, or assigns of any such excluded party.

The Plaintiff further asks the Court for an order:

     a. appointing Lead Plaintiff and proposed class
        representative Jay E. Thren as Class Representatives;
        and

     b. appointing Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as Class
        Counsel and Sallah, Astarita & Cox, LLC as Liaison Class
        Counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=g45Q0B5E

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James D. Sallah, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Cox, Esq.
          Joshua A. Katz, Esq.
          SALLAH ASTARITA & COX, LLC
          2255 Glades Road, Suite 300E
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 989 9080
          Facsimile: (561) 989 9020
          E-mail: jds@sallahlaw.com
                  jlc@sallahlaw.com
                  jak@sallahlaw.com

               - and -

          David Kessler, Esq.
          Lee Rudy, Esq.
          Sharan Nirmul, Esq.
          Richard A. Russo, Jr., Esq.
          Michelle M. Newcomer, Esq.
          Meredith L. Lambert, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ
          MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667 7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667 7056
          E-mail: dkessler@ktmc.com
                  lrudy@ktmc.com
                  snirmul@ktmc.com
                  rrusso@ktmc.com
                  mnewcomer@ktmc.com
                  mlambert@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Jennifer Joost, Esq.
          One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 400 3000
          Facsimile: (415) 400 3001
          E-mail: jjoost@ktmc.com

              - and -

          Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
          Lester Rene Hooker, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE PA
          2424 N Federal Highway, Suite 257
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 394 3399
          Facsimile: (561) 394 3382
          E-Mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
                  lhooker@saxenawhite.com

               - and -

          Emily Cornelia Komlossy, Esq.
          KOMLOSSY LAW, P.A.
          2131 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 408
          Hollywood, FL 33020
          Telephone: (954) 842 2021
          Facsimile: (954) 416 6223
          E-mail: eck@komlossylaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John P. Coffey, Esq.
          Jason M. Moff, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Wagner, Esq.
          KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL, LLP
          1177 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: 212-715 9913
          E-mail: scoffey@kramerlevin.com
                  jmoff@kramerlevin.com
                  jwagner@kramerlevin.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Allan Hirsch, Esq.
          Greenberg Traurig, Esq.
          401 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 2000
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 765 0500
          Facsimile: (954) 765 1477
          E-mail: hirschj@gtlaw.com


ORCHESTRATE HOSPITALITY: Class Settlement in "Edwards" Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DARYETTA EDWARDS, on behalf of and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ORCHESTRATE
HOSPITALITY GROUP LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-
00063-JAJ-HCA (S.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge John A. Jarvey granted
preliminary approval of class action settlement.

The Court preliminary certifies the following class:

     "all servers working at the Restaurants between February 12,
     2014, and February 12, 2016. The Restaurants are Centro,
     Django, Malo, and Zombie Burger and Drink Lab".

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Tqi8UdCj


PETROLEOS BRASILEIRO: Appeals Court Puts Class Action on Hold
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mica Rosenberg and Marta Nogueira, writing for Reuters, report
that a U.S. appeals court on Aug. 2 put a class action case
against Brazil's state-controlled oil company Petroleo Brasileiro
SA on hold pending the resolution of an appeal filed by the
company, potentially stalling a much anticipated U.S. trial.

The order granted a bid by Petrobras, as the company is commonly
known, to postpone a case brought by investors seeking to recoup
billions of dollars in losses stemming from a bribery, contract-
fixing and political kickback scandal in Brazil.

The company had appealed a ruling by U.S. District Judge Jed
Rakoff in Manhattan that certified two classes of plaintiffs,
saying their claims are similar enough to be pursued as groups.
Rakoff had set a trial for Sept. 19 but now the appeals court will
have to rule on the class certification before that can go
forward.

"We were eager to go to trial against Petrobras since we have an
excellent case against them," said Jeremy Lieberman of the law
firm Pomerantz who is representing the shareholders.  He said the
appeal is on a technical issue and he is confident that the class
certification will be upheld.

Petrobras said "it will continue to vigorously defend its rights,"
in a securities filing about the court order on Aug. 2.

The Brazilian firm is at the center of a massive corruption
investigation in Brazil known as Operation Car Wash, which
prompted U.S. shareholders to file the case after company shares
lost value.

Prosecutors in Brazil have said more than $2 billion in bribes
were paid over a decade, mainly to Petrobras executives from
construction and engineering companies and there have been dozens
of arrests in Brazil.

The scandal has contributed to a plunge in Petrobras' market value
to below $20 billion from nearly $300 billion fewer than eight
years ago, Reuters data show.

One class of shareholders that had been certified by Rakoff
applied to purchasers of various Petrobras securities from January
2010 to July 2015 and was being led by Universities Superannuation
Scheme of Liverpool, England.  The other bought debt securities
from offerings in 2013 and 2014, and was led by North Carolina's
treasurer and the Employees' Retirement System of Hawaii.

Class certification can make it easier for investors to recoup
larger sums than if they sued individually, though it does not
guarantee they will be recovered.

The appeal is In re: Petrobras Securities, case number 16-1914, in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.


PLANET FITNESS: Court Narrows Claims in "Truglio" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Freda L. Wolfson granted in part and denied, in part, the
defendants' motion to dismiss the case captioned MARNI TRUGLIO,
individually and as a class representative on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PLANET FITNESS, INC.; FIT TO BE
TIED II, LLC d/b/a PLANET FITNESS; JOHN DOES 1-75; PLANET FITNESS
FRANCHISES 1-75; AND XYZ CORPORATIONS 1-10, Defendants, Civil
Action No. 15-7959 (FLW)(LHG) (D.N.J.).

Planet Fitness, Inc. and Fit To Be Tied II, LLC d/b/a Planet
Fitness (FTBT) filed a motion seeking dismissal of the Amended
Complaint filed by Marni Truglio, or, in the alternative, to
strike the class action allegations of the Amended Complaint
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(f) and
23(d)(1)(D).

Truglio alleged that she entered into a health club services
agreement with the defendants and that the agreement violated New
Jersey law by (1) failing to state that a bond or other security
was filed with the Director of the Division of Consumer Affairs
(and that the defendants failed to maintain such bond of other
security); (2) failing to conspicuously disclose Truglio's total
payment obligation; (3) obligating Truglio to renew her contract;
and (4) imposing misleading requirements to cancel her health club
membership.  Based on those alleged unlawful practices, Truglio
asserted claims, individually and on behalf of a putative class,
under the Health Club Services Act (HCSA), and the Consumer Fraud
Act (CFA)(Count II); and the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer
Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA)(Count I).  The
defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint, arguing that
Truglio has failed to adequately allege that she suffered an
ascertainable loss caused by the alleged unlawful practices and,
therefore, has failed to state a claim under the HCSA, CFA, and
TCCWNA.

Judge Wolfson granted in part and denied in part the defendants'
motion to dismiss.  Specifically, the judge dismissed Count II of
the Amended Complaint without prejudice because Truglio has failed
to allege (1) that the defendants engaged in an unlawful practice
by obligating Truglio to renew her contract; and (2) that she
suffered an ascertainable loss caused by the defendants' alleged
(i) failure to maintain or state that a bond or other security was
filed with the Director of the Division of Consumer Affairs, (ii)
failure to conspicuously disclose Truglio's total payment
obligation, or (iii) use of misleading cancellation provisions to
force customers to pay for additional months of membership dues.
Judge Wolfson also dismissed Count I of the Amended Complaint, in
part, to the extent it is based upon omissions in the covered
writing.  The judge did not reach whether Count I of the Amended
Complaint states a claim based upon Truglio's allegation that the
defendants violated TCCWNA by including allegedly misleading
cancellation provisions in the Membership Agreement.

A full-text copy of Judge Wolfson's July 28, 2016 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/rtj1v6 from Leagle.com.

MARNI TRUGLIO, Plaintiff, represented by BENJAMIN JARRET WOLF,
Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC & JOSEPH K. JONES, Jones, Wolf & Kapasi,
LLC.

PLANET FITNESS, INC., Defendant, represented by CRAIG R.
TRACTENBERG -- ctractenberg@nixonpeabody.com -- NIXON PEABODY,
LLP.

FIT TO BE TIED II, LLC, Defendant, represented by LOUIS A.
FELICETTA, CARLUCCIO LEONE.


POKEMON: Faces Nuisance, Unjust Enrichment Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------
James G. Gatto, Esq., of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP,
in an article for The National Law Review, reports that hugely
successful games attract lawsuits.  Pokemon Go has been hugely
successful and, predictably, has attracted a lawsuit.

In a recently filed class action, a plaintiff has alleged that a
number of the GPS coordinates that Defendants had designated as
Pokestops and Pokemon gyms were, in fact, on or directly adjacent
to private property, and that Defendants had placed these
Pokestops and Pokemon gyms without the consent of the properties'
owners.

The legal claims asserted are nuisance and unjust enrichment.
Interestingly, the complaint does not allege trespass.  It is also
interesting that Plaintiff alleges that "at least five individuals
knocked on Plaintiff's door, informed Plaintiff that there was a
Pokemon in his backyard, and asked for access to Plaintiff's
backyard in order to "catch" the Pokemon."  The complaint is
silent as to what Plaintiff told these players and, if denied
permission, whether they left the property.

The complaint also lacks any specificity as to what, if any,
damages Plaintiff sustained.

As AR applications continue to enjoy success, other legal issues
will likely arise.  It is best to do a legal review before
releasing such apps.


PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Court Granted 6-Month Stay of Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Providence Service Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a Court
has granted a six-month stay of the proceeding, Haverhill
Retirement System v. Kerley et al.

On June 15, 2015, a putative stockholder class action derivative
complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware (the "Court"), captioned Haverhill Retirement System v.
Kerley et al., C.A. No. 11149-VCL.

On May 6, 2016, the plaintiff filed a verified second amended
class action and derivative complaint. In addition to the
defendants named in the earlier complaint, the second amended
complaint names Paul Hastings LLP ("Paul Hastings") and Bank of
America, N.A. ("BofA") as additional defendants.

In addition to previously asserted claims, the second amended
complaint purports to assert direct and derivative claims for
breach of fiduciary duties against Coliseum Capital Management,
LLC ("Coliseum Capital Management"), in its capacity as the
controlling stockholder of the Company, in connection with the
subordinated note, the Company's rights offering of preferred
stock and the Standby Purchase Agreement with Coliseum Capital
Management (the "Financing Transactions"). The second amended
complaint also alleges that Paul Hastings breached their fiduciary
duties as counsel to the Company in connection with the Financing
Transactions and that BofA and Paul Hastings aided and abetted
certain of the defendants in breaching their fiduciary duties in
connection with the Financing Transactions.  The second amended
complaint seeks, among other things, revision or rescission of the
terms of the subordinated note and preferred stock, corporate
governance reforms, disgorgement of fees paid to RBC Capital
Markets, LLC, Paul Hastings and BofA for work relating to the
Financing Transactions, unspecified damages and other relief.

On May 20, 2016, the Court granted a six-month stay of the
proceeding from the date of such order to allow a special
litigation committee, created by the Company's board of directors,
sufficient time to investigate, review and evaluate the facts,
circumstances and claims asserted in or relating to this action
and determine the Company's response thereto. The special
litigation committee's review of the facts is ongoing.


PTTEP AUSTRALASIA: Court Accepts Indonesian Seaweed Farmers' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Djemi Amnifu, writing for The Jakarta Post, reports that the
Federal Court of Australia in Sydney on Aug. 3 accepted a class
action lawsuit filed by Indonesian fishermen, who are demanding
PTTEP Australasia pay compensation for an oil leak at its Montara
oil rig in the Timor Sea in 2009.

The lawsuit was registered by the Care for West Timor Foundation's
(YPTB) advocacy team heads Ferdi Tanoni and Daniel Sanda, who are
representing 13,000 seaweed farmers from East Nusa Tenggara who
suffered losses from the Montara oil spill.

Ferdi said that in filing the class action lawsuit, they were
accompanied by two lawyers, one of whom was Ben Slade from Maurice
Blackburn Lawyers, a reputable Australian law office established
in 1919.  Another lawyer was Greg Phelps from WardKeller, the
biggest law office in Northern Australia.

Citing Slade, Ferdi said the Montara oil spill case must be
brought to court because the meeting between the Australian law
office and PTTEP Australasia representatives, which aimed to
settle the case out of court, had failed to reach an agreement.

Mr. Phelps asserted that PTTEP Australasia had purportedly closed
its eyes and ears over sufferings experienced by East Nusa
Tenggara people.  He said PTTEP Australasia expected that the case
would eventually disappear so they could be free from any
responsibility.

"That's why we, who have voluntarily supported the people since
2011, help carry out an advocacy to reveal the truth in this
case," said Mr.Phelps, as quoted by Ferdi in an email to The
Jakarta Post on Aug. 3.


REGENCY CAR: Fails to Return Security Deposit, "Patel" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
NISHIL PATEL and GURRAJ SINGH, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. REGENCY CAR RENTALS, LLC, HERTZ
GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC., and THE HERTZ CORPORATION, Case No. 2:16-
cv-05967-JFW-SK (C.D. Cal., August 10, 2016), is a proposed class
action, brought on behalf of all those who rented a luxury vehicle
from Regency, between August 10, 2012, and the present.

The Action is also brought on behalf of a proposed sub-class, the
New Jersey Sub-Class, composed of all those who resided in New
Jersey and rented a luxury vehicle from Regency between August 10,
2012, and the present.  The complaint seeks injunctive,
declaratory and monetary relief arising from the Defendants'
alleged failure to return the security deposit in violation of the
standard car rental agreement and the California Business &
Professions Code.

Regency is a California limited liability corporation
headquartered in Marina Del Rey, California.  Hertz Global
maintains its principal offices in Estero, Florida.  Hertz
Corporation is a subsidiary of Hertz Global and operates
approximately 11,500 car rental locations worldwide.  Defendants
Hertz Global and Hertz Corporation are affiliated with Regency.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com


REMINGTON ARMS: Judge Not Yet Ready to Approve Rifle Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that U.S. District
Judge Ortrie Smith of Kansas City is still not ready to grant
final approval to a proposed class action settlement that would
provide replacement trigger mechanisms to the owners of more than
7.5 million supposedly defective Remington bolt-action rifles.
After a hearing on Aug. 2 on a revised proposal from Remington and
plaintiffs' lawyers, the judge directed the two sides to file
another proposed order, keeping alive a controversy the case has
kicked up.

The issue is what constitutes adequate notice to class members and
whether a low claims rate necessarily means potential plaintiffs
were underinformed.  In December, Judge Smith refused to approve a
final settlement because rifle owners had filed only 2,327 claims,
despite a court-approved notice process that included postcards to
known class members, Internet banner ads and print ads in both
widely circulated and niche gun owner magazines.  By June, when
Remington and class counsel, at the judge's instruction, proposed
a new notice campaign to "remind" rifle owners about their right
to a free replacement trigger, only 6,300 class members had filed
claims.

That's a claims rate of less than 1 percent -- in a case alleging
a deadly product defect.  This is not a shampoo falsely advertised
as being sold only in salons.  These are rifles with an alleged
tendency to fire when no one has pulled the trigger.

Remington's lawyers at Swanson Martin & Bell and Shook Hardy &
Bacon and plaintiffs' lawyers from Neblett Beard & Arsenault,
Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman, Holland Groves Schneller & Stolze
and the Lanier Law Firm suggested several explanations for the
extremely underwhelming response to the offer of a free fix for
the supposedly defective firearms.  Rifle owners (and all gun
owners) may be skeptical of any process requiring registration,
they said. Or they may not want to part with their weapons for
long enough to get them fixed -- or may not want to tamper with a
familiar trigger mechanism.

The parties argued that judges frequently approve consumer class
action settlements in which fewer than 5 percent of class members
file claims.  Low claims rates are the rule rather than the
exception in such cases, they said.  According to their brief, to
assess the adequacy of class action notices, judges should
consider whether class members have been provided with an
opportunity to participate, not whether they've actually taken
that opportunity.

Nevertheless, because the judge demanded a revised notice plan in
his December rejection of the first proposed settlement, the two
sides described a "reminder" program that would include "a state-
of-the-art, pre-tested social media campaign developed by an
internationally recognized expert," a national radio ad campaign
"forecasted to generate more than 61 million targeted
impressions," emails and postcards to more than 1 million
Remington customers and 11,000 posters to be displayed at gun
dealerships.  The additional notice, according to the brief from
Remington and class counsel, "is likely to result in a more
significant response rate based on empirical, preliminary testing
results."

On July 29, a class action consultant who has advised the Federal
Judicial Center on its guidelines for class notices filed an
extremely unusual letter to Judge Smith.  In the filing, which was
first reported by CNBC, Todd Hilsee of The Hilsee Group said the
Remington class notice program remains woefully deficient.  The
social media ads, he said, seem designed to improve Remington's
image, not to encourage rifle owners to file claims.  The claims
forms are unwieldy.  And the proposed mailings don't include
claims forms, Mr. Hilsee said.

Mr. Hilsee didn't stop with criticizing the specifics of the new
notice proposal, either.  He attacked the integrity of the entire
class action notice industry, describing a race to the bottom in
which plaintiffs' lawyers demand low-ball bids from claims
administrators, threaten to cut off administrators that won't play
along and award contracts for the cheapest notice program that can
pass muster under the "best practicable" standard in federal
courts.

"Those who know better dare not speak up," Mr. Hilsee wrote. "That
is why I speak up as someone who does not bid and does not compete
to execute notice.  The low-ball notice plans and plummeting
response rates are causing ridicule to courts and the class action
device, studies calling class actions ineffectual, empowering
legislation to eviscerate class actions, and now class action
notice rule proposals that would weaken the one bulwark
requirement -- individual notice by mail -- that generates the
greatest response."

Mr. Hilsee said low claims rates are good for defendants, who
don't have to pay out, and plaintiffs' lawyers, who can persuade
those defendants to settle with a wink and a nod, then claim fees
based on the illusory classwide recovery.

"Unless courts seek answers like this court did in December, and
correct the problems, notice proposals will lead to continued
degradation," Mr. Hilsee wrote.  "These practices have created the
danger that opt-out class actions will be de-legitimized."

Steven Weisbrot -- steve@angeiongroup.com -- of the Angeion Group,
claims administrator in the Remington settlement, said in an email
that Mr. Hilsee's letter "smacks of full-blown conspiracy theories
and is rife with self-aggrandizement and self-promotion."  Mr.
Hilsee's depiction of law firms threatening to blackball
settlement administrators, Mr. Weisbrot said, "shows exactly how
out of touch this . . . notice expert really is.  The decision as
to which notice provider to select is done not only with the
advice and consent of all parties to the litigation but,
ultimately, subject to formal court review and approval.  The
suggestion that in this judicial climate, with its notably
heightened judicial scrutiny of class action settlements, there is
something disreputable occurring is not just wrong, it is
insulting."


RFI CONSTRUCTION: Luna-Reyes Seeks Certification of FLSA Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JOAQUIN LUNA-REYES, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RFI
CONSTRUCTION, LLC, RUPERT BURROWS, and WILLIAM WARWICK, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:14-CV-235 (M.D.N.C.), Mr. Joaquin Luna-
Reyes moves the Court to enter an order:

     1. conditionally certifying the action as a representative
        collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
        (FLSA);

     2. approving the FLSA notice of the action and the consent
        form;

     3. updating production of names, last known mailing
        addresses, alternate addresses, telephone numbers, email
        addresses, and dates of employment for all putative
        plaintiffs/class members; and

     4. posting the Notice, along with the consent forms, at RFI
        Defendants and proposed Defendants' current jobsites;

     5. certifying the action as a class action under North
        Carolina Wage and Hour Act claims; and

     6. appointing Gilda A. Hernandez of The Law Offices of Gilda
        A. Hernandez, PLLC and Derek Braziel of Lee & Braziel,
        LLP as class counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Theodore C. Edwards, II, Esq.
          THE BANKS LAW FIRM
          4309 Emperor Blvd., Ste. 225
          Durham, NC 27703
          Telephone: (919) 755 8700
          Facsimile: (919) 755 8800
          E-mail: tedwards@bankslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF
          GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC
          1020 Southhill Drive, Suite 130
          Cary, NC 27513
          Telephone: (919) 741 8693
          Facsimile: (919) 869 1853
          E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com

               - and -

          J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
          LEE & BRAZIEL, LLP
          1801 N. Lamar St. Suite 325
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 749 1400
          Facsimile: (214) 749 1010
          E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com


RONAN, MT: Class Action Against City Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------
Justin Franz, writing for Flathead Beacon, reports that a member
of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes is suing the City
of Ronan for allegedly employing uncertified and unqualified
police officers.

Anthony Chaney filed the lawsuit in October 2015 and on July 1,
District Court Judge Jim Manley granted the plaintiff's request
for class certification, meaning that anyone who had been
subjected to detention, search or seizure by ineligible or
unqualified Ronan police officers could join the suit.

According to court documents, the tribes entered into an agreement
with local law enforcement agencies back in 2007 allowing the
departments to police tribal members so long as they used
certified officers.

In Mr. Chaney's lawsuit, he alleges that an uncertified officer
unlawfully arrested him in July 2013.  According to court
documents, Mr. Chaney was at a bar in Ronan with his brother, who
suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, when his sibling
started to have a PTSD-episode.  To help him through the incident,
Mr. Chaney held down his brother in a grassy area in an attempt to
calm him down, something he had been trained to do. Mr. Chaney
held his brother down for more than an hour when multiple Ronan
police officers arrived.  Despite being told that he was trying to
help his brother, the officers placed both men in handcuffs.
Neither man was ever charged with a crime.

Anyone who believes they may have been subjected to detention,
search or seizure by ineligible or unqualified Ronan police
officers are encouraged to contact Ann Sherwood or Justin Kalmbach
at the Tribal Defenders Office at (406) 675-2700 ext. 1125.


RTO MEDRESOURCE: Gress Seeks Certification of Classes
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled DR. WILLIAM P. GRESS, on behalf of plaintiff
and the class members, the Plaintiff, v. RTO MEDRESOURCE, LLC, and
JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-08060 (N.D.
Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify these classes:

For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act,

     "(a) all persons with fax numbers (b) who, on or after a
     date four years prior to the filing of this action, (c) were
     sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant RTO MedResource,
     LLC, promoting its goods or services for sale (d) which did
     not contain a compliant opt out notice"; and

For purposes of Count II, alleging conversion, Count III, alleging
nuisance, and Count IV, alleging trespass to chattels,

     "(a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or
     after a date five years prior to the filing of this action,
     (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant RTO
     MedResource, LLC, promoting its goods or services for sale
     (d) which did not contain a complaint opt out notice".

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=u08EET40

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RTO MEDRESOURCE: Bid to Certify Class in "Gress" Suit Continued
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on August 15, 2016, in the case
styled Dr. William P. Gress v. RTO MedResource, LLC, et al., Case
No. 1:16-cv-08060 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before
the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin.

The minute entry states that the Plaintiff's motion to certify
class is entered and continued generally.  The Docket Entry also
states that the Plaintiff's motion to enter and continue the
Motion is granted.

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


S.C.R.A.P. INC: Chicago Car Wants Certification of Three Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Car Care Inc. asks that the Court enter an order
determining that the action titled CHICAGO CAR CARE INC., on
behalf of plaintiff and the class members defined herein v.
S.C.R.A.P. INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-08088 (N.D.
Ill.), may proceed as a class action against S.C.R.A.P.  The
Plaintiff defines the classes as:

     For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone
     Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, plaintiff
     seeks to represent a class consisting of (a) all persons
     with fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date four years
     prior to the filing of this action (28 U.S.C. Section 1658),
     (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant S.C.R.A.P.
     Inc., promoting its goods or services for sale (d) which did
     not contain a compliant opt out notice.  By "compliant opt
     out notice" is meant one (i) on the first page of the fax
     (ii) that states that the recipient may make a request to
     the sender not to send any future unsolicited advertisements
     to a telephone facsimile machine (iii) that states that
     failure to comply, within the shortest reasonable time, as
     determined by the Federal Communications Commission, is
     unlawful; (iv) that provides instructions on how to submit
     an opt out request and (v) that includes a domestic contact
     telephone and facsimile machine number and a cost-free
     mechanism for the recipient to transmit such a request to
     the sender that permit a request to be made at any time on
     any day of the week.

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

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6BcB0Sj3

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SANTA MONICA, CA: Class Certification Sought in "Rosenblatt" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arlene Rosenblatt moves for an order certifying a putative class
in the lawsuit entitled ARLENE ROSENBLATT, an individual, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA, a municipal corporation; and THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA MONICA, its governing body, Case No. 2:16-cv-04481-
ODW-AGR (C.D. Cal.).

Ms. Rosenblatt also asks the Court to appoint her as Class
Representative, and to appoint her counsel as Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on September 12, 2016, at 1:30
p.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=duYClG3k

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert L. Esensten, Esq.
          Jordan S. Esensten, Esq.
          ESENSTEN LAW
          12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1660
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 273-3090
          Facsimile: (310) 207-5969
          E-mail: resensten@esenstenlaw.com
                  jesensten@esenstenlaw.com


SCARLETT'S G.P.: Judge Favors Dismissal of Exotic Dancers' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Amy J. St. Eve of the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, granted defendants' motions to dismiss
in the case KATHLEEN HUGHES, IMOGEN OLIVER, and VIRGINIA SHERWOOD,
Plaintiffs, v. SCARLETT'S G.P., INC. d/b/a PINK MONKEY, CLINTON
ENTERTAINMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC d/b/a PINK MONKEY, NEW YORK STRIP
d/b/a PINK MONKEY, SCARLETT'S L.P. and MARK VAJDIK, Defendants,
No. 15-cv-5546 (N.D. Ill.)

Plaintiffs Kathleen Hughes, Imogen Oliver, and Virginia Sherwood
are former exotic dancers at the Pink Monkey, an adult
entertainment business allegedly owned and operated by defendants.
Plaintiffs claim that defendants misclassified them as independent
contractors instead of employees, failed to pay them minimum wage
or overtime pay, and unlawfully confiscated their tips.

On February 5, 2016, the court issued an order on defendants'
motion to dismiss that dismisses plaintiffs' claims on minimum and
overtime wage violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (Count
I), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (Count II), the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act (Count III), the Racketeer Influence
and Corruption Act (Count IV), and, as to plaintiff Virginia
Sherwood, retaliatory discharge under the FLSA and the IWPCA
(Count V). The court dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs' tip
recovery claim under the FLSA, as well as plaintiff Sherwood's
claim for retaliatory discharge under the IMWL.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging minimum and
overtime wage violations under the FLSA, IMWL, and IWPCA, and as
to Sherwood's retaliatory discharge under the IWPCA. Defendants
Clinton Entertainment Management, LLC and Scarlett's L.P. moved to
dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. Defendants Scarlett's G.P., Inc. and Mark Vajdik
joined the motion and made additional arguments in favor of
dismissal.

Judge St. Eve granted defendants' motions to dismiss.  A copy of
Judge St. Eve's memorandum opinion and order dated August 8, 2016,
is available at http://goo.gl/vGZTLRfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

Gregory X. Gorman, Esq.
Gorman & Gorman
220 S Halsted St.
Chicago, IL 60661
Telephone: 312-332-4240

Mark Vajdik and Scarlett's G.P., Inc., Defendants, represented by
Marty Jay Schwartz -- mschwartz@schainbanks.com -- Tyler J Manic -
- tmanic@schainbanks.com -- at Schain Banks Kenny & Schwartz

Clinton Entertainment Management, Inc., LLC and Scarlett's L.P.,
Defendants, represented by:

Michael Z. Gurland, Esq.
The Gurland Law Firm
2 N La Salle St, Ste 2200
Chicago, IL 60602-3801
Telephone: 312-269-8000


SEDGWICK LLP: Removes "Ribeiro" Class Suit to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sedgwick LLP removes the lawsuit titled TRACI RIBEIRO, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. SEDGWICK LLP, Case
No. CGC-16-553231, from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Francisco to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-04507-WHA to the proceeding.

On July 26, 2016, Traci Ribeiro filed a complaint against Sedgwick
alleging claims for relief against the Defendant stemming from the
Plaintiff's partnership in the Defendant, namely Defendant's
alleged failure to compensate her in an amount commensurate to
male counterparts (despite her being one of the most highly
compensated partners) and alleged failure to elect her to equity
partnership.  The Plaintiff bases her claims on, among other
things, alleged violations by the Defendant of the Federal Equal
Pay Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sharon R. Vinick, Esq.
          LEVY VINICK BURRELL HYAMS LLP
          180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1300
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 318-7702
          Facsimile: (510) 318-7701
          E-mail: sharon@levyvinick.com

               - and -

          J. Bryan Wood, Esq.
          THE WOOD LAW OFFICE, LLC
          303 W. Madison St., Suite 2650
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 554-8600
          Facsimile: (312) 577-0749
          E-mail: bryan@jbryanwoodlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Nick C. Geannacopulos, Esq.
          Emily Barker, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 397-2823
          Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
          E-mail: ngeannacopulos@seyfarth.com
                  ebarker@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Kyle Petersen, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          131 South Dearborn Street, Suite 2400
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 460-5000
          Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
          E-mail: kpetersen@seyfarth.com


SHAFER TROXELL: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Nusbaum Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT NUSBAUM, GREG PHILLIPS and GEORGE MCDONNELL, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and all who have
filed consent to suit forms in this case v. SHAFER, TROXELL &
HOWE, INC., GARETH KOOGLE, Pres., and JEFF RUSSELL, Executive Vice
President, Case No. 1:16-cv-02826-MJG (D. Md., August 10, 2016),
accuses the Defendants of failing to pay the Plaintiffs minimum
wages and time-and-a-half for overtime wages as required by the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Shafer Troxell is a business entity whose activities affect
interstate commerce.  Gareth Koogle is the President of STH.  Jeff
Russell is the Executive Vice President of STH.  The Defendants
contracted/employed the Plaintiffs as Service Tech employees.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Francis J. Collins, Esq.
          KAHN, SMITH & COLLINS, P.A.
          201 North Charles Street, 10th Floor
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 244-1010
          E-mail: fjcollins@kahnsmith.com


SHELL OIL: Settles False Advertising Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Crime Voice reports that the Santa Cruz District Attorney's Office
has announced that Shell Oil Company agreed to a settlement to
resolve consumer protection and false advertising violation,
agreeing to pay $762,500 in civil penalties, cost, and
restitution.  They have also agreed to certain provisions to
ensure future compliance and avoid further mishaps.

Santa Cruz County was one of several California counties
developing a task force to conduct an investigation into Shell's
alleged dealings with gift cards and fuel rewards cards.  The task
force then filed a class action lawsuit against the fuel giant in
an Alameda County Court.

The suit alleged that:

   -- Shell failed to adequately disclose that certain advertised
discounts for using gift cards and fuel rewards could not be
combined.

   -- Advertised discounts on gasoline purchased by gift cards
were not being honored by all Shell stations.

   -- There had been failure to redeem gift cards with a balance
for less than $10 for cash as required by California law.

   -- Shell failed to disclose limitations to their rewards
program.

   -- The company falsely advertised that certain gift cards could
be "used as cash" even though some customers were being charged
credit card rates when using their gift cards.

"[Our] office is committed to ensuring that California's consumer
protection and false advertising laws are followed both to protect
consumers and create a level playing field for all businesses,"
Santa Cruz County District Attorney Jeff Rosell wrote in a press
release.

Shell's counsel, although denying liability, worked to implement
changes in processing transactions and additional disclosures in
the wake of the allegations.


SOLARCITY CORP: Judge Dismisses Shareholder Fraud Case
------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal
judge on Aug. 9 dismissed a shareholder fraud case against
renewable energy company SolarCity Corp., which is on the cusp of
a merger with Tesla Motors, after lawyers at Pomerantz failed for
a third time to make claims stick.

U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman in a 20-page decision said
attorneys had failed to plug holes in their complaint against
SolarCity that she identified in two previous orders.  The suit,
filed in 2014, alleges the company manipulated its accounting to
make it look like sales were performing better than they were.

But Judge Freeman said that despite gathering information from
almost a dozen confidential witnesses, the plaintiffs still could
not point to evidence suggesting that SolarCity executives had
knowledge of wrongdoing -- or "scienter" -- in committing the
accounting error.

"In large part, plaintiffs rely on the same body of allegations
that the court previously found to be insufficient.  And, contrary
to plaintiffs' argument, their new allegations fail to support the
scienter requirement that individual defendants knew that the
entire sales segment was underperforming while at the same time
reporting profits in the sales segment," she wrote.

Judge Freeman dismissed the suit with prejudice.  She had twice
previously granted motions to dismiss but had given attorneys at
plaintiff-side securities firm Pomerantz chances to amend their
complaint.

SolarCity, which was represented by Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &
Rosati in the case, did not immediately respond to a request for
comment.

The securities fraud class action followed a major correction in
sales margins reported by SolarCity that was announced in 2014 for
quarters in the previous two years.

Some of the swings were dramatic, and when disclosed, weighed on
the company's stock price.  For example, the company originally
reported a positive sales margin of 42 percent in the fourth
quarter of 2012; that was later corrected to a negative margin of
24 percent, according to the complaint.

Still, Judge Freeman said, there was no clear allegation that
SolarCity or its leadership intentionally fudged the numbers.
"The allegations clearly show that defendants had the motive and
perhaps even the opportunity to cause the accounting error. . .
But '[i]f scienter could be pleaded merely by alleging that
officers and directors possess motive and opportunity to enhance a
company's business prospects . . . virtually every company in the
United States that experiences a downturn in stock price could be
forced to defend securities fraud actions,'" she wrote, citing
past case law.

The dismissal of the case helps clear the air for SolarCity ahead
of its merger with Tesla Motors Inc., which was announced earlier
this month.  Both companies are heavily invested in by billionaire
business magnate Elon Musk, who was named as a defendant in
earlier stages of the shareholder suit.


SOUTH CAROLINA: "Kenny" Files Suit v. Atty. Gen., Police Officers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against government officials of Southern
Carolina. The case is captioned Niya Kenny, Taurean Nesmith, and
Girls Rock Charleston Inc., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated; DS, by and through her next of kin Juanita
Ford, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; and
SP, by and through her next of kin Melissa Downs, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Alan
Wilson, in his official capacity as Attorney General of South
Carolina, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated; J
Alton Cannon, Jr., in his official capacity as the Sheriff of
Charleston County, SC, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated; Gregory G Mullen, in his official capacity as the Chief
of the Police Department of the City of Charleston, SC, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated; Eddie Driggers , Jr., in
his official capacity as the Chief of the Police Department of the
City of North Charleston, SC, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated; Carl Ritchie, in his official capacity as the
Chief of the Police Department of the City of Mt. Pleasant, SC, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated; Leon Lott, in his
official capacity as the Sheriff of Richland County, SC, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated; W.H. Holbrook,
Department of in his official capacity as the Chief of the Police
Department of the City of Columbia, SC, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, the Steve Loftis, in his official
capacity as the Sheriff of Greenville County, SC, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated; Ken Miller, in his official
capacity as the Chief of the Police Department of the City of
Greenville, SC, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated; Lance Crowe, in his official capacity as the Chief of
the Police Department of the City of Travelers Rest, SC, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated; Steve Moore, in his
official capacity as Interim Chief of the Police Department of the
City of Simpsonville, SC, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated; M Bryan Turner, in his official capacity as
the Chief of the Police Department of the City of Mauldin, SC, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated; Dan Reynolds, in
his official capacity as the Chief of the Police Department of the
City of Greer, SC, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated; A. Keith Morton, in his official capacity as the Chief
of the Police Department of the City of Fountain Inn, SC, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:16-cv-02794-CWH (D.S.C., Aug. 11, 2016). The assigned
Judge is Hon. C Weston Houck.

Alan McCrory Wilson is an American attorney and politician,
currently serving as the 51st Attorney General of South Carolina.
He is a member of the Republican Party.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Susan King Dunn, Esq.
          ACLU SC NATIONAL OFFICE
          PO Box 20998
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Telephone: (843) 720 1425
          Facsimile: (843) 720 1428
          E-mail: sdunn@aclusouthcarolina.org


SPORT CLIPS: Pinnacle Removes "Perez" Class Suit to S.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Pinnacle PEO Corporation removes the lawsuit styled
JULIETA PEREZ, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated v. SPORT CLIPS, INC., a Texas corporation; CCAR CLIPS,
LLC, a California limited liability company doing business as
Sport Clips; PINNACLE PEO CORPORATION, a Texas corporation; CHRIS
FORMO, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
37-2016-00021023-CU-OE-CTL, from the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California.  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-02011-JAH-NLS to the proceeding.

On June 21, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Superior
Court accusing the Defendants of, among other things, failure to
pay employees for all hours worked at correct rates of pay and
failure to provide rest breaks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David G. Spivak, Esq.
          Caroline Tahmassian, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          9454 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 303
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 4994730
          Facsimile: (310) 499-4739
          E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com
                  caroline@spivaklaw.com

               - and -

          Walter Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
          5500 Bolsa Ave, Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (888) 474-7242
          Facsimile: (562) 256-1006
          E-mail: walter@whaines.com

Defendant PINNACLE PEO CORPORATION is represented by:

          John M. Polson, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          2050 Main Street, Suite 1000
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 851-2424
          Facsimile: (949) 851-0152
          E-mail: jpolson@fisherphillips.com

               - and -

          Aaron F. Olsen, Esq.
          Brooke B. Tabshouri, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (858) 597-9600
          Facsimile: (858) 597-9601
          E-mail: aolsen@fisherphillips.com
                  btabshouri@fisherphillips.com


STONE FUNDING: Chicago Car Seeks Certification of Three Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Car Care Inc. asks that the Court enter an order
determining that the action entitled CHICAGO CAR CARE INC., on
behalf of plaintiff and the class members defined herein v. STONE
FUNDING GROUP LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-08094
(N.D. Ill.), may proceed as a class action against Stone Funding.
The Plaintiff defines the classes as:

     For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone
     Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, plaintiff
     seeks to represent a class consisting of (a) all persons
     with fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date four years
     prior to the filing of this action (28 U.S.C. Section 1658),
     (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant Stone
     Funding Group LLC, promoting its goods or services for sale
     (d) which did not contain a compliant opt out notice.  By
     "compliant opt out notice" is meant one (i) on the first
     page of the fax (ii) that states that the recipient may make
     a request to the sender not to send any future unsolicited
     advertisements to a telephone facsimile machine (iii) that
     states that failure to comply, within the shortest
     reasonable time, as determined by the Federal Communications
     Commission, is unlawful; (iv) that provides instructions on
     how to submit an opt out request and (v) that includes a
     domestic contact telephone and facsimile machine number and
     a cost-free mechanism for the recipient to transmit such a
     request to the sender that permit a request to be made at
     any time on any day of the week.

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUFFOLK BANCORP: Defending Merger-Related Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Suffolk Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company, its board
of directors and People's United are named as defendants in two
purported class action lawsuits in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, Suffolk County, challenging the merger and seeking,
among other things, to enjoin the defendants from completing the
merger on the agreed-upon terms, and rescission of the merger
and/or awarding of damages to the extent the merger is completed.
Additional plaintiffs may also file lawsuits against the Company
or People's United and/or their directors and officers in
connection with the merger. The outcome of any such litigation is
uncertain. If the cases are not resolved, these lawsuits could
prevent or delay completion of the merger and result in
substantial costs to the Company, including any costs associated
with the indemnification of directors and officers.


TEACHERS INSURANCE: Court Narrows Claims in "Luciano" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LORRAINE H. LUCIANO, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TEACHERS
INSURANCE AND ANNUITY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA-COLLEGE RETIREMENT
EQUITIES FUND (TIAA-CREF), et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.
15-6726 (MAS)(DEA) (D.N.J.), Judge Michael A. Shipp denied the
plaintiff's appeal of the court's January 15 order, granted in
part the defendants' motions to dismiss, and terminated as moot
the plaintiffs' cross-motions for summary judgment.

A full-text copy of Judge Shipp's July 29, 2016 memorandum opinion
is available at https://is.gd/PcfEzV from Leagle.com.

The putative class action was brought by Lorraine H. Luciano
against the defendants concerning the defendants' treatment of
defined-contribution pension benefits allegedly payable to
Luciano.  The defendants Teachers Insurance and Annuity
Association of America - College Retirement Equities Fund,
Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America, and College
Retirement Equities Fund ("TIAA-CREF Defendants") provide
retirement and savings plan design, consultation, and
administration for employee benefit plans governed by the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).  The defendants
Educational Testing Service (ETS) and Educational Testing Service
Employee Benefits Administration Committee (EBAC) (collectively,
with ETS, "ETS Defendants") sponsor certain employee benefit plans
and have selected TIAA-CREF as an annuity provider for their
plans.

Luciano's husband, James Rosso, was employed by ETS and was a
participant in two of ETS's plans: (1) the ETS Retirement Plan
(401(a) Plan); and (2) the ETS 403(b) Match Plan (403(b) Plan).
James originally designated his parents and sister, Intervenor
Lucille Rosso, as his beneficiaries under the Plans.  Later, James
changed his designated beneficiary to only his sister.
Thereafter, Luciano and James married in February 2004, and James
passed away in April 2014.

After her husband's death, Luciano informed TIAA-CREF Defendants
that she was his surviving spouse.  TIAA-CREF Defendants informed
Luciano that as the surviving spouse she was entitled to a death
benefit of $119,253.33, one half of Mr. Rosso's account balance.
TIAA-CREF Defendants informed Luciano that the other one half
benefit would be paid to Lucille.

Subsequently, Luciano filed the putative class action challenging
the defendants' 50% benefit determination and the 401(a) Plan's
mandatory arbitration provision.

The defendants moved to dismiss Luciano's First Amended Complaint
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), (6), and (7) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.  In response, Luciano cross-moved for partial
summary judgment against the defendants and intervenor defendant
Lucille Rosso.  Additionally, Luciano appealed the Honorable
Douglas E. Arpert, U.S.M.J.'s January 15, 2016 Memorandum Order,
granting Lucille's motion to intervene.

Judge Shipp dismissed with prejudice Counts Four, Five, and Six of
Luciano's Amended Complaint, seeking relief from the mandatory
arbitration provision in the 401(a) Plan under section 1133(2),
for failure to state a claim.   Additionally, the judge will
compel arbitration, pursuant to the mandatory arbitration
provision, of Counts One, Two, and Three of Luciano's Amended
Complaint, as they relate to the 401(a) Plan.  Furthermore, Judge
Shipp ordered the stay of Counts One, Two, and Three of Luciano's
Amended Complaint, as they relate to the 403(b) Plan, pending
arbitration of the same counts as they relate to the 401(a) Plan.
Judge Shipp did not compel arbitration of the claims as they
relate to the 403(b) Plan.

LORRAINE H. LUCIANO, Plaintiff, represented by FREDERICK BENNO
POLAK -- fpolak@postpolak.com -- POST, POLAK, GOODSELL, MACNEILL &
STRAUCHLER, PA, MATTHEW F. GATELY -- mfg@njlawfirm.com -- COHN,
LIFLAND, PEARLMAN, HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP, PETER S. PEARLMAN --
psp@njlawfirm.com -- COHN, LIFLAND, PEARLMAN, HERRMANN & KNOPF,
LLP & MICHAEL JOHN MARTELO -- mmartelo@postpolak.com -- Post,
Polak, Goodsell & Strauchler, P.A..

TEACHERS INSURANCE AND ANNUITY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA - COLLEGE
RETIREMENT EQUITIES FUND (TIAA-CREF), TEACHERS INSURANCE AND
ANNUITY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA (TIAA), COLLEGE RETIREMENT EQUITIES
FUND (CREF), Defendants, represented by LIZA M. WALSH --
lwalsh@walsh.law -- WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP & KATELYN
O'REILLY -- koreilly@walsh.law -- WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA
LLP.

EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICES (ETS), THE EDUCATIONAL TESTING
SERVICE EMPLOYEE BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE, Defendants,
represented by JEFFREY IVAN PASEK, COZEN O'CONNOR.

LUCILLE ROSSO, Intervenor Defendant, represented by JEFFREY D.
HOFFMANN -- jeff@centralnjlawyer.com -- THE LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY
HOFFMANN, LLC & BRYAN CULLEN MARKWARD, THE LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY
HOFFMAN.


TEAM HEALTH: Opposed Request for Attorneys' Fees
------------------------------------------------
Team Health Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is opposing
the class action plaintiffs' application for the payment of their
attorneys' fees and expenses.

On August 14, 2015, prior to the closing of the merger transaction
with IPC Healthcare, Inc., a purported shareholder of IPC filed a
complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery captioned Smukler v.
IPC Healthcare, Inc., et al. (Case No. 11392-CB), on behalf of a
purported class of  IPC shareholders. The lawsuit names as
defendants IPC, each of its directors at the time the merger with
the Company was announced (the Individual Defendants), the
Company, and Intrepid Merger Sub, Inc. (Sub).

The August 14, 2015 complaint alleged that the Individual
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things,
failing to take appropriate steps to maximize the value of IPC to
its shareholders, failing to value IPC properly, and taking steps
to avoid competitive bidding by alternate potential acquirers. The
complaint also alleged that IPC, the Company, and Sub aided and
abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the
Individual Defendants. The complaint sought, among other things,
certification of the action as a class action; injunctive relief
enjoining the merger; an accounting of all damages purportedly
suffered by the plaintiff and the class (including rescissory
damages in favor of the plaintiff and the class); and the fees and
costs associated with the litigation.

On August 18, 2015, an additional lawsuit, Crescente v. Singer, et
al. (Case No. 11405-CB), was filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery, asserting similar claims and allegations to those in the
Smukler lawsuit and seeking similar relief on behalf of the same
putative class.

Additionally, on August 19, 2015, prior to the closing of the IPC
Transaction, a lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court for the
State of California in Los Angeles County, Khemthong v. IPC
Healthcare Networks, Inc., et al. (No. BC 591953). The lawsuit
asserted similar claims and allegations to those in the Smukler
lawsuit and sought similar relief on behalf of the same putative
class.

On August 27, 2015, the plaintiff filed a request for voluntary
dismissal of the suit without prejudice, and on August 28, 2015,
the court entered an order granting that request.

Pursuant to a September 11, 2015 order from the Delaware Court of
Chancery (the Consolidation Order), the Smukler and Crescente
actions were consolidated, and all further litigation relating to
or arising out of the Company's merger with IPC were directed to
be consolidated with such actions under the caption In re IPC
Healthcare, Inc. Stockholders Litigation (Case No. 11392-CB) (the
Consolidated Action).

On September 17, 2015, an action captioned Spencer v. IPC
Healthcare, Inc. (Case. No. 11516-CB) was filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery. Under the Consolidation Order, such action is
required to be consolidated with the previously-filed actions.

On September 18, 2015, a verified consolidated class action
complaint was filed in the Consolidated Action (the Consolidated
Complaint).  The Consolidated Complaint alleges substantially the
same breaches of fiduciary duty as the August 14, 2015 complaint
in the Smukler action, and additionally alleges that the
Individual Defendants breached their duty of disclosure by failing
to disclose to IPC shareholders all material information necessary
for them to evaluate the merger. On October 2, 2015, the
defendants in the Consolidated Action moved to dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint.

On November 6, 2015, the Company and the other defendants in the
Consolidated Action entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
with the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action providing for the
settlement and the release of all claims that were or could have
been brought against the Company and the other defendants in the
Consolidated Action based upon a duty arising under Delaware law
to disclose or not omit material information in connection with
the IPC Transaction, upon entry of a final order by the Delaware
Court of Chancery approving the settlement. The Memorandum of
Understanding contemplated that, subject to completion of certain
confirmatory discovery by counsel to the plaintiffs, the parties
would enter into a stipulation of settlement.

Following a series of rulings by the Court of Chancery in other
lawsuits challenging mergers, the Company and the other defendants
in the Consolidated Action agreed with the plaintiffs that the
Memorandum of Understanding would be superseded and replaced by
the voluntary dismissal of the Consolidated Action on the basis
that it was mooted by the disclosures contained in the Current
Report on the Form 8-K that the Company filed with the SEC on
November 6, 2015.

On April 12, 2016, the Court entered an order granting plaintiffs'
request to voluntarily dismiss the Consolidated Action as moot and
setting a briefing schedule for plaintiffs to make an application
to the Court for the payment of their attorneys' fees and
expenses. Plaintiffs filed their application for an award of fees
and expenses, in the total amount of $350,000 on May 19, 2016. The
Company filed its opposition to such application on June 30, 2016
and on July 14, 2016, plaintiffs filed their reply papers.


TENNESSEE: Dismissal of "O'Neal" Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ROBERT DIONNE O'NEAL v. MARK GOINS, ET AL.,
No. M2015-01337-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App.), the Court of Appeals
of Tennessee, at Nashville affirmed the judgment of the Chancery
Court in dismissing the action and denying the application to
amend the petition.  The judgment was modified to make the
dismissal without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 29, 2016 opinion is available
at https://is.gd/ByqYMe from Leagle.com.

The appeal arose out of the efforts of Robert O'Neal, a convicted
felon, to have his voting rights restored.  O'Neal had his
citizenship rights restored in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann.
Section 40-29-101, et seq., by order of the Circuit Court of
Marshall County.  His effort to have his right to vote restored
pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. Section 40-29-201, et seq. was not
successful; as a result, he filed a petition in the Chancery Court
for Davidson County against Mark Goins, Coordinator of Elections
for the State of Tennessee, and the Tennessee State Election
Commission.  O'Neal asserted that the defendants had improperly
refused to restore his right to vote.

Elizabeth R. McClellan, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, for the
appellant, Robert Dionne O'Neal.

Herbert H. Slatery, III, Attorney General and Reporter; Joseph F.
Whalen, III, Associate Solicitor General; Janet Kleinfelter,
Deputy Attorney General, and Ryan A. Lee, Assistant Attorney
General, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Mark Goins,
individually and in his official capacity, and the Tennessee State
Election Commission.


TOTAL NEW: Accused by Najjar of Sexual and Racial Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
MERVEY NAJJAR, an individual v. TOTAL NEW IDEAS, INC., a
corporation; MARCELO TEYER, an individual and Does 1 through 100
Inclusive, Case No. BC630263 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
August 10, 2016), is brought on behalf of those similarly situated
and on behalf of the general public for alleged sexual
discrimination and harassment, and discrimination based on
national origin, race, color, ancestry and religious creed.

Total New Ideas, Inc., is a corporation with headquarters or
principal place of business located in county of Los Angeles,
California.  Marcelo Teyer is the president and owner of the
Company.  The Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian I. Vogel, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN I. VOGEL
          572 E. Green Street, Suite 305
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 796-7470
          Facsimile: (626) 796-7474
          E-mail: Vogellawfirm@yahoo.com


TROTT LAW: Court Narrows Claims in "Martin" Suit
------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BRIAN J. MARTIN and YAHMI NUNDLEY,
Plaintiffs, v. TROTT LAW, P.C., DAVID A. TROTT, JANE DOE, and JOHN
DOE, Defendants, Case No. 15-12838 (E.D. Mich.), Judge David M.
Lawson granted in part and denied, in part, the defendants'
motions to dismiss, and granted the plaintiffs motion to file a
second amended complaint.

Brian J. Martin and Yahmi Nundley filed the lawsuit, as members of
a putative class, alleging that the defendants violated the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Michigan Regulation
of Collection Practices Act (RCPA), by sending certain letters to
these consumers in an effort to foreclose their residential
mortgages.  They alleged that the letters were misleading in
several different respects and violated specific sections of the
federal and state statutes.  They have sued Trott Law, P.C.
(formerly known as Trott & Trott, P.C.) and its former principal,
David Trott, individually.

Judge Lawson found that Martin's claims under the FDCPA (counts I,
III, V) are barred by its one-year statute of limitations.  The
judge also found that although Nundley has stated a viable claim
in count I, neither party has stated a claim for which relief can
be granted in counts III or IV.  Nundley has not pleaded a claim
in count V.  The plaintiffs argued that Martin can still maintain
status as a class representative for the claims in count V.
However, Judge Lawson found that no class has been certified, and
Martin's status as a class representative, whatever that turns out
to be, cannot resurrect his own time-barred claim.

Accordingly, Judge Lawson ordered that count I of the first
amended complaint be dismissed with prejudice as to Martin only;
counts III, IV, and V be dismissed with prejudice in their
entirety; and that the motion be denied in all other respects.

The judge further ordered that the plaintiffs' motion for leave to
file a second amended complaint be granted in part, and that the
plaintiffs may file a second amended complaint, without including
the counts dismissed, on or before August 8, 2016.

A full-text copy of Judge Lawson's July 26, 2016 opinion and order
is available at https://is.gd/yDS5ZV from Leagle.com.

Brian J Martin, Yahmi Nundley, Plaintiffs, represented by Diana
Gjonaj -- dgjonaj@milberg.com -- Milberg LLP, Paul F. Novak --
pnovak@milberg.com -- Milberg LLP & Andrew J. McGuinness --
drewmcg@topclasslaw.com

Trott Law P.C., Defendant, represented by Charity A. Olson, Olson
Law Group.

David A. Trott, Defendant, represented by Bruce L. Segal --
bsegal@honigman.com -- Honigman, Miller & Joseph Aviv --
javiv@honigman.com -- Honigman, Miller.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Judge Refuses to Release Trump Video Testimony
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBS News reports that a federal judge's refusal to release video
of Donald Trump testifying in a lawsuit about the now-defunct
Trump University denies critics of the Republican presidential
nominee a chance to use potentially powerful images against him.

Transcripts of Mr. Trump's depositions have been released over the
last few months but videos remained sealed.  Attorneys suing the
business mogul have said his tone, facial expressions, gestures
and body language show "complete and utter unfamiliarity" with
Trump University's instructors and instruction and that he made
"many spontaneous and ad hominem remarks that are not reflected in
the paper transcript of his depositions."

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, a target of Mr. Trump's
repeated scorn, on Aug. 2 rejected a bid by news organizations to
release video of Mr. Trump's full day of testimony Dec. 10 at his
New York office and three hours of testimony on Jan. 21 in a Las
Vegas law office.  He also rejected a bid by Mr. Trump's attorneys
to dismiss the lawsuit.

Judge Curiel wrote that "while there is a degree of legitimate
public interest in the demeanor of the defendant in the deposition
videos," it did not outweigh the potential harm the ongoing media
scrutiny of the footage could do to the case.

Trumps attorneys had argued the video testimony would have been
used in campaign attack ads and tainted the jury pool.

Judge Curiel agreed, saying "there is every reason to believe that
release of the deposition videos would contribute to an on-going
'media frenzy' that would increase the difficulty of seating an
impartial jury."

News organizations argued that the public has a right to the
complete record, given how Trump has touted his business acumen
and questions that the lawsuits alleging fraud have raised.

Mr. Trump's attorneys argued that Judge Curiel should follow
another judge in a lawsuit involving Hillary Clinton's email
practices.  U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan in the District of
Columbia has allowed the release of deposition transcripts but no
video.  He sided with lawyers for Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, who
said "snippets or soundbites of the deposition may be publicized
in a way that exploits Ms. Mills' image and voice in an unfair and
misleading manner."

Two class-action lawsuits being overseen by Judge Curiel in San
Diego and one lawsuit in New York allege that Trump University,
which wasn't accredited as a school, gave seminars and classes
across the country that were like infomercials, constantly
pressuring students to spend up to $35,000 for mentorships and, in
the end, failing on its promise to teach success in real estate.
Judge Curiel has set Nov. 28 as the trial date for one of the
lawsuits.

In portions of Mr. Trump's testimony that have been released, he
acknowledged that he plays on people's fantasies.  Mr. Trump
couldn't recall names of his employees, undermining his
advertising pitch that he "hand-picked" them.

Mr. Trump is pressed on his blog posts in 2008 that Bill Clinton
was a great president and Hillary Clinton would make a great
president or vice president.  Of his praise for Hillary Clinton,
he said, "I didn't give it a lot of thought, because I was in
business."

Mr. Trump has called Judge Curiel "a very hostile judge" and a
"hater of Donald Trump."  He said the Indiana-born judge's Mexican
heritage and membership in a Latino lawyers association posed a
conflict with Mr. Trump's positions on illegal immigration and
promise to build a wall on the Mexican border.

Those comments drew criticism from Republican leaders, and
Mr. Trump promised in June to stop talking about the case.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Judge Allows Students' Fraud Case to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Eder, writing for The New York Times, reports that a federal
lawsuit by former Trump University students against the school's
founder, Donald J. Trump, will proceed toward trial, the judge in
the case ruled on Aug. 2.

In a written decision, Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel rejected a motion
by Mr. Trump's lawyers to dismiss the case, concluding that the
aggrieved former students had raised a genuine question about
whether Mr. Trump had "knowingly participated in a scheme to
defraud."

The case, in federal court in San Diego, has been a nagging
concern for Mr. Trump's Republican campaign for the presidency, as
he pushes back against claims made by former students that his
school cheated them out of their tuition by using high-pressure
sales tactics and deceptive claims about what they would learn.

At one point, Mr. Trump publicly denounced the rulings of Judge
Curiel, who was born in Indiana, and questioned whether he would
be biased because of his Mexican heritage.  Mr. Trump's political
opponents have repeatedly turned the case against him, including
during the recent Democratic National Convention.

News organizations have also taken an interest, seeking to have a
videotaped deposition of Mr. Trump released. Judge Curiel denied
the request on Aug. 2, finding that a transcript offers a
"substantially accurate" representation of the proceeding.
Mr. Trump's lawyers had argued that the release of the videos
could add to a "media frenzy" around the case and affect a jury.

Mr. Trump and his lawyers have long rejected the claims against
the now-closed Trump University, saying they came from only a
small group of unhappy students.  They have cited a large number
of evaluations that were filled out by students showing that they
were satisfied with what they had gotten from the program, which
charged up to $35,000 for its instruction packages.

In seeking to have the case dismissed, lawyers for Mr. Trump
argued, among other things, that the former students had not
established that Mr. Trump knowingly participated in a fraudulent
scheme.

"Although the decision merely holds that the case should proceed
to a trial, we believe the case should have been dismissed now
because it has no merit," said Daniel Petrocelli, a lawyer for Mr.
Trump.

The judge cited evidence that Mr. Trump had not handpicked the
instructors as Trump University claimed, finding that there was a
question about whether Mr. Trump's claim of "'integral
involvement" with the school was false or misleading to
prospective students.

Lawyers for the students did not return a message seeking comment
on the ruling.

In May, Judge Curiel ordered the release of previously sealed
documents, including testimony from former managers calling Trump
University a "lie" and a "scheme."

Trump University is the subject of two class-action lawsuits in
California.  A third case in New York, brought by Eric T.
Schneiderman, the state's attorney general, was also heading
toward trial after a hearing on Aug. 2.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Denies Motion Compel Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Gilbertsen, Esq. -- tgilbertsen@pierceatwood.com -- of
Pierce Atwood LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that
influential federal judge Jed Rakoff of the Southern District of
New York denied a motion to compel arbitration of an antitrust
class action complaint pending against ride-hailing pioneer Uber
Technologies.  The case, Meyer v. Kalanick and Uber Technologies,
Inc., Case No. 15 Civ. 9796 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2016),  may
represent an installment in the pendulum swing against mandatory
arbitration and class action waiver clauses in consumer contracts.

Uber's mobile app contains a hyperlink to terms and conditions
that include a mandatory arbitration clause.  But Judge Rakoff,
applying California law, ruled that consumers registering for Uber
service were not obligated to visit or click through those terms
in the app version at issue, and therefore never assented to
arbitration.  The court also found that Uber's terms of service
hyperlink was presented to Android users in "barely legible" fine
print at the bottom of the screen, and that its arbitration clause
was buried in "nine pages of highly legalistic language that no
ordinary consumer could be expected to understand."  Crediting
plaintiff's allegation that he did not notice the terms of service
while registering to use Uber, the court found there was "no
basis" for claiming that plaintiff had actual notice of the
arbitration agreement.

The decision noted a fundamental difference between so-called
"click-wrap" and "browse-wrap" theories of assent to internet
commerce terms.  Click-wrap assent arises when a user is required
to click a box to manifest consent to disclosed terms of an
internet transaction.  Uber's registration process allegedly
presented no click-box requirement.  Browse-wrap consent may arise
in the absence of a user's outward manifestation of assent, but
courts recognizing this category of online assent require the
contract terms at issue to be so conspicuously disclosed that
actual or constructive notice is indisputable.  Judge Rakoff found
that Uber's arbitration clause lacked the requisite high profile
because it was buried in multi-page terms of service that were
themselves hidden within two layers of fine-print hyperlinks.  The
court also confined browse-wrap consent to cases where businesses
and other sophisticated purchasers are involved -- not individual
consumers.  And the decision distinguishes a Massachusetts federal
case from two weeks ago that held Uber's arbitration clause was
sufficiently disclosed.  Judge Rakoff held that the terms of
service hyperlink at issue in the Uber app that Meyer saw was
"much smaller and more obscure, both in absolute terms and
relative to the 'Register' button."

The Meyer decision ultimately denied Uber's motion to compel
arbitration on the narrow ground of an inconspicuous disclosure.
But that ruling came only after the court denounced a routine loss
of "precious and fundamental rights" through arbitration
agreements that consumers "had no realistic power to negotiate or
contest and often were not even aware of." Calling these consumer
arbitration contracts "legal fictions," Judge Rakoff openly
questioned whether the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act could
"remotely contemplate" contract formation in the electronic age.

Both the sentiment and ruling of Meyer could be part of a growing
backlash against mandatory arbitration in consumer agreements.
Merchants and financial institutions adopted arbitration and class
action waiver clauses in response to the 1990's class action boom,
and initially courts were evenly split about whether these clauses
were enforceable to avoid class actions in state or federal court.
Citing the same concerns Judge Rakoff expressed at the outset in
Meyer, California's highest court set up a judicial presumption
against mandatory individual arbitration in consumer contracts.
But the Supreme Court's 2011 Concepcion decision struck down
California's judicial rule, holding that class action waivers in
arbitration clauses in consumer contracts are entitled to
enforcement under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which compels
courts to recognize these clauses absent common law grounds for
invalidating a contract.  In the five years since Concepcion,
these provisions have received nearly universal enforcement in
federal courts.  In that span, the plaintiff bar has made a couple
of runs at Concepcion in the Supreme Court, but each time the
Court has doubled down on the primacy of arbitration under the
FAA.  In CompuCredit, the Supreme Court ruled that a federal
statute creating a right to sue, and mandating related
disclosures, does not override the FAA's strong protection of
arbitration agreements.  And in Italian Colors, the court reversed
the Second Circuit and held that the FAA does not permit courts to
invalidate a contractual waiver of class arbitration just because
a plaintiff's cost of arbitrating a federal claim exceeds the
potential recovery. The late Justice Scalia authored each of these
three Supreme Court decisions invalidating judicial rules against
the enforceability of mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer
contracts.

The Meyer decision represents one of the very few decisions
refusing to enforce a mandatory arbitration clause, and its
skepticism of Concepcion's reasoning is plainly evident.
Interestingly, the decision comes weeks before the August 22
deadline for public comment on the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau's (CFPB) proposed rule prohibiting financial product and
service providers from relying on pre-dispute arbitration
agreements to avoid class action suits.  There is something to
learn from Meyer (make those terms of service and arbitration
clauses conspicuous!), but the CFPB's new rule simply reopens the
financial sector to class action attack.  If that rule becomes
law, the financial sector may become a vector for class action
proxy litigation as plaintiff lawyers try to portray consumer
claims as disputes about financial products and services.  The
good news is that as one pendulum swings away from Concepcion's
blanket enforcement of consumer arbitration clauses, momentum
remains with rigorous standing requirements under Spokeo, and
meaningful application of class certification requirements under
Dukes.


UNITED AIRLINES: Ninth Circuit Review Sought in "Ward" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles E. Ward, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Charles Ward v. United Airlines, Inc., Case No.
3:15-cv-02309-WHA, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco.

The appellate case is captioned as Charles Ward v. United
Airlines, Inc., Case No. 16-16415, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 12,
2016, District Judge William Alsup granted the Defendant's motion
for summary judgment.

Mr. Ward worked as a pilot for United Airlines.  He commenced the
Action in state court in San Francisco in April 2015.  He claims
that United Airlines 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.  He
also asserts claims under the Private Attorneys General Act.

The Appellate Court set this schedule:

   * Mediation Questionnaire was due on August 18, 2016;

   * Transcript must be ordered by September 12, 2016;

   * Transcript is due on October 11, 2016;

   * Appellant Charles E. Ward's opening brief is due
     November 21, 2016

   * Appellee United Airlines, Inc.'s answering brief is due on
     December 19, 2016; and

   * Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
     service of the answering brief.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Kirk D. Hanson, Esq.
          JACKSON HANSON, LLP
          2790 Truxtun Road, Suite 140
          San Diego, CA 92106
          Telephone: (619) 523-9001
          Facsimile: (619) 523-9002
          E-mail: hansonlaw@cox.net

The Defendant-Appellee is represented by:

          Adam P. KohSweeney, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          Two Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 984-8700
          Facsimile: (415) 984-8701
          E-mail: akohsweeney@omm.com

               - and -

          Robert Alan Siegel, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          400 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-6005
          E-mail: rsiegel@omm.com


UNITED SERVICES: Judge Reprimands Five Attorneys in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Friedman, writing for Arkansas Business, reports that Chief
U.S. District Court Judge P.K. Holmes III on Aug. 3 reprimanded
five attorneys, including the husband of a state Supreme Court
justice, after finding bad faith and abuse of the court system in
their manipulation of a controversial class-action case.

Ten other attorneys were found to have abused the judicial
process, but their misconduct didn't rise to the level of bad
faith, the chief judge for the Western District of Arkansas said.
They were not sanctioned.

Judge Holmes also reversed his earlier finding of misconduct by
Little Rock attorney Stephen C. Engstrom.

In the 15-page order filed on Aug. 3, Judge Holmes reprimanded
plaintiffs' attorney John Goodson of Texarkana, who is married to
Arkansas State Supreme Court Justice Courtney Goodson; his law
partner, Matt Keil; Jason Earnest Roselius, a partner of Mattingly
& Roselius of Oklahoma City; R. Martin "Marty" Weber Jr., of
counsel of Crowley Norman LLP of Houston; and Richard E. Norman, a
partner of Crowley Norman LLP of Houston.

The case at the center of the matter was Mark and Katherine Adams
v. United Services Automobile Association.  The Adams case, which
concerned the method used to calculate homeowners' insurance
claims, was pending in Judge Holmes' court for 17 months until
both sides jointly agreed to dismiss it in June 2015. (Under court
rules, the judge did not have to approve the agreed dismissal.)

The case was refiled the next day, with a settlement agreement
attached, in Polk County Circuit Court, where the settlement was
approved without any questions by Circuit Judge Jerry Ryan.

Judge Holmes, who learned that the case was moved to Judge Ryan's
court for settlement from an article in Arkansas Business in
December, said the settlement that was negotiated "benefited
everyone but the class members" and indicated that he would not
have approved it had the case still been in his court.

Moving a federal case from one jurisdiction to another just to get
a more favorable ruling has repeatedly been forbidden by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which includes Arkansas,
and Judge Holmes found that most of the attorneys were aware of
that prohibition.

The attorneys had argued that a court rule allowed such cases to
be dismissed before the class was certified, as in the Adams case,
but Judge Holmes shot down their interpretation of the rule as
"unreasonable."  And without that argument, he said, "Respondents
are left to contend with the unequivocal statement of law in the
Eighth Circuit that 'a party is not permitted to dismiss merely to
escape an adverse decision nor to seek a more favorable forum.'"

Attorneys who were found to have abused the system but without bad
faith were: defense attorneys Wystan Ackerman, a partner at
Robinson & Cole LLP of Hartford, Connecticut; Stephen Edward
Goldman, a managing partner at Robinson Cole; Lyn P. Pruitt, a
member at Mitchell Williams Selig Gates & Woodyard of Little Rock;
and plaintiffs' attorneys Stevan Earl Vowell, William B. Putman,
W.H. Taylor and Timothy J. Myers, partners at Taylor Law Partners
of Fayetteville; A.F. "Tom" Thompson III and Kenneth "Casey"
Castleberry, partners at Murphy Thompson Arnold Skinner &
Castleberry of Batesville; and Matthew L. Mustokoff, a partner at
Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP of Radnor, Pennsylvania.

Judge Holmes expressed some sympathy for the defense attorneys
representing USAA, which had instructed them to settle the case,
which the plaintiffs were only willing to do in a more lenient
state court.

"This directive put Defense counsel between the proverbial rock of
asking the Court to do something they knew it could not do --
grant a motion to dismiss so they could purse this action in a
more favorable forum and avoid an adverse decision -- and the hard
place of violating their ethical duty to settle as directed by
their client," Judge Holmes wrote.  "This is not to say that
Defense counsel's failure of candor to the Court is excusable, and
had this been the first instance that litigants used a state court
action to certify and settle a federal putative class action, this
might not be enough to protect Defense counsel from a finding of
bad faith."

Attorneys Keil, Goodson, Roselius, Weber and Norman, however,
didn't have the same mitigating factors, Judge Holmes said.

"The Court sees no reason to depart from its finding that their
misconduct in this case was characterized by bad faith," he wrote.

He did, however, step back from some harsher penalties that he
said he had been considering, including requiring them to give
notice of the sanctions in all future cases.

In the order issued Aug. 3, Judge Holmes said that he finding that
the attorneys abused the judicial process "will be sufficient
deterrent to their own future misconduct, and the publicity this
case has received and change the Court is instituting to it
management of putative class actions will deter other attorneys
from misconduct."

He said that any sanctions on the attorneys' records will raise
questions by other judges as to what led to the punishment.  "As
this was the intended effect of the notices proposed as injunctive
sanctions by this Court, those notices will not be necessary," he
wrote.


UNITED STATES: PTSD Disability Plaintiffs Win $3MM in Atty. Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MICHAEL SABO, NICHOLAS WELLS, JUAN PEREZ,
ALAN PITTS, BILLY J. TALLEY, AIMEE SHERROD, and TYLER EINARSON on
behalf of themselves and all other individuals similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, No. 08-899C (Fed.
Cl.), Judge Margaret M. Sweeney granted the plaintiffs'
applications for attorneys' fees and expenses in their entirety
and awarded the plaintiffs attorneys' fees and expenses in the
amount of $3,862,924.53.

The plaintiffs, and the members of the class they represent, were
medically separated from the United States military due to
posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) resulting from their service
in Iraq and Afghanistan during Operation Iraqi Freedom and
Operation Enduring Freedom.  In conjunction with their
separations, the military assigned them disability ratings for
their PTSD of less than 50%.  Contending that they were entitled
to disability ratings of 50% for their PTSD under federal law, the
plaintiffs filed suit to obtain the higher disability rating and
the benefits that would flow from that higher rating.  The parties
ultimately reached a settlement.  The plaintiffs then applied for
attorneys' fees and expenses.

Judge Sweeney found that the plaintiffs have satisfied the
requirements of the Equal Access to Justice Act, in that they are
eligible to receive an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, they
are prevailing parties, the defendant's position was not
substantially justified, and there are no special circumstances
precluding an award.  In addition, the judge also found that the
attorneys' fees and expenses requested by the plaintiffs were
incurred for work that was reasonable and necessary for them to
obtain relief.  Accordingly, Judge Sweeney awarded the plaintiffs
$3,862,924.53 for attorneys' fees and expenses incurred for the
work performed by attorneys from Morgan Lewis and the National
Veterans Legal Services Program.

A full-text copy of Judge Sweeney's July 26, 2016 opinion and
order is available at https://is.gd/7oUm0k from Leagle.com.

MICHAEL SABO, NICHOLAS WELLS, JUAN PEREZ, ALAN PITTS, BILLY J.
TALLEY, Plaintiffs, represented by Arnold Bradley Fagg --
brad.fagg@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

USA, Defendant, represented by Douglas K. Mickle, U. S. Department
of Justice - Civil Division.


UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE: Hill Seeks Certification of Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned JENEE HILL, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. UNITEDHEALTHCARE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 8:15-cv-00526-DOC-RNB (C.D. Cal.),
asks the Court for an order certifying this class:

     All persons covered under UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company
     health insurance policies issued to private employers or
     self-funded plans administered by UnitedHealthcare Insurance
     Company whose requests for lumbar artificial disc
     replacement surgery were denied at any time within the
     applicable statute of limitations, or whose requests for
     that surgery will be denied in the future, on the ground
     that lumbar artificial disc replacement is unproven.

Ms. Hill also asks that the Court appoint her as class
representative and appoint her counsel as Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on October 7, 2016, at 8:30
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=f9nWGTsT

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Gianelli, Esq.
          Joshua S. Davis, Esq.
          Adrian J. Barrio, Esq.
          GIANELLI & MORRIS, A Law Corporation
          550 South Hope Street, Suite 1645
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 489-1600
          Facsimile: (213) 489-1611
          E-mail: rob.gianelli@gmlawyers.com
                  joshua.davis@gmlawyers.com
                  adrian.barrio@gmlawyers.com

               - and -

          Glenn R. Kantor, Esq.
          Timothy J. Rozelle, Esq.
          KANTOR & KANTOR LLP
          19839 Nordhoff Street
          Northridge, California 91324
          Telephone: (818) 886-2525
          Facsimile: (818) 350-6272
          E-mail: gkantor@kantorlaw.net
                  trozelle@kantorlaw.net


VCA ANTECH: Graham's Bid to Certify Class Taken Under Submission
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California entered a civil minutes for these motions presented
before the Hon. Christina A. Snyder in the lawsuit titled TONY M.
GRAHAM v. VCA ANTECH, INC.; ET AL., Case No. 2:14-cv-08614-CAS-JC
(C.D. Cal.):

   * Plaintiff's motion for class certification;
   * Defendants' motion for summary judgment; and
   * scheduling conference.

According to the Civil Minutes, hearing was held and counsel for
both parties are present.  A tentative order was provided.  The
Court confers with counsel and counsel argue.

The Court takes the Motions under submission.  The Court also
vacates the Further Scheduling Conference, subject to being reset
after the Court rules on the Motions.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=03z5H8R3

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James Terrell, Esq.
          Robert Methvin, Jr., Esq.
          McCALLUM, METHVIN & TERRELL, P.C.
          2201 Arlington Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35305
          Telephone: (205) 939-0199
          Facsimile: (205) 939-0399
          E-mail: Rgm@mmlaw.net
                  Jterrell@mmlaw.net

               - and -

          Rodney Miller, Esq.
          MCCALLUM, METHVIN & TERRELL, P.C.
          2201 Arlington Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 939-0199
          Facsimile: (205) 939-0399
          E-mail: rem@mmlaw.net

               - and -

          Kenneth Wagner, Esq.
          LATHAM WAGNER STEELE AND LEHMAN LLC
          10441 South Regal Boulevard Suite 200
          Tulsa, OK 74133
          Telephone: (918) 970-2000
          Facsimile: (918) 970-2002
          E-mail: kwagner@lwsl-law.com

               - and -

          Gary Waldron, Esq.
          WEINTRAUB TOBIN
          23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 200
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 760-0204
          Facsimile: (949) 760-2507
          E-mail: gwaldron@weintraub.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Hyongsoon Kim, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          4 Park Plaza, Suite 1900
          Irvine, CA 92614-2585
          Telephone: (949) 885-4218
          Facsimile: (310) 229-1001
          E-mail: kimh@akingump.com

               - and -

          Garrett Llewellyn, Esq.
          John Karaczynski, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3010
          Telephone: (310) 552-6615
          E-mail: gllewellyn@akingump.com
                  jkaraczynski@akingump.com


VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Removed as Defendant in Amended Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended July 2, 2016, that in May 2016, the
plaintiffs in purported class action complaints in the United
States alleging restraints of trade in resistors filed amended
complaints that did not name Vishay or any of its subsidiaries as
a defendant.  Vishay remains a defendant in similar matters filed
in Canada and intends to defend vigorously against the Canadian
complaints.


VITAL THERAPIES: Sept. 1 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Vital Therapies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a hearing on the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss a securities class action is
scheduled for September 1, 2016.

On December 2, 2015, a putative securities class action complaint
was filed against Vital Therapies, Inc., Terry Winters, and
Michael V. Swanson in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, captioned Patrick A. Griggs v. Vital
Therapies, Inc., et al., No. 3:15-cv-02700-JLS-NLS.

On December 30, 2015, a substantively similar complaint was filed
in the same court, captioned Alicia Beach Halverstadt v. Vital
Therapies, Inc., et al., No. 3:15-cv-02951-JLS-NLS.

On February 1, 2016, putative shareholders and class members
Kaktrale Austin, Sumesh Kumar, and Nelson Than moved for
appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of choice of counsel.
Kaktrale Austin and Sumesh Kumar also moved to consolidate the
complaints into a single action. Sumesh Kumar and Nelson Than
withdrew their motions for appointment as lead plaintiff on
February 23, 2016, and March 3, 2016, respectively.

On May 2, 2016, the court entered an order granting plaintiff
Kaktrale Austin's motion  for consolidation and appointing
plaintiff Kaktrale Austin as lead plaintiff and his counsel as
lead counsel. The consolidated action is captioned In re Vital
Therapies, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 15-CV-2700 JLS (NLS).

The court also set a deadline of June 1, 2016 for the lead
plaintiff to file an amended complaint and ordered Vital
Therapies, Inc. and Messrs. Winters and Swanson to respond to the
amended complaint within thirty days of its filing.

On June 1, 2016, plaintiff Kaktrale Austin filed the amended
complaint. The amended complaint, like the earlier complaints, is
purportedly filed on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired Vital Therapies, Inc. stock between April 17,
2014 through August 21, 2015, inclusive, and names as defendants
Vital Therapies, Inc. and Messrs. Winters and Swanson.

Also like the earlier complaints, the amended complaint alleges
that Vital Therapies, Inc. and Messrs. Winters and Swanson
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by misrepresenting material facts and/or misleading
investors about the interconnection between the Vital Therapies
Inc. clinical trials, the independent significance of each
clinical trial, and the potential effects of the failure of one
clinical trial on the other. The amended complaint seeks
certification as a class action, unspecified damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 1, 2016, the Vital Therapies Inc. and Messrs. Winters and
Swanson filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, or the
Motion to Dismiss. On July 6, 2016, the court entered an order
directing plaintiff Kaktrale Austin to file an opposition to the
Motion to Dismiss by August 4, 2016, and Vital Therapies, Inc. and
Messrs. Winters and Swanson to file their reply in support of the
Motion to Dismiss by August 18, 2016. A hearing on the Motion to
Dismiss is scheduled for September 1, 2016.

"We intend to defend this securities lawsuit vigorously. Based on
information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably
estimate a range of loss for this action. Accordingly, we have not
accrued any liability associated with this action. We are
expensing legal costs associated with defending this litigation as
the costs are incurred," the Company said.


WARREN RESOURCES: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Gardy & Notis, LLP filed a class action lawsuit on
Aug. 11 in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, Case No. 1:16-cv-2037, on behalf of stockholders who
purchased common stock of Warren Resources, Inc. between a
November 4, 2014 to June 2, 2016 class period.

The lawsuit alleges that certain of Warren's executive officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
by making materially misleading misrepresentations and omissions
that Warren was "well positioned" to "ride out" and "successfully
navigate" the "market fluctuations," when, in fact, Warren was
becoming increasingly insolvent.  Warren filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy on June 2, 2016.

Plaintiff seeks to recover money damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Warren common stock during the November 4, 2014 to
June 2, 2016 class period.  The plaintiff is represented by Gardy
& Notis, LLP, which has extensive experience in successfully
prosecuting investor class actions.

If you purchased Warren common stock between November 4, 2014 and
June 2, 2016, and you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you may
move the Court no later than 60 days from August 11, 2016 (no
later than October 10, 2016).  Any member of the proposed class
may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of
their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of
the proposed class.

To learn more about the lawsuit or to obtain a copy of the
complaint, please contact plaintiff's counsel, James S. Notis or
Jennifer Sarnelli at Gardy & Notis, LLP, 126 East 56th Street,
New York, NY 10022, Telephone: 212-905-0509, Fax: 212-905-0508,
email: jnotis@gardylaw.com or jsarnelli@gardylaw.com.


WERNER ENTERPRISES: Defending Drivers' Class Suit in Nevada
-----------------------------------------------------------
Werner Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend class action by drivers.

The Company said, "We are involved in class action litigation in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, in which the
plaintiffs allege that we owe drivers for unpaid wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Nebraska Wage Payment and
Collection Act and that we failed to pay minimum wage per hour for
drivers in our student driver training program, related to short
break time and sleeper berth time. The period covered by this
class action suit dates back to 2008 through March 2014. In August
2015, the court denied our motion for summary judgment and granted
the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ruling in plaintiff's
favor on both theories of liability (short breaks and sleeper
berth time)."

"During second quarter 2016, the court issued two rulings, the
first of which dismissed the plaintiff's claims under the Nebraska
Wage Payment and Collection Act (but not the FLSA) and the second
of which granted our motion to strike plaintiff's untimely damages
calculations.

"As a result, we reduced our accrual from $2.0 million at March
31, 2016 to $1.2 million as of June 30, 2016 for the short break
matter. Based on the knowledge of the facts related to the sleeper
berth matter, management does not currently believe a loss is
probable, thus we have not accrued for the sleeper berth matter.
We are currently unable to determine the possible loss or range of
loss. We intend to vigorously defend the merits of these claims
and to appeal any adverse verdict in this case."


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Trial in Injury Case Postponed to Sept. 6
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the trial for
certain plaintiffs claiming personal injury related to the Geismar
incident has been postponed to September 6, 2016.

The Company said, "On June 13, 2013, an explosion and fire
occurred at our Geismar olefins plant and rendered the facility
temporarily inoperable. We are addressing the following matters in
connection with the Geismar Incident."

"On October 21, 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) issued an Inspection Report pursuant to the Clean Air Act's
Risk Management Program following its inspection of the facility
on June 24 through June 28, 2013. The report notes the EPA's
preliminary determinations about the facility's documentation
regarding process safety, process hazard analysis, as well as
operating procedures, employee training, and other matters. On
June 16, 2014, we received a request for information related to
the Geismar Incident from the EPA under Section 114 of the Clean
Air Act to which we responded on August 13, 2014. The EPA could
issue penalties pertaining to final determinations.

"Multiple lawsuits, including class actions for alleged offsite
impacts, property damage, customer claims, and personal injury,
have been filed against us. To date, we have settled certain of
the personal injury claims for an aggregate immaterial amount that
we have recovered from our insurers. The trial for certain
plaintiffs claiming personal injury, that was set to begin on June
15, 2015, in Iberville Parish, Louisiana, has been postponed to
September 6, 2016. The court also set trial dates for additional
plaintiffs in November 2016 and January and April 2017.

"We believe it is probable that additional losses will be incurred
on some lawsuits, while for others we believe it is only
reasonably possible that losses will be incurred. However, due to
ongoing litigation involving defenses to liability, the number of
individual plaintiffs, limited information as to the nature and
extent of all plaintiffs' damages, and the ultimate outcome of all
appeals, we are unable to reliably estimate any such losses at
this time. We believe that it is probable that any ultimate losses
incurred will be covered by our general liability insurance
policy, which has an aggregate limit of $610 million applicable to
this event and retention (deductible) of $2 million per
occurrence."


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Bid to Dismiss Delaware Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company's
motion to dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit in the
Delaware Court of Chancery remains pending.

The Company said, "Between October 2015 and December 2015,
purported shareholders of us filed six putative class action
lawsuits in the Delaware Court of Chancery that were consolidated
into a single suit on January 13, 2016. This consolidated putative
class action lawsuit relates to our proposed merger with Energy
Transfer. The complaint asserts various claims against the
individual members of our Board of Directors, including that they
breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell us through an
allegedly unfair process and for an allegedly unfair price and by
allegedly failing to disclose allegedly material information about
the merger. The complaint seeks, among other things, an injunction
against the merger and an award of costs and attorneys' fees."

"On March 22, 2016, the court granted the parties' proposed order
in the consolidated action to stay the proceedings pending the
close of the transaction with Energy Transfer. A purported
shareholder filed a separate class action lawsuit in the Delaware
Court of Chancery on January 15, 2016.

"The putative class action complaint alleges that the individual
members of our Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties
by, among other things, agreeing to the WPZ Merger Agreement,
which purportedly reduced the merger consideration to be received
in the subsequent proposed merger with Energy Transfer. The
complaint seeks damages and an award of costs and attorneys' fees.

"On April 22, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
pleading substantially the same claims for the same basic relief.
On May 6, 2016, we requested the court dismiss the lawsuit."

No further updates were provided in the Company's report.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Agrees to Pay Plaintiff's Fees & Expenses
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company has
agreed to pay the plaintiff's fees and expenses capped at
$170,000.

A putative class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in
Oklahoma, filed January 14, 2016, that claimed that certain
disclosures about the merger violate certain federal securities
laws and that the defendants are liable for such violations, was
dismissed on April 28, 2016, for failure to state a claim. The
plaintiff, who was seeking injunctive relief, subsequently amended
his complaint.

The Company said, "On June 16, 2016, the parties entered into a
settlement agreement resolving all claims in exchange for certain
supplemental disclosures, and pursuant to which we agreed to pay
the plaintiff's fees and expenses capped at $170,000."


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Amended Complaint Due Aug. 31 in Okla. Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the plaintiff in a
class action lawsuit in Oklahoma must file an amended complaint by
August 31, 2016.

The Company said, "On March 7, 2016, a purported unitholder of WPZ
filed a putative class action on behalf of certain purchasers of
WPZ units in U.S. District Court in Oklahoma. The action names as
defendants us, WPZ, Williams Partners GP LLC, Alan S. Armstrong,
and Donald R. Chappel and alleges violations of certain federal
securities laws for failure to disclose Energy Transfer's
intention to pursue a purchase of us conditioned on us not closing
the WPZ Merger Agreement when announcing the WPZ Merger Agreement.
The complaint seeks, among other things, damages and an award of
costs and attorneys' fees. The plaintiff must file an amended
complaint by August 31, 2016. We cannot reasonably estimate a
range of potential loss at this time."


WOODFOREST NATIONAL: Faces "Fitzhenry" Suit in South Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Woodforest National Bank NA. The
case is captioned Mark Fitzhenry, individually and on behalf of a
class of all persons and entities similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Woodforest National Bank NA, the Defendant, Case No.
3:16-cv-02809-JFA (D.S.C., Aug. 11, 2016). The assigned Judge is
Hon. Joseph F Anderson, Jr.

Woodforest National Bank is a privately held bank headquartered in
The Woodlands, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lance Shealy Boozer, Esq.
          BOOZER LAW FIRM
          807 Gervais Street, Suite 203
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 608 5543
          Facsimile: (803) 926 3463
          E-mail: lsb@boozerlawfirm.com


XPO LAST MILE: Court Reduces Class Members in "Reyes" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned VICTOR REYES, v. XPO LAST MILE, INC., Civil
Action No. 15-2972 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl treated
the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings as a motion
for partial summary judgment, and granted the motion.

A full-text copy of Judge Schmehl's July 28, 2016 memorandum
opinion is available at https://is.gd/jHb4hc from Leagle.com.

The proposed class action was originally filed by Victor Reyes in
the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, then removed by
XPO Last Mile, Inc. to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on the basis of diversity of
citizenship and on the basis that it meets certain requirements
for a federal class action under 28 U.S.C. section 1332(d).  Reyes
claimed that XPO violated the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and
Collection Law by making unauthorized deductions from the pay of
Reyes and other putative class members.

In its motion, XPO sought to exclude from the putative class all
business corporations, limited liability companies and
partnerships which contracted with XPO, and all individuals who
were paid through those corporate entities.  This amounts to
excluding the claims of 105 of the 117 putative class members.

XPO argued that individuals who were paid through corporate
entities must be excluded because they were not parties to any
employment contract with XPO to which WPCL-protected wages are
due.

Judge Schmehl found that there is no contractual obligation either
written or oral for wages between the individual plaintiffs and
XPO.  The judge instead found that any contractual obligation for
wages is between the individual plaintiffs and numerous corporate
entities.  Judge Schmehl, therefore, concluded that the individual
plaintiffs lack standing to bring a claim against XPO under the
WPCL.

Judge Schmehl also held that the plaintiffs that formed
corporations, limited liability companies and partnerships which
contracted with XPO and paid the individuals through the corporate
entity cannot ignore that corporate entity's existence and assert
a claim directly against XPO.

VICTOR REYES, Plaintiff, represented by PETER D. WINEBRAKE,
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC & R. ANDREW SANTILLO, WINEBRAKE &
SANTILLO, LLC.

XPO LAST MILE, INC., Defendant, represented by RAYMOND A. KRESGE
-- rkresge@cozen.com -- COZEN O'CONNOR, GEORGE A. VOEGELE, JR. --
gvoegele@cozen.com -- COZEN O'CONNOR, JEFFREY I. KOHN --
jkohn@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP, pro hac vice & LYNSEY
RAMOS -- lramos@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP, pro hac vice.


* Democrats Call on CFPB to Finalize Consumer Arbitration Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lydia Wheeler, writing for The Hill, reports that Democrats are
calling on financial regulators to finalize a rule to protect
consumers' ability to settle disputes with financial institutions
in court instead of via arbitration.

In separate letters, 38 senators and 65 House members urged the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to move forward with a
measure to limit what they called the "rip-off" clause that's
buried in the fine print of contracts.

"These clauses require a consumer to submit any claim that may
arise against a company to binding arbitration -- a privatized
justice system that studies show consistently produces results
that favor large corporations and offers no meaningful appeals
process," the senators said in their letter.

"These contract provisions also frequently include a class action
waiver, meaning that consumers are unable to band together through
collective action to address widespread wrongdoings by powerful
corporations."

Under the rule CFPB proposed in May, companies would be prohibited
from including mandatory arbitration clauses in financial contacts
that deny consumers the right to join class action lawsuits.

House Democrats in their letter called the rule an important step
in protecting consumers.

"As the bureau's research has shown, consumers rarely use
arbitration to recover small claims, such as those associated with
overdraft fees, because these cases are either too costly for
consumers to pursue on an individual basis or the individual
consumer is unaware of a corporation's misconduct," they said.

The public has until Aug. 22 to comment on the proposed rule.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ga. High Court Flips $4M Judgment in "Knight"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc., is a textile manufacturer, and in the
late 1960s and early 1970s, it produced dryer felts at a
manufacturing facility in Waycross. Some of the pipes and boilers
in that facility were insulated with material containing asbestos,
and Scapa used yarn containing asbestos in some of its
manufacturing processes. Between 1967 and 1973, Roy Knight worked
on multiple occasions at the Waycross facility as an independent
contractor. Almost forty years later, Knight was diagnosed with
mesothelioma, a cancer most commonly associated with the
inhalation or ingestion of asbestos fibers. After his mesothelioma
was diagnosed, Knight and his wife sued Scapa, claiming that Scapa
negligently exposed him to asbestos at the Waycross facility and
caused his mesothelioma. The case was tried by a Ware County jury,
which returned a verdict against Scapa and awarded more than $4
million in damages to the Knights. The trial court entered a
judgment upon that verdict, and Scapa appealed.

Scapa argued at trial and on appeal that his theory of cumulative
exposure is not reliable in a scientific sense, the theory does
not comport in any event with the legal requirements for causation
in Georgia, and an expert opinion about causation that is derived
from that theory is inadmissible. The trial court rejected these
arguments, and in Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. v. Knight, 332 Ga.App.
82, 85-89 (2) (770 S.E.2d 334) (2015), a divided seven-judge panel
of the Court of Appeals rejected them and affirmed the judgment of
the trial court.

The Supreme Court of Georgia issued a writ of certiorari to review
the decision of the Court of Appeals only with respect to the
admission of the testimony of Dr. Abraham.  The Supreme Court of
Georgia reversed the judgment of the trial court,
The Supreme Court of Georgia held, "In the trial court, the
Knights bore the burden to establish not only that Dr. Abraham was
qualified and that his testimony was reliable, but also that his
testimony would be helpful to the jury. See United States v.
Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244, 1260 (III) (A) (11th Cir. 2004) (burden is
on the party seeking to introduce expert testimony to "establish[]
qualification, reliability, and helpfulness"). His ultimate
opinion as to causation, however, was not limited to any
meaningful estimate of exposure to asbestos at the Waycross
facility (whether qualitative or quantitative), and it instead
invited the jury to find that causation was established by any
exposure at all. In that respect, the testimony did not "fit" the
pertinent causation inquiry under Georgia law, and it should have
been excluded by the trial court, acting as gatekeeper, because it
could only serve to confuse the jury on the issue of causation.
And given that Dr. Abraham's opinion "went to the heart" of the
dispute about the extent of exposure and causation, "the erroneous
admission of the opinion requires that we reverse the Court of
Appeals' affirmance of the trial court's judgment." Johnson v.
Knebel, 267 Ga. 853, 859 (4) (485 S.E.2d 451) (1997)."

The case is captioned SCAPA DRYER FABRICS, INC. v. KNIGHT et al.,
No. S15G1278 (Ga.).

A full-text copy of the Decision dated July 5, 2016 is available
at https://is.gd/SwjK94 from Leagle.com.

William D. Barwick, Esq. -- wdbarwick@duanemorris.com -- DUANE
MORRIS LLC, for Appellant.

M. Elizabeth O'Neill, Esq. -- eoneill@hptylaw.com -- HAWKINS
PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG, LLP, for Appellant.
J. D. Smith, for Appellant.

H. Lane Young II, Esq. -- lyoung@hptylaw.com -- HAWKINS PARNELL
THACKSTON & YOUNG, LLP, for Appellant.

Robert Cape Buck, Esq. -- BUCK LAW FIRM, for Appellee.
Mark W. Wortham, Esq. -- mwortham@hallboothsmith.com -- HALL BOOTH
SMITH, P.C., for Amicus Appellant.

William V. Custer IV, BYRAN CAVE LLP, Esq. --
bill.custer@bryancave.com -- for Amicus Appellant.

J. Phillip Boston, Esq. -- jpbatty@bellsouth.net -- for Amicus
Appellee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Md. App. Junks Appeal in Lung Cancer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Maryland, in the case captioned R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al. v. Douglas A. Stidham, etc., et al.,
No. 77, September Term, 2015 (Md. App.), concluded that there is a
final judgment in the case; that the appeal, however, is moot and
should be dismissed on that ground; and the Court of Special
Appeals did not err in expressing its views on the joinder issue
for the guidance of the lower court in other cases.

The Court of Appeals held that it is not the case against those
defendants that is moot, but rather the rationale for dismissing
them from this action that is moot.  The case is remanded to the
Circuit Court to determine, in light of the considerations set
forth in the Majority opinion and the opinion of the Court of
Special Appeals, whether to retain this action on the asbestos
docket, transfer it to the regular civil docket, or dismiss it for
some other reason.

This case is another attempt by plaintiffs with lung cancer to
join in one action claims against both asbestos and tobacco
defendants on the premise that their cancers arose from exposure
to the products of both sets of defendants -- that the cancers
were caused by both smoking cigarettes and exposure to asbestos.
As it had done before in other cases, the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City refused to permit the joinder of the two sets of
defendants on the special asbestos docket maintained by the court.
The issues in this appeal are largely procedural ones: whether
there is a final judgment in the case; whether the plaintiff's
appeal, in any event, is moot and should be dismissed on that
ground; if the appeal is not moot, whether the Circuit Court erred
or abused its discretion under Md. Rule 2-212 in denying joinder
of the two sets of defendants; and, even if the appeal is moot,
whether the Court of Special Appeals erred in addressing the
joinder argument made by the plaintiff for guidance of the Circuit
Court in other pending cases where joinder may be sought.

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated July 5, 2016 is available at
https://is.gd/6R1Cph from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Indiana Inmate Loses Summary Judgment Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Philip P. Simon of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, granted the
motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Edward Bruemmer,
Michael Scott, Mark Levenhagen and Mr. Horne; denied plaintiff
Michael Maxie's motion for summary judgment and plaintiff's motion
for ruling and, directed the clerk to enter judgment in favor of
the defendants.

Michael Maxie, a pro se plaintiff, claims that he was subjected to
inadequate conditions of confinement while incarcerated at the
Westville Correctional Facility. Maxie was incarcerated when he
filed this action, but has since been released from custody.
Specifically, he claims that he was subjected to excessively cold
temperatures in his cell for six days in October 2012, and that
between February 2012 and October 2012, he was exposed to mold,
mildew and asbestos in the shower area.  The four remaining
defendants -- Edward Bruemmer, Michael Scott, Mark Levenhagen and
Mr. Horne seek summary judgment, and Maxie does as well.

A full-text copy of the Opinion and Order dated July 5, 2016 is
available at https://is.gd/FOebpF from Leagle.com.

The case is captioned MICHAEL MAXIE, Plaintiff, v. EDWARD
BRUEMMER, et al., Defendants, Cause No. 3:13CV1280-PPS (N.D.
Ind.).

Michael A. Maxie, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Edward Bruemmer, Defendant, is represented by Daniel Gore, Indiana
Attorney General's Office & David A. Arthur, Indiana Attorney
General's Office.

Michael Scott, Defendant, is represented by Daniel Gore, Indiana
Attorney General's Office & David A. Arthur, Indiana Attorney
General's Office.

Mark E Levenhagen, Defendant, is represented by Daniel Gore,
Indiana Attorney General's Office & David A. Arthur, Indiana
Attorney General's Office.

Mr Horne, Defendant, is represented by Daniel Gore, Indiana
Attorney General's Office.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ky. Court Affirms Summary Judgment in "Mannahan"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hershel Mannahan, after having been exposed to asbestos in the
workplace, contracted malignant mesothelioma, a rare form of lung
cancer.  Hershel and his wife, Linda Mannahan, filed suit in
Jefferson Circuit Court against appellees Palmer Products
Corporation, Eaton Corporation, Arvin-Meritor, Inc., and eleven
other corporate defendants.  The complaint alleged the defendants
manufactured and/or sold asbestos-containing brake products, and
that Herschel was exposed to those products over a period of years
while working for Peabody Coal Company.  The Jefferson Circuit
Court court entered summary judgment in favor of the appellees,
finding the evidence failed to establish a probable causal link
between Hershel's exposure and the particular products supplied by
the appellees.

The Court of Appeals of Kentucky agrees with the circuit court
that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact regarding
causation and that the appellees were entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court's
October 24, 2013, Order granting summary judgment in favor of
Palmer, Eaton, and Rockwell in the case captioned LINDA MANNAHAN,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF HERSHEL W.
MANNAHAN, Appellant, v. EATON CORPORATION; PALMER PRODUCTS
CORPORATION; AND ARVIN-MERITOR, INC, Appellee, No. 2013-CA-002005-
MR (Ky. App.).

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated July 15, 2016 is available
at https://is.gd/bsKaR6 from Leagle.com.

Joseph D. Satterley, Paul J. Kelley, Paul J. Ivie, Louisville,
Kentucky, Hans Poppe, Esq. -- hans@poppelawfirm.com,  Kirk A.
Laughlin, Esq. -- kirk@poppelawfirm.com,  Louisville, Kentucky,
Brief for Appellant.

Ridley M. Sandidge, Jr., Esq. -- rsandidge@rwsvlaw.com --
Louisville, Kentucky, Joseph P. Hummel, Esq. --
jhummel@lynchcox.com,  Berlin Tsai, Esq. -- btsai@lynchcox.com, W.
Thomas Rump, IV, Esq. -- trump@lynchcox.com -- Louisville,
Kentucky, Rebecca F. Schupbach, Esq., Louisville, Kentucky, Briefs
for Appellees.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Denies Bid to Remand "Lindsay"
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled EARL T. LINDSAY, JR. AND JOCELYN BUTLER,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE DECEDENT, EARL T. LINDSAY, v.
PORTS AMERICA GULFPORT, INC., ET AL., SECTION: R., Civil Action
No. 16-3054 (E.D. La.), Judge Sarah S. Vance of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied the
plaintiffs' motion to remand and ordered Third-party defendant
Industrial Developmental Corporation of South Africa, Ltd., to
file its motion to dismiss Cooper/T. Smith's third-party claims
against it.

IDC removed the plaintiffs' state-court action on April 13, 2016.
Plaintiffs Earl T. Lindsay, Jr. and Jocelyn Butler move the Court
to remand the action or, alternatively, to sever defendant
Cooper/T. Smith Stevedoring Company, Inc.'s third-party claims
against IDC and remand the main action.

This case arises out of decedent Earl T. Lindsay's occupational
exposure to asbestos and contraction of lung cancer. Plaintiffs,
two of Lindsay's surviving children, allege that Lindsay worked as
a longshoreman for several stevedoring companies in the Port of
New Orleans from 1954 to 1979. During this period, Lindsay was
allegedly exposed to airborne asbestos fibers during the loading
and off-loading of cargo that included raw asbestos and asbestos-
containing products and materials. Plaintiffs allege that Lindsay
developed lung cancer as a result of this exposure and died from
the disease on February 18, 2015.

On February 17, 2016, plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in the Civil
District Court for the Parish of Orleans against Lindsay's
employers, various vessel owners and vessel repair contractors
associated with his employment, two insurance companies, and other
firms. Importantly, for purposes of plaintiffs' remand motion, two
of the entities named as defendants in plaintiffs' state-court
petition were Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa,
Ltd. ("IDC") and South African Marine Corporation ("South African
Marine"). As to most of the named defendants, plaintiffs asserted
claims for, among other things, negligence, strict liability,
intentional tort, and premises liability. As to IDC and South
African Marine, plaintiffs also asserted claims under the Jones
Act.

A full-text copy of the Order and Reasons dated July 14, 2016 is
available at https://is.gd/5jwG2D from Leagle.com.

Joycelyn L Butler, Plaintiff, is represented by J. Burton LeBlanc,
IV, Esq. -- Baron & Budd, P.C., Christopher C. Colley, Esq. --
Baron & Budd, P.C., David Ryan Cannella, Esq. -- Cannella Law
Firm, LLC, Jeremiah S. Boling, Esq. -- Baron & Budd, P.C. & Renee
M. Melancon, Esq. -- Baron & Budd, P.C.

Earl T. Lindsay, Jr., Plaintiff, is represented by J. Burton
LeBlanc, IV, Baron & Budd, P.C., Christopher C. Colley, Baron &
Budd, P.C., David Ryan Cannella, Cannella Law Firm, LLC, Jeremiah
S. Boling, Baron & Budd, P.C. & Renee M. Melancon, Baron & Budd,
P.C.

Cooper/T. Smith Stevedoring Company, Defendant, is represented by
Alan Guy Brackett, Esq. -- abrackett@mblb.com -- Mouledoux, Bland,
Legrand & Brackett, LLC & Robert Neven Popich, Esq. --
rpopich@mblb.com -- Mouledoux, Bland, Legrand & Brackett, LLC.
Cooper/T. Smith Stevedoring Company, Defendant, is represented by
Wilton Ellwood Bland, IV, Esq. -- wbland@mblb.com -- Mouledoux,
Bland, Legrand & Brackett, LLC.

James J. Flanagan Shipping Corporation, Defendant, is represented
by Gus David Oppermann, V, Wheat, Oppermann & Meeks, P.C..

Georgia-Pacific LLC, Defendant, is represented by Gary A. Bezet,
Esq. -- gary.bezet@keanmiller.com -- Kean Miller, Alexandra E.
Rossi, Esq. -- alexandra.rossi@keanmiller.com -- Kean Miller,
Allison N. Benoit, Esq. -- allison.benoit@keanmiller.com -- Kean
Miller, Anthony M. Williams, Esq. --
Anthony.williams@keanmiller.com -- Kean Miller LLP, Barrye
Panepinto Miyagi, Esq. -- barrye.miyagi@keanmiller.com -- Kean
Miller, Gayla M. Moncla, Esq. -- gayla.moncla@keanmiller.com --
Kean Miller, Gregory M. Anding, Esq. --
Gregory.anding@keanmiller.com -- Kean Miller, Jay Morton Jalenak,
Jr., Esq. -- jay.jalenak@keanmiller.com -- Kean Miller, Robert E.
Dille, Esq. -- Robert.dille@keanmiller.com -- Kean Miller & Sarah
W. Anderson, Esq. -- sarah.anderson@keanmiller.com -- Kean Miller.

Cooper/T. Smith Stevedoring Company, Third Party Plaintiff, is
represented by Alan Guy Brackett, Mouledoux, Bland, Legrand &
Brackett, LLC, Robert Neven Popich, Mouledoux, Bland, Legrand &
Brackett, LLC & Wilton Ellwood Bland, IV, Mouledoux, Bland,
Legrand & Brackett, LLC.

Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa, Ltd., Third
Party Defendant, is represented by Antonio J. Rodriguez, Fowler
Rodriguez & Susan Grace Keller-Garcia, Fowler Rodriguez.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Refuses to Review BorgWarner's Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Delaware denied BorgWarner, Inc.'s Motion
for Reconsideration as it has failed to show on the record that
the Commissioner's Order is contrary to law, particularly where
the bulk of BorgWarner's arguments direct this Court to blindly
follow either non-binding case law from other jurisdictions and
lower courts or plainly distinguishable prior holdings of this
Court.

Before the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration of Commissioner's
Order filed by BorgWarner Inc. and BorgWarner Morse TEC LLC.
BorgWarner seeks reconsideration of an order issued on March 15,
2016, by Commissioner Manning granting, in part, BorgWarner's
motion to compel the Owens Corning/Fibreboard Asbestos Personal
Injury Trust, a Delaware trust, to comply with a subpoena served
on May 6, 2015, and denying, in part, Intervenors', North River
Insurance Company and First State Insurance Company,  motion to
quash BorgWarner's subpoena. The Court has reviewed and considered
the Parties' written submissions, in light of the Commissioner's
order, the transcript of the hearing before the Commissioner, and
the associated record.

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated July 14, 2016 is available
at https://is.gd/121UjU from Leagle.com.

The case is captioned CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. BORGWARNER INC., et al., Defendants., C.A. No.
N15M-05-009 (Del. Sup.).

Michael B. Rush, Esquire, Jennifer C. Wasson, Esquire, Potter,
Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for
Defendants BorgWarner Inc. and BorgWarner Morse TEC Inc.

Sean M. Brennecke, Esquire -- sbrennecke@klehr.com,  Richard M.
Beck, Esquire -- rbeck@klehr.com -- Klehr, Harrison, Harvey,
Branzburg LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Intervenor
First State Insurance Company.

Thaddeus J. Weaver, Esquire, Dilworth Paxson, LLP, Wilmington,
Delaware, Attorney for Intervenor The North River Insurance
Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magistrate Denies Bid to Transfer Venue
--------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge John E. Martin of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division,
denied the Motion to Transfer Venue to the Northern District of
Illinois of the case captioned CLOVIS ARSENEAULT, Plaintiff, v. AC
AND S INC., et al., Defendants, Cause No. 2:99-CV-76-JTM-JEM (N.D.
Ind.).

This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Transfer Venue to
the Northern District of Illinois filed by Plaintiff Jason
Arsenault, special administrator for the estate of Clovis
Aresnault, decedent, on September 15, 2015. Plaintiff requests
that the Court transfer the instant case to the Northern District
of Illinois. On September 28, 2015, Defendant CBS Corporation,
formerly known as Westinghouse Electric Corporation, filed a
response. Plaintiff did not file a reply to Westinghouses's
response within the time allotted to do so.

A full-text copy of the Opinion and Order dated July 13, 2016 is
available at https://is.gd/TRgdeB from Leagle.com.

Clovis Arseneault, Plaintiff, is represented by Michael P.
Cascino, Esq. -- Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd & Robert G.
McCoy, Esq. -- Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd.

AC and S Inc, Defendant, is represented by Susan E. Mehringer,
Esq. -- smehringer@csmlawfirm.com -- Cantrell Strenski & Mehringer
LLP.

AW Chesterton Company, Defendant, is represented by Knight S.
Anderson, Esq. -- knight.anderson@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis
LLP.

The Anchor Packing Company, Defendant, is represented by Jason L.
Kennedy, Esq. -- jkennedy@smsm.com -- Segal McCambridge Singer &
Mahoney Ltd.

Dresser Industries Inc, Defendant, is represented by Daniel D.
Trachtman, Esq. -- Dan.Trachtman@WoodenMcLaughlin.com -- Wooden &
McLaughlin LLP & Douglas B. King, Esq. --
Douglas.King@WoodenMcLaughlin.com -- Wooden & McLaughlin LLP.
Durabla Manufacturing Company, Defendant, is represented by Tim W.
Ueber, Esq. -- Goodin Orzeske and Stevens PC.

General Refractories Company, Defendant, is represented by Randall
J. Nye, Esq. -- rnye@omwlegal.com -- O'Neill McFadden & Willett
LLP.

Georgia Pacific Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Andrew
J. Detherage, Esq. -- andy.detherage@btlaw.com -- Barnes &
Thornburg LLP & Jonathan D. Mattingly, Esq. -- Mattingly Burke
Cohen & Biederman LLP.

PPG Industries Inc, Defendant, is represented by Cynthia M. Locke,
Esq. -- Cantrell Strenski & Mehringer LLP.

Rapid American Corp, Defendant, is represented by Douglas B. King,
Wooden & McLaughlin LLP & Joseph R. Alberts, Wooden & McLaughlin
LLP.

Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Defendant, is represented by
Christopher N. Wahl, Hill Fulwider PC, Knight S. Anderson, Tucker
Ellis LLP & David J. Saferight, Hill Fulwider PC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Bid to Remand "Hartfield"
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Carol E. Jackson of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, in the case
captioned JAMES HARTFIELD, Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:16-CV-763 (CEJ)(E.D. Mo.), ordered that the
plaintiff's motion and supplemental motion to remand are granted;
that the plaintiff's motion to strike is denied; that the
plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees is denied; that the Clerk
of Court remand the case to the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit
Court of Missouri (City of St. Louis) from which it was removed;
and that all other pending motions are moot.

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motion to remand
this case to the state court from which it was removed and for
attorneys' fees. Defendant Dow Chemical Company has filed a
response in opposition.

Plaintiff James Hartfield commenced this action in the Circuit
Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, alleging that he
developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos.
Plaintiff's father worked with asbestos and asbestos-containing
products during his employment as a pipefitter for Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Company from 1941 through 1962. Plaintiff was
repeatedly exposed to asbestos dust that permeated his father's
clothing. Plaintiff was also exposed to asbestos in 1962 when he
worked as a laborer for Rohm & Haas and from 1963 through 1969
when he served in the Indiana National Guard Reserve. Plaintiff
brings this action against nine defendants whom he alleges
manufactured, sold, distributed or installed asbestos-containing
products.

Defendant Dow Chemical removed the action to this Court on May 31,
2016, asserting jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. It
is uncontroverted that the parties are citizens of different
states and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000,
exclusive of interest and costs.  However, one of the named
defendants, J.P. Bushnell Packing and Gasket Company, is a
Missouri corporation whose presence in the case prevents removal.

Defendant Dow Chemical contends that plaintiff's testimony during
his deposition on May 3, 2016, establishes that J.P. Bushnell is
fraudulently joined to defeat removal.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum and Order dated July 22, 2016
is available at https://is.gd/JG44ju from Leagle.com.

James Hartfield, Plaintiff, represented by Carson C. Menges, FLINT
AND ASSOCIATES LLC,Charles William Branham, III, DEAN AND OMAR,
Erin Rafferty Burton, FLINT AND ASSOCIATES LLC, Jessica M. Dean,
DEAN OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP, Jonathan M. Holder, DEAN OMAR & BRANHAM,
LLP, Laci M. Whitley, FLINT AND ASSOCIATES, LLC, Luke Perry
Pfeifer, FLINT AND ASSOCIATES LLC & Rachel C. Moussa, DEAN OMAR &
BRANHAM, LLP.

3M Company, Defendant, is represented by Michael T. Crabb, Esq. --
KUCKELMAN AND TORLINE.

Associated Drywall Suppliers, Inc., Defendant, is represented by
Joshua Chumbley, Esq. -- jchumbley@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY &
MANSFIELD & Michael W. Newport, Esq. --
mnewport@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P..
Burnham Commercial Boilers, Defendant, is represented by Dennis J.
Graber, Esq. -- dgraber@hinshawlaw.com -- HINSHAW AND CULBERTSON &
Trevor Alan Sondag, Esq. -- tsondag@hinshawlaw.com -- HINSHAW AND
CULBERTSON.

Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Meredith E.
Hudgens, Esq.-- mhudgens@otmblaw.com -- O'CONNELL TIVIN MILLER.
Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Timothy A.
McGuire, Esq. -- tmcguire@otmblaw.com -- O'CONNELL AND TIVIN, LLC.
Dow Chemical Company, Defendant, is represented by Mark A. Smith,
Esq. -- mark.smith@huschblackwell.com -- HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by
Charles L. Joley, Esq. -- cjoley@ilmoattorneys.com -- JOLEY AND
OLIVER, Georgiann Oliver, Esq. -- goliver@ilmoattorneys.com --
JOLEY AND OLIVER & Laura K. Beasley, Esq. --
lbeasley@ilmoattorneys.com -- JOLEY AND OLIVER.

Reynolds American, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Bruce D.
Ryder, Esq. -- bryder@thompsoncoburn.com -- THOMPSON COBURN, LLP.
Riley Power, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Gregory C. Flatt,
Esq. -- gflatt@heylroyster.com -- HEYL AND ROYSTER & Kent L.
Plotner, Esq. -- kplotner@heylroyster.com -- HEYL AND ROYSTER.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ABB, 5 Others Win Summary Judgment in "Hillyer"
----------------------------------------------------------------
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, ABB, Inc., CBS
Corporation, BW/IP, Inc., Eaton Corporation, Union Carbide
Corporation, and Gould Electronics, Inc.

Plaintiffs Mark and Carol Hillyer filed this asbestos action in
the Delaware Superior Court against multiple defendants on March
23, 2015, asserting claims regarding Mr. Hillyer's alleged harmful
exposure to asbestos.  Defendant Crane Co. removed the action to
this court on May 11, 2015. CBS, BW/IP, Eaton, Union Carbide, and
Gould filed motions for summary judgment on June 17, 2016. ABB
filed its motion on June 21, 2016. Plaintiffs did not respond to
these motions. On July 6, 2016, counsel for CBS, Eaton, and Union
Carbide sent a letter to the court seeking dismissal for
Plaintiffs' failure to oppose the summary judgment motions.

Counsel for BW/IP, Gould, and ABB filed similar letters on July
11, 2016, July 14, 2016, and July 18, 2016, respectively.

The case is captioned IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to MARK
E. HILLYER and CAROL HILLYER, his wife, Plaintiffs, v. ABB, INC.,
et al. Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-378-GMS-SRF (D. Del.).
A full-text copy of the Report and Recommendation dated July 28,
2016 is available at https://is.gd/gkRUBk from Leagle.com.

Mark E. Hillyer, Plaintiff, is represented by Allen Dale Bowers,
II, Esq. -- Law Office of A. Dale Bowers.

Carol Hillyer, Plaintiff, is represented by Allen Dale Bowers, II,
Law Office of A. Dale Bowers.

ABB Inc., Defendant, is represented by Oleh V. Bilynsky, Esq. --
ovb@obfirm.com -- O'Brien Firm.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, is represented by
Barbara Anne Fruehauf, Esq. -- Wilbraham Lawler & Buba.
BW/IP Inc., Defendant, is represented by Joel M. Doner, Esq. --
jdoner@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.
CBS Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Beth E. Valocchi,
Esq. -- bvalocchi@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell LLC &
Shawn Edward Martyniak, Esq. -- smartyniak@swartzcampbell.com --
Swartz Campbell LLC.

Copes-Vulcan Inc., Defendant, is represented by Antoinette D.
Hubbard, Esq. -- adh@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley &
Anderson LLC & Paul A. Bradley, Esq. -- pab@maronmarvel.com --
Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC.

Crane Co., Defendant, is represented by Nicholas E. Skiles, Esq. -
- nskiles@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward
Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Eaton Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Joseph S. Naylor,
Esq. -- Esq. -- jnaylor@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell LLC.
General Electric Company, Defendant, is represented by Beth E.
Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Grinnell LLC, Defendant, is represented by Kelly A. Costello, Esq.
-- kelly.costello@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius 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..

Mine Safety Appliances Company, Defendant, is represented by David
C. Malatesta, Jr., Esq. -- dmalatesta@kentmcbride.com -- Kent &
McBride, P.C..

Oakfabco Inc., Defendant, is represented by David C. Malatesta,
Jr., Kent & McBride, P.C..

Spirax Sarco Inc., Defendant, is represented by Antoinette D.
Hubbard, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC & Paul A. Bradley,
Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Beth E.
Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Joseph S. Naylor, Swartz Campbell
LLC.

Gould Electronics Inc., Defendant, is represented by David Phillip
Primack, McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Vacate Privilege Waiver Ruling Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Peter H. Moulton of the Supreme Court, New York County,
denied J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc.'s motion to vacate and
denied the defendant's motion in its entirety.

Defendant J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc., moves to vacate the
November 1, 2015 Recommendation of Special Master Shelley Rossoff
Olsen and to seal all briefing related to this motion pursuant to
22 NYCRR 216.1.  The Defendant asserts that the Special Master
erred in applying New York law, and not California law, in
determining that J-M waived the attorney-client privilege attached
to both the redacted and unredacted versions of a document. The
Plaintiff disagrees and opposes the motion.

The case is captioned THERESA WARREN, as Administratrix for the
Estate of RICHARD WARREN Plaintiffs, v. AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC., et
al Defendants, Docket No. 190281/14, Motion Seq. No. 003, 2016 NY
Slip Op 31393(U)(N.Y. Sup.).

A full-text copy of the Decision dated July 14, 2016 is available
at https://is.gd/rD8ZDU from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Review Denial of Summary Judgment Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the United States District Court for
the Central District of California denied Defendant Electric Boat
Corporation and General Dynamics Corporation's Motion for
Reconsideration in the case captioned VICTORIA LUND, individually
and as successor-in-interest to WILLIAM LUND, deceased; DAVID
LUND, an individual; and SHEILA LUND, an individual, as legal
heirs of WILLIAM LUND, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY a/k/a
MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case
No. CV 13-02776 DDP (VBKx)(C.D. Calif.).

The Plaintiffs, individually and as legal heirs and
representatives of William Lund's estate, brought this action to
recover for injuries suffered by Mr. Lund, a former U.S. Navy
Machinist Mate. According to Plaintiffs, Mr. Lund's injuries and
mesothelioma diagnosis were attributable to his exposure to
asbestos dust and fibers during the construction and maintenance
of various U.S. Navy ships manufactured by Defendants. In
particular, Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Lund was exposed to
asbestos while working "in the engineering spaces on the USS
Lafayette" at Electric Boat division's shipyard and while working
on the USS Gato at General Dynamics' shipyard.

The Plaintiffs filed this action in the Superior Court for the
County of Los Angeles, raising claims of negligence, breach of
express and implied warranties, strict liability in tort, and
premises owner/contractor liability. The case was removed to
federal court and, on January 30, 2015, Defendants General
Dynamics and Electric Boat filed motions for summary judgment on
each of Plaintiffs' claims. On March 1, 2016, the court denied
Defendants' motions for summary judgment in full. It later issued
a Memorandum of Decision explaining its reasoning.

Defendants then filed this Motion for Reconsideration.

A full-text copy of the Order dated August 1, 2016 is available at
https://is.gd/NLyZHd from Leagle.com

Victoria Lund, Plaintiff, is represented by Benno B. Ashrafi, Esq.
-- Weitz and Luxenberg PC, Alexandra Shef, Esq. -- Weitz and
Luxenburg PC., Josiah W. Parker, Esq. -- Weitz and Luxenberg PC,
Mark D. Bratt, Esq. -- Weitz and Luxenberg PC, Peter C. Beirne,
Esq. -- Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. & Tyler Robert Stock, Esq.
David Lund, Plaintiff, represented by Benno B. Ashrafi, Weitz and
Luxenberg PC, Alexandra Shef, Weitz and Luxenburg PC., Josiah W.
Parker, Weitz and Luxenberg PC, Mark D. Bratt, Weitz and Luxenberg
PC, Peter C. Beirne, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. & Tyler Robert Stock.
Sheila Lund, Plaintiff, represented by Benno B. Ashrafi, Weitz and
Luxenberg PC, Alexandra Shef, Weitz and Luxenburg PC., Josiah W.
Parker, Weitz and Luxenberg PC, Mark D. Bratt, Weitz and Luxenberg
PC, Peter C. Beirne, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. & Tyler Robert Stock.
Blackmer Pump Company, Defendant, is represented by James P.
Cunningham, Esq. -- Tucker Ellis LLP.

BW IP Inc, Defendant, is represented by Holly Acevedo, Esq. --
hacevedo@foleymansfield.com -- Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Keith M.
Ameele, Esq. -- kameele@foleymansfield.com -- Foley and Mansfield
PLLP, Stephen J. Foley, Esq. -- sfoley@foleymansfield.com -- Foley
and Mansfield PLLP & Joshua R. Shoumer, Esq. --
jshoumer@foleymansfield.com -- Foley and Mansfield PLLP.

Crane Co, Defendant, is represented by Geoffrey M. Davis, K&L
Gates LLP, Bradley W. Gunning, K&L Gates LLP, Kathleen L.
Beiermeister, Meagher and Geer PLLP, pro hac vice, Michael J.
Sechler, K&L Gates LLP, pro hac vice & William M. Starr, Nelson
Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP, pro hac vice.

Electric Boat Corporation, Defendant, is represented by James C.
Parker, Esq. -- jparker@hugoparker.com -- Hugo Parker LLP, Charles
S. Park, Esq. -- cpark@hugoparker.com -- Hugo Parker, LLP,
Christina M. Glezakos, Esq. -- cglezakos@hugoparker.com -- Hugo
Parker LLP, Edward R. Hugo, Esq. -- ehugo@hugoparker.com -- Brydon
Hugo and Parker, Gregory S. Rosse, Esq. -- grosse@hugoparker.com -
-  Hugo and Parker, Jeffrey P. Wilson, Esq. -- jwilson@jjrlaw.com
-- Jackson Jenkins Renstrom LLP, Lisa M. Rickenbacher, Esq. --
lrickenbacher@hugoparker.com -- Shelley K. Tinkoff, Esq. --
stinkoff@hugoparker.com -- Brydon Hugo & Parker.

General Dynamics Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Charles
S. Park, Hugo Parker, LLP, Christina M. Glezakos, Hugo Parker LLP
& Edward R. Hugo, Brydon Hugo and Parker.

General Dynamics Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gregory S.
Rosse, Hugo and Parker.

General Dynamics Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey P.
Wilson, Jackson Jenkins Renstrom LLP, Lisa M. Rickenbacher, Hugo
Parker LLP, Paul M. Bessette, Demler Armstrong and Rowland LLP &
Shelley K. Tinkoff, Brydon Hugo & Parker.

Goulds Pumps Inc, Defendant, represented by Michael J.
Pietrykowski, Gordon and Rees LLP,G. Jeff Coons, Gordon and Rees
LLP & Glen R. Powell, Gordon and Rees LLP.

Hopeman Brothers Inc, Defendant, represented by Jonathan E.
Meislin, Bassi Edlin Huie and Blum LLP, Robert S. Kraft, Bassi
Edlin Huie and Blum LLP & E. Reno Cross, Bassi Edlin Huie and Blum
LLP.

The Nash Engineering Company, Defendant, represented by Arturo E.
Sandoval, Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Douglas G. Wah, Foley and
Mansfield PLLP & Khaled Taqi-Eddin, Foley and Mansfield PLLP.

The William Powell Company, Defendant, represented by Arturo E.
Sandoval, Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Douglas G. Wah, Foley and
Mansfield PLLP & Khaled Taqi-Eddin, Foley and Mansfield PLLP.

Viad Corporation, Defendant, represented by Peter B. Langbord,
Foley and Mansfield PLLP &Anna K. Milunas, Foley and Mansfield
PLLP.

Warren Pumps LLC, Defendant, represented by Glen R. Powell, Gordon
and Rees LLP.

Crosby Valve, LLC, Defendant, represented by Kevin D. Jamison,
Pond North LLP, Rochelle R. Ileto, Pond North LLP, Russell W.
Schatz, Jr., Pond North LLP & Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis and
Bockius LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. App. Affirms $3.5MM Verdict vs. Nat'l Grid
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, affirmed the Supreme Court, New York County's Judgment
on January 28, 2015, after a jury trial, awarding plaintiff, inter
alia, $3,500,000,00 in damages for future pain and suffering as
against defendant National Grid Generation, LLC.

The New York Appellate Division also modified the order of the
Supreme Court entered March 13, 2015, which granted National
Grid's motion for summary judgment on its claim against defendant
O'Connor Constructors, Inc., for indemnification, except for
attorneys' fees, and denied O'Connor's motion for summary judgment
dismissing National Grid's indemnification claim as against it, to
grant National Grid's motion as to attorneys' fees solely in
connection with its defense against plaintiff's action, and
otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The case captioned IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION
relating to CHARLES D. NORTH, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF RALPH
P. NORTH, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS
CORPORATION SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO BUFFALO PUMPS, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants, NATIONAL GRID GENERATION, LLC, Defendant-Respondent-
Appellant, O'CONNOR CONSTRUCTORS, INC., Defendant-Appellant-
Respondent, 190114/13, 1162, 1161, 1160, 2016 NY Slip Op 05729
(N.Y. App. Div.).

A full-text copy of the Decision dated August 4, 2016 is available
at https://is.gd/IpwS3q from Leagle.com.

Coughlin Duffy LLP, New York (Kevin T. Coughlin, Esq. --
kcoughlin@coughlinduffy.com, of counsel), for appellant-
respondent.

Ingram Yuzek Gainen Carroll & Bertolotti, LLP, New York (John G.
Nicolich, Esq. -- jnicolich@ingramllp.com --  of counsel), for
respondent-appellant.

Levy Konigsberg LLP, New York (Jerome H. Block, Esq., of counsel),
for respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid Summary Judgment in "Haggwood" Partly OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jerome Antonio Haggwood, a civil detainee in the custody
of the South Carolina Department of Mental Health, filed the
present action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 on August 13,
2015, alleging deprivation of his constitutional rights due to his
conditions of confinement, deliberate indifference to his medical
needs, racial discrimination, and the requirement that he wear a
yellow jumpsuit whenever he is transported in public. His
conditions of confinement in the SVPTP are allegedly
unconstitutional because of corporal punishment, double bunking
practices that place him in physical danger, deliberately
contaminated food, and mold, mildew, and asbestos in his living
areas. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, and
compensatory and punitive damages.

On February 15, 2016, Defendants moved for summary judgment as to
all claims. Warden Stevenson filed a separate motion for summary
judgment that expressly joined in the SVPTP Defendants' motion for
summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting
Defendants' motions for summary judgment on June 27, 2016.
Plaintiff timely mailed his objections to the Report and
Recommendation on July 14, 2016.

Judge Richard Mark Gergel of the United States District Court for
the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division, adopted Parts
I-III.A.1 and Parts III.A.3-lII.E and declined to adopt Part
III.A.2 and Parts III.F-IV of the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge; granted in part and denied in part without
prejudice in part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and
Defendant Robert Stevenson's motion for summary judgment; granted
summary judgment for Defendant Kimberly Poholchuk as to all
claims; denied without prejudice Defendants' motions for summary
judgment as to claims against Defendants John Magill, Holly
Scaturo, and Robert Stevenson in their official capacities for
injunctive relief regarding adulterated food; denied without
prejudice Defendants' motions for summary judgment as to claims
against Defendants John Magill, Holly Scaturo, and Robert
Stevenson in their personal capacities for nominal and punitive
damages regarding adulterated food; and granted summary judgment
for those Defendants as to all other claims.

The case is captioned Jerome Antonio Haggwood, Plaintiff, v. John
Magill, Holly Scaturo, Kimberly Poholochuck, and Warden Stevenson,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:15-3271-RMG (D.S.C.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated August 3, 2016 is available at
https://is.gd/KpZydn from Leagle.com.

Jerome Antonio Haggwood, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

John Magill, Defendant, is represented by David Allan DeMasters,
Esq. -- ddemasters@dml-law.com -- Davidson and Lindemann & William
Henry Davidson, II, Esq. -- ddavison@dml-law.com -- Davidson and
Lindemann.

Holly Scaturo, Defendant, is represented by David Allan DeMasters,
Davidson and Lindemann &William Henry Davidson, II, Davidson and
Lindemann.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants MDE's Summary Judgment Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kevin Gross of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware granted the Maryland Department of the
Environment's motion for summary judgment and denied the Trustee's
motion for summary judgment in the case captioned PIRINATE
CONSULTING GROUP, LLC AS LITIGATION TRUSTEE OF THE NP CREDITOR
LITIGATION TRUST, Plaintiff, v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE
ENVIRONMENT, Defendant, Adv. Pro. No. 13-52206 (KG) in relation to
bankruptcy case In re: NEWPAGE CORPORATION, et al., Chapter 11,
Debtors, Case No. 11-12804 (KG).

Pirinate Consulting Group, Litigation Trustee for the NP Creditor
Litigation Trust, has filed an avoidance action against the
Maryland Department of the Environment and seeks to avoid three
separate payments as preferences under section 547(b) of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code. Both parties have moved for summary judgment and
there are seven issues ripe for adjudication.

The Debtors' subsidiary, Luke Paper Company operates a mill (the
"Luke Mill") in Maryland that is regulated by various divisions of
MDE. The full extent of the relationship between the Debtors and
MDE is somewhat unclear. However, MDE notes that "the State's
operating permit program has been in place for decades" and that
the Debtors have "been paying the emissions based fee of the type
at issue in this case at least since 1997. Here, the Trustee seeks
to avoid three separate fees paid to MDE.

The Trustee seeks to avoid the Debtors' 2011 Permit Fee, Asbestos
Fee, and Report Fee (collectively, the "Environmental Fees") as
preferential transfers and has moved for summary judgment. In
response, MDE has cross-moved for summary judgment, arguing that
the Asbestos Fee was not paid on account of an antecedent debt and
that the transfers did not enable it to receive more than it would
have in a hypothetical liquidation. Additionally, MDE asserts
three affirmative defenses under section 547(c) of the Code -- the
contemporaneous exchange defense, the ordinary course of business
defense, and the de minimis exception. Additionally, MDE argues
that 28 U.S.C. Section 959(b) prohibits a trustee from recovering
environmental compliance fees. Finally, MDE argues that the
doctrine of sovereign immunity insulates it from liability in
these proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion dated August 4, 2016 is
available at https://is.gd/KYIMiz from Leagle.com

Pirinate Consulting Group LLC, as Litigation Trustee of the NP
Creditor Litigation Trust, Plaintiff, is represented by M. Blake
Cleary, Esq. --
mbcleary@ycst.com -- Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor, Michael
Comerford, Esq. -- michaelcomerford@paulhastings.com -- Paul
Hastings LLP.

Maryland Department of the Environment, Defendant, represented by
Jonathan E. May, MD Dept. of the Environment- Office of the
Attorney General.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Worksafe Targets Poor Asbestos Record
------------------------------------------------------
RNZ.com reported that WorkSafe is aiming to halve the number of
deaths from asbestos, which were 146 last year and average 170
annually, within a decade.

But it will be doing it without any extra money for now from the
government, in the face of a building boom and with doubts around
Customs' ability to stop asbestos at the border.

WorkSafe chairperson Gregor Coster said the government's decision
to ban products containing asbestos would be crucial to meeting
the target in the agency's new 10-year workplace health plan.

"We've been able to get the support of government to ban the
importation of asbestos -- that's been a huge step forwards,
that's never been done in New Zealand before," said Professor
Coster.

The ban on any product containing asbestos would kick in from
October, 13 years after Australia. In exceptional circumstances
here, an importation permit might be issued.

Three years ago the Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and
Safety said there was "paralysis" and a gaping data hole around
how much illness and death was caused on the job.

Cancer expert Sir David Skegg has previously said this country is
"unusually slack" about its controls on asbestos, and plenty of
scepticism remains among unions who say fly-by-night builders
would still put workers clearing out old asbestos at risk.

The data is still lacking and WorkSafe appears quite slow at
filling it in.

Also, while asbestos accounted for the largest single chunk of the
estimated 600-900 workplace-related deaths a year, vagueness
surrounded the other two thirds.

Lawyer Hazel Armstrong, who has worked for the rail workers'
union, said she foresaw ongoing risk from imported asbestos and
WorkSafe would be falling short unless the government stepped up.

"They've got to have border controls and they've got to equip
Customs to check the products that are coming into New Zealand --
including things like locomotives, but especially building
products," she said.

Research supported the idea it would be a grind -- in a recent
survey just 7 percent of construction companies, who are entering
a sustained boom time, and fewer than a quarter of manufacturers
said they had offered employees any health monitoring in the last
12 months.

However, Prof Coster said he was confident Customs would enforce
the ban and WorkSafe did not need any extra inspectors to help
with its push on health.

About half its almost 200 inspectors were trained for asbestos
detection, with an aim to increase that to 80 percent, and the
number of staff working exclusively on health issues had risen
from 3 or 4 to 15 or 20 in the last couple of years.

Prof Coster also said the agency did not need any more government
funding -- which was good, as none was forthcoming from the
Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety Michael Woodhouse.

"I think the resources are already there in place to be able to
firstly encourage, educate and coach organisations into being more
aware of the risk," Prof Coster said.

"The costs I think will be at the margins with things like better
personal protective equipment."

Mr Woodhouse -- whose own grandfather Frank, a railway boilermaker
-- died due to asbestos exposure, said it was a long game.

"It's going to be years before we see the benefits of this but the
action needs to start now. So we need to be patient, we need to
accept that those numbers are going to stay high for a while."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Pleads Guilty After Illegal Removal
---------------------------------------------------------------
WishTV.com reported that an Indianapolis contractor was sentenced
to four months of house arrest and two years of probation after
pleading guilty in federal court to illegally removing asbestos
from an inhabited apartment building.

Paul Walker, 56, will also pay a $2,000 fine as part of his
sentencing.

According to United States Attorney Josh Minkler, Walker was
performing maintenance and renovation work on an apartment
building located at 38th St. and Central Ave in 2015. That work
involved removing asbestos insulation from piping and a boiler in
the building's basement.

Minkler said that despite Walker telling the building owner that
he would use a subcontractor licensed in asbestos abatement, he
instead removed the asbestos himself, putting residents in the
building at risk for exposure to harmful asbestos fibers.

According to a release, Federal law describes in detail how
asbestos must be safely removed and disposed. Those procedures
were not used in this instance.

Later testing showed that although the asbestos fibers did not
reach the inhabited floors of the building, Walker's actions
placed residents at risk of exposure. That led to Walker being
prosecuted for Negligent Endangerment under the federal Clean Air
Act.

The asbestos was later properly removed by a professional
abatement firm, at Walker's expense.

"Asbestos is a dangerous substance and putting people at risk by
illegally removing it is a federal crime," Minkler said.  "If you
must remove asbestos, do it the right way and follow the law.  If
you cut corners to try to save a buck, you will be caught and
prosecuted."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: High School Closes for Asbestos Removal
--------------------------------------------------------
Deborah M. Marko, writing for The Daily Journal, reported that
removing the asbestos discovered during the Vineland High School
South heat/air conditioning project could cost about $1 million
and require around-the-clock shifts to be ready for the first day
of school on Sept. 6.

Charles McKenna, the N.J. Schools Development Authority CEO,
assured the school board all asbestos will be removed before the
school is opened.

"This is not about getting it done; it's about getting it done
right," McKenna said.

The SDA and school district are partners in a $10 million project,
spanning two years, to replace the school's heating/hot water
system and install air conditioning at the 53-year-old school.

The project stalled this summer when asbestos was discovered.

Prior to starting the job, the SDA hired an environmental
specialist to give them a heads up on what to expect when ceilings
were opened and crews got to work on the school's ventilation
system, McKenna said.

"Generally speaking, asbestos was the miracle product in
construction years ago," he said, noting it was widely used as
insulation and later discovered to be a carcinogen.

About 15 years ago, a contractor was hired for an asbestos
abatement project at VHS South, McKenna said.

"We assumed that all the asbestos had been remediated in the
places that your contractor said they were," he said.  "When we
started opening up the ceilings, contrary to those representations
made by the contractor, we found friable asbestos."

The school is now subject to 24-hour air monitoring.

It appears the contractor took out the big asbestos panels and
left other items behind, McKenna told the school board.

"They did the easy job and they left the hard job," McKenna said,
noting there was no way the district officials could have known.

The asbestos was enclosed behind insulation and did not pose a
health threat to staff and students, Wayne Weaver, the district's
building and grounds supervisor said. It was when the asbestos was
uncovered and disturbed during recent demolition work that it
became a concern, he said.

The SDA's priority is now removing that asbestos.

Money is available and there's a new contractor on board,
committed to having the asbestos removed by Aug. 31.

"We are willing to pay the money because this is a matter of
safety; safety for the school and more importantly, safety for the
children," McKenna said.

Weaver's crew needs a week to reassemble the schools for the Sept.
6 opening day. His staff is willing to work over Labor Day weekend
to get it done.

The district needs the school's heating system ready by Oct. 15.

"We expect to meet that deadline as well," McKenna said.

School Board President Scott English thanked the state for its
support but shared parent concerns, especially for students with
asthma.

When students return to VHS South "they are going to walk into a
school that is safe, asbestos-free and has no health problems,"
McKenna said, telling the board there may be some lingering
aesthetic issues but no environmental concerns.

District officials have a meeting set to talk about backup
contingency plans, Superintendent Mary Gruccio said, adding "we
don't want kids to miss school."

When the work is compete, McKenna said, the SDA will "sort out the
prior contractor, why he didn't do proper work."

"If there is money to be recouped, we'll look to recoup that," he
said.

Several contractors have worked on asbestos abatement projects at
VHS South that took place in 1983, 1984, 1987 and 1989, according
The Daily Journal archives.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Cases Rise in Iceland Despite Ban
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Povtak, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that the incidence
of mesothelioma in Iceland today continues to rise, despite a
nationwide ban on asbestos that began more than 30 year ago.

A recent study conducted in this Nordic island nation illustrates
just how difficult it will be to end the worldwide horrors of
mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases.

Banning asbestos -- in any country -- is not the panacea that many
believe. It is only the beginning.

"We may have to wait another 20 years before we see a decrease in
the rate of mesothelioma," University of Iceland preventative
medicine professor Dr. Vilhjalmur Rafnsson told Asbestos.com. "The
rate has not yet peaked."

Although asbestos was never mined in Iceland, vast amounts of the
naturally occurring mineral were imported and used in
manufacturing and construction throughout the 1970s and early
'80s. Mesothelioma is caused primarily by the inhalation or
ingestion of microscopic asbestos fibers.

There is typically a lengthy latency period (20-50 years) between
exposure to asbestos and diagnosis of mesothelioma.

Icelandic researchers used data from the nation's cancer registry,
Cause of Death Registry and its National Register.

Iceland Is Among Countries That Banned Asbestos

Iceland banned asbestos imports in 1983. It is one of 58 countries
that banned the toxic mineral. The U.S. is not one of them,
although there is considerable pressure to join.

University researchers, Iceland's Occupational Safety and Health
Administration and the Centre for Health Security and Communicable
Disease Control conducted the study published in July in the
Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology.

The study found the incidence rate of mesothelioma in Iceland
increased significantly since the late 1970s. For example, from
1975 to 1984, it was 4 cases per million. The latest figures from
2005 to 2014 place the incidence rate at 21.4 cases of the cancer.

By comparison, the incidence rate in the U.S. has remained steady
in recent years at an estimated 14 cases per million.

"The ban against the import of asbestos does not solve the
problem," Rafnsson said. "We still have much work to do."

Iceland's importation of asbestos in 1979 was 700 tons. It peaked
in 1980 with 3,500 tons. After that, it continued to drop by
almost 1,000 each year until it was banned in 1983.

The flood of asbestos entering the country coincided with an
extensive construction boom that required large amounts of
asbestos cement.

The importation was limited for the next six years, but it rose
again when manufacturers exploited more exceptions to the law and
more than 500 tons annually were imported from 1990-1994.

Vigilance Is Still Needed

In the last 20 years, Iceland experienced negligible asbestos
importation, but deaths attributed to mesothelioma reached a high
of 27 per million in 2014 -- the last year available in the study.

Men represented 79 percent of all cases, and nearly two-thirds
were pleural mesothelioma, the most common type of the disease.

The study shows the asbestos ban has helped, but the continued
presence of asbestos products in Iceland is still a danger. It
remains in dozens of currently used products, myriad structures
and equipment.

The maintenance, renovation and removal of asbestos-containing
products may continue to fuel the high rate of disease in the
coming years, according to the study.

Rafnsson also emphasizes the less than adequate regulations
regarding the proper disposal of asbestos products.

"One of the unsaid purposes of the study was to bring attention to
the cancer risk related to asbestos exposure," Rafnsson said. "The
ban is one of the preventative measures carried out to protect the
general public against asbestos risks, but other preventative
measures to certain occupations and work places are just as
important."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Delays High School Demolition Work
------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Ellen Godin, writing for Record-Journal, reported that
students entering or returning to Platt High School in three weeks
will take classes in a new academic wing and play on new athletic
fields, but will have to wait until January for a gymnasium and
auditorium.

With three out of four phases complete, workers on the $118
million Platt renovation project are now demolishing a large
portion of the old building on the northeastern side to make way
for the gymnasium, auditorium and administrative offices, said
Michael Grove, assistant school superintendent.

But construction workers have run into a problem with asbestos-
containing material in the school's main gymnasium, which has
delayed demolition by several weeks, said project facilitator
Glenn Lamontagne. It wasn't immediately clear if the added work
would put the project over budget.

Metal clamps from the old gym floor left thousands of indentations
in the concrete slab under it. Those indentations hold an
asbestos-containing material, so the entire slab needs to be
treated and mitigated.

Environmental engineer Fuss & O'Neill Inc. and general contractor
O&G Industries Inc. were working with school officials on the best
way to deal with the problem.

"That's proven more difficult and that's pushed us back a couple
of weeks," Lamontagne said.

Platt students will use gymnasium space at Lincoln Middle School,
the Boys & Girls Club, Wilcox Technical High School and the new
Maloney High School gymnasium, which is expected to be completed
in September.

School officials hope the auditorium will be complete in January,
and the gymnasium in December. A temporary bus loop was paved on
Coe Avenue and the student drop-off and pickup area is ready on
Oregon Road.

The cafeteria, art and music rooms were finished last year.
Temporary administrative, health and guidance offices will be
housed in the new wing until the new offices are completed.

"There are a lot of things going on," Lamontagne said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Schenectady Asbestos Firm Files for Bankruptcy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Rulison, writing for Times Union, reported that a Precision
Environmental Solutions, owned by Molain Glimore, appears to have
been extremely successful in years past, with more than $7 million
in revenue between 2014 and 2015.

However, documents filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Albany show
that the company earned only $175,000 this year.
Calls to the company went unanswered.

However, the company appears to have vacated space at the
Rotterdam Industrial Park back in April, which may be the reason
why it is a defendant in a breach of lease lawsuit filed against
it by Rotterdam Ventures, a subsidiary of the Galesi Group that
owns the industrial park.

Precision Environmental Solutions also lists legal action against
it involving SUNY Plattsburgh and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, although no details were given.

The Schenectady company should not be confused with a Ballston Spa
company with a similar name -- Precision Environmental Services.
There is no connection between the two.

Under Chapter 11 bankruptcy rules, a company reorganizes its
finances and corporate structure to try and remain in business or
sell off its assets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Delayed Asbestos Removal Raises Concerns
---------------------------------------------------------
Colin MacLean, writing for Journal Pioneer, reported that Darby
McCormick is not happy that her children will, in a few short
weeks, be returning to a school full of asbestos.

Asbestos was discovered in nine P.E.I. schools earlier this year
and all were slated to have it removed before the start of the new
school year in September.

However, it was recently announced that, due to time constraints,
two of the schools, Queen Elizabeth Elementary in Kensington and
East Wiltshire Intermediate in Cornwall, would not be remediated
in time. That work is now scheduled for the summer of 2017.

McCormick is the co-chair of the Queen Elizabeth Home and School
Association.


She and the other parents have been following this story closely
in the news, she said.

"We're disappointed."

"There is going to be asbestos in our school for a whole other
year, which in my opinion, seems like quite a long time."

She understands that so long as the asbestos is not disturbed, it
is essentially harmless, but now that parents know it is in the
facility they understandably want something done about it, she
said.

"We kind of have to temper our unhappiness with the fact that it's
been there a long time and it's probably not caused any problems.

"But we were relieved to know that it would be gone this summer
and we'd come back to a healthier school. To not have that happen
is kind of frustrating."

Alan Maynard, director of public works and planning with the
Department of Transportation, Infrastructure and Energy, said that
rescheduling was necessary because of the way the tenders for the
projects were rolled out. Those were issued in two batches, he
said, but by the time the second set was issued their estimated
completion dates were starting to push into the school year.

"We wanted the first three to get out and get going, then put
another tender call out. (That was done) so that we didn't glut
the market with a whole bunch of work that people couldn't get
good pricing on," said Maynard.

They chose Queen Elizabeth Elementary and East Wiltshire for the
delay because they're two of the most time consuming projects.

"They're very large jobs -- one is the largest of the whole
works," he said.

Completing the work during a break in the school year, such a
March break or Christmas, is not feasible, he added, because that
would not allow enough time to get the work done.

That decision is also not sitting well with Kensington-Malpeque
MLA and Opposition member Matthew MacKay.

"This is an abject failure by the premier and his government to
ensure safe and healthy classrooms for our students. The students,
parents, and staff at Queen Elizabeth and East Wiltshire deserve
an explanation from the premier about why they have to wait
another year to have asbestos removed from their classrooms," said
MacKay.

As for McCormick and the other parents at Queen Elizabeth
Elementary, they'll be waiting for further word from school
leadership on this issue and eagerly awaiting summer 2017.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tests Allay Asbestos Concerns for Senate Room
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Clare Jalonick, writing for The Associated Press, reported
that the Senate press gallery and nearby rooms in the U.S. Capitol
have been declared safe after an air quality investigation
prompted by fears of asbestos exposure.

Officials from the Architect of the Capitol's office say workers
had discovered a broken air duct above the press gallery on the
Capitol's third floor. After evacuating the area, officials called
in an independent, certified industrial hygienist to collect and
analyze air samples.

A spokeswoman for the Architect of the Capitol, Erin Courtney,
says the sample results tested well below the regulatory limit for
general space occupancy.

Courtney says the Senate chamber, which is immediately adjacent to
the press gallery, wasn't affected.

The Capitol's House side was temporarily closed in July 2014 after
what officials called a "potential release" during asbestos
abatement work.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flood Victims Displaced Due to Asbestos Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Duff, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that Umi
Street flood victims in Honolulu, Hawaii will be displaced for two
more months while clean up and asbestos tests are conducted.

Victim mediator Chuck Crumpton said, "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,"
said Crumpton. "Two months does not sound out of the ballpark if
you've got pretty extensive damage in nine units like that."

After asbestos testing, the walls and some flooring will have to
be removed. In the meantime, Joey Manahan, Councilman for the
district, called on the Institute for Human Services to arrange
housing for the flood victims.

"We just gotta make do with what we have until we find more room
or another place," said flood victim Aaron Meyer. Most families
hosed down their homes to get out mud and searched through their
remaining belongings to see what could be salvaged.

Some homes are livable, but all homes will need to be cleared out
during asbestos testing and clean up.

"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," said Meyer. "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."

Natural disasters such as hurricanes, fires, tornadoes, and floods
can result in significant damage to homes and commercial
buildings. If these structures contain asbestos, the harmful
particles may become friable, and can be inhaled by people, as
well as pets.

Often, those responsible for the recovery and clean up in the wake
of a natural disaster, fire, or flood are exposed to harmful
asbestos and are at risk for developing mesothelioma cancer.

First responders and those assisting with rescue, recovery, and
rebuilding efforts are not the only individuals at risk of
exposure following a natural disaster. All people who are present
in a location where asbestos fibers have become airborne face the
risk of asbestos inhalation.

Therefore, it's important to exercise proper handling precautions
after natural disasters to ensure asbestos exposure protection. In
an emergency situation, you'll want a mask that covers your nose
and mouth.

Bottled water is also important in order to wet asbestos products
so they're less likely to become airborne. Plus, disposable
gloves, protective eyewear, clothing, and booties are imperative
to not transfer asbestos from one location to another.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos-Filled Funeral Parlor Toppled
-------------------------------------------------------
Junnelle Hogen, writing for Statesman Journal, reported that
neighboring downtown Salem business owners watched as workers in
white suits and full face coverage rummaged through the partially
demolished building formerly inhabited by Barrick Funeral Home,
searching for asbestos.

The demolition halted.

Roofing test samples went to a lab, to see if there was any trace
of the cancer-causing asbestos fibers.

The result was negative and work was scheduled to resume Friday.
It was the second time asbestos had been a potential issue for the
project. In July, environmental regulators found asbestos in the
floorboards and sideboards, and closed the site for two weeks to
remove the caked white fibers.

As they resume the demolition process on the 1932 building,
downtown Salem is bidding farewell to the site that used to house
the oldest continually-run funeral home in Salem. In the process,
the project is likely to cost the Utah-based developers more than
$1 million.

"It wasn't an official historic building," said Llynore Barrick,
who along with her husband, Greg, sold the building to developers
in January. "But after having three generations work there, it's
certainly kind of heartbreaking."

Demolition

The front facade is blotched, yellow-beige paint splotched with
the color of cement. At the back, the L-shaped wing is partially
demolished and exposed, plywood sticking out in ragged splinters.

The building at 205 Church Street SE, built in 1932, sold for
$585,000 to Wadsworth Development Group in January, according to
county records.

In addition to the asbestos, the basement contained decades-old
oil tanks which had leaked into the ground.

The developers were notified if they wanted to continue, they
would have to spend thousands of dollars replacing the soil below.

Jason Hawks with the demolition company 3Kings Environmental
Company, said after a building inspection, the Department of
Environmental Quality also handed down a requirement to get rid of
the asbestos.

"We had guys out there with full suits and masks, shipping out
materials," Hawks said.

The building itself was nearing collapse.

The Barricks had an engineer inspect the structure several years
back, and found a beam on the southwest side of the building was
starting to give out.

"It's an old building, and it was starting to have issues," Greg
Barrick said. "The timing was right."

Old funeral home

The Barrick Funeral Home was one of the oldest links to death in
the city. The funeral parlor opened in a different part of Salem
shortly after 1878, when founder and funeral director Aldin Clough
moved to the area.

The Barrick family took over partial ownership in the 1930s, and
ran the business for three generations, ending with Greg Barrick.

As a boy, Greg Barrick grew up running errands for the funeral
parlor, and helping with the funeral services hosted by bereaved
families and friends.

He took to it, his wife said, and became certified in prepping the
bodies: giving their faces one last peaceful look for the mourners
to see, as they glimpsed into the caskets of loved ones.

"My husband actually likes the business," said Llynore Barrick,
who helped her husband with the business for more than two
decades. "He just felt that he really had a calling in it. His
parents were very proud of him because he really took to it, and I
don't think there was so much of a death issue. It was really more
of an urgency to help the family. He just wanted the church
services to be beautiful."

The business took a toll.

The Barricks responded to calls from recently bereaved families
24/7.

Eventually, business started to slow down.

"Less and less people remembered the old days," Llynore Barrick
said. "They didn't understand that family service meant something
personal to families running small business."

As one of the two independently owned funeral parlors left in
town, with an increasingly dilapidated building, the pressure
became too much.

Greg took a job as funeral director for Weddle Funeral Services in
Salem.

Starbucks

Wadsworth Development Group project manager Parker Robertson said
the construction timeline is back on track.

Starbucks signed a lease with the developers in June to move into
a new 1,900-square-foot building the company has plans to raise on
the site.

The developers still have a bid out for the construction company,
but anticipate site work should cost upwards of $600,000, bringing
the project to a nearly $1.2 million price tag.

"We're trying to keep to a budget," said Robertson.

Despite delays, they are hoping to start construction in
September.

If all goes according to plan, come December customers will be
picking up cups of coffee via a drive-through lane.

"It's a tight time frame, and (Starbucks) really likes the site,
and we really like the site as well," Robertson said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Compensation Claims Could Be Denied
----------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Watson, writing for The Courier, reported that plans that
could deny asbestos-related cancer sufferers compensation from
employers have been branded a disgrace by the founder of a Fife
charity.

Julie MacDougall said that plans by Companies House that could see
details of defunct businesses deleted after six years could deny
justice to anybody suffering from life-threatening conditions
contracted in the workplace.

Ms MacDougall, the daughter of former Central Fife MP John
MacDougall, has called on the government agency to maintain its
database, which currently keeps business information for 20 years
after dissolution.

Having founded the John MacDougall Mesothelioma Trust following
her father's death from the condition in 2008, she said that
workers could be denied justice if the plans were passed.

"It is simply a disgrace that Companies House wish to delete these
crucial records after 6 years.

"Why has it become so important to do this now?

"Sadly we know mesothelioma deaths have not yet reached their
peak, therefore these vital records should be left open and
transparent so the companies who are responsible can be held to
account for their negligence which has left families in utter
devastation.

"The information held in these records is potentially the only
form of justice that may be offered to victims and their families.

"The government has a duty to ensure Companies House retain these
records. Workers and their families at the very least deserve some
form of justice"

Mesothelioma is a form of cancer that develops in the lining that
covers some of the body's organs.

It has been linked to asbestos exposure and more than 2,600 people
in the UK are diagnosed with the condition every year.

Aged 60, Mr MacDougall passed away in 2008 following a long battle
with mesothelioma, having worked in the shipyards before entering
politics.

Since then, Ms MacDougall has campaigned for increased research in
to the illness, which has proven hard to treat.

Neil Sugarman, president of the Association of Personal Injury
Lawyers, has also voiced his concerns by the plans, adding:
"Victims of asbestos-related disease mesothelioma are dying
because of exposure at work as far back as the 1980's," he said.

"Some of those companies who exposed their employees to asbestos
are now likely dissolved and the records would be deleted under
the plans.

"Without a record of the original company entity, workers and
their families may never see justice be served."

A Companies House spokesperson confirmed that a review would
consider the retention period for all UK business records.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: German Asbestos Workers to Get CT Exams
--------------------------------------------------------
German researchers say high-risk asbestos workers now have access
to low-dose CT exams for detecting early signs of asbestos-related
diseases like mesothelioma. Surviving Mesothelioma has just posted
details of the article. Click here to read it now.

According to the article's authors, the decision of the German
statutory accident insurance to cover low-dose CT exams for
asbestos workers was based on the findings of the National Lung
Screening Trial. That study found that CT exams in heavy smokers
lowered the risk of death from lung cancer.

"These results...were pivotal as the German statutory accident
insurance (DGUV) decided to provide LDCT as a special occupational
medical examination for workers previously exposed to asbestos and
with a particularly high risk for developing lung cancer," writes
Dr. Karina Hofmann-Preiss, of the Institute for Diagnostic and
Therapeutic Imaging in Erlangen.

The article, published in the German journal Radiologe, says the
number of German asbestos workers diagnosed with asbestos-diseases
like malignant mesothelioma and lung cancer is rising in spite of
the 1993 asbestos ban.

"Mesothelioma's long latency period means that, even though
Germany has banned asbestos for more than two decades, workers
exposed before that time are still at risk," says Alex Strauss,
Managing Editor of Surviving Mesothelioma. "The new coverage for
LDCT exams is potentially life-saving news for these workers."

To read more about CT screening of asbestos workers and its
potential impact on mesothelioma survival, see Low-Dose CT May
Improve Mesothelioma Survival Odds for German Workers, now
available on the Surviving Mesothelioma website.

Hofmann-Preiss, K and Rehbock, B, "Early recognition of lung
cancer in workers occupationally exposed to asbestos", August 8,
2016, Radiologe, Epub ahead of print,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27502004

For nearly ten years, Surviving Mesothelioma has brought readers
the most important and ground-breaking news on the causes,
diagnosis and treatment of mesothelioma. All Surviving
Mesothelioma news is gathered and reported directly from the peer-
reviewed medical literature. Written for patients and their loved
ones, Surviving Mesothelioma news helps families make more
informed decisions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canberra Bldgs Tested for Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------
Kirsten Lawson, writing for Canberra Times, reported that asbestos
tests are being done on three Canberra buildings, including
federal public service offices, after the discovery that building
materials were supplied by a company linked with asbestos finds in
Perth and Brisbane.

Work Safety Commissioner Greg Jones said his inspectors had spoken
at length to Yuanda, the company reported to have supplied
Chinese-sourced asbestos-containing roof panels to the Perth
children's hospital and in metal skirting in a government building
in Brisbane.

Yuanda has supplied three buildings in Canberra -- the Sirius
building occupied by federal health department staff in Woden, the
City West Offices occupied by federal education department staff
in the city, and a building at section 54 in Kingston.

The alert was raised by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and
Engineering Union, whose ACT secretary Dean Hall said asbestos
imports from China were another Fluffy disaster in the making.

The free-trade environment would leave Australia wide open to
asbestos-contaminated products from China, India and other
countries where they were still legal. Asbestos was contained in
imported house cornices, in wallboard and ceiling board, without
sufficient checks, he said.

"It's laced through a lot of products. It's a major concern, and
the question is how is the authority and how is the government
going to protect Canberrans and Australians from asbestos and
other products," Mr Hall said.

Mr Jones said Yuanda imported a range of building products and
asbestos had so far been found in only a particular type of
product that had not, according to preliminary information, been
used in the Canberra buildings. But the company was organising to
have its materials in the three buildings independently tested.
Tests had been done on one, with results expected next week.

Mr Jones said one of the products used in Canberra was a sealant
around windows. Any asbestos would be bonded asbestos, not the
loose Mr Fluffy-type asbestos that sparked the mass buyback and
demolition of Canberra homes.

The City West Offices were built by Cimic, finished in 2010. Cimic
declined to answer any questions about Yuanda's supply of
materials or what was being done to check the building.

The Sirius building in Woden was built by the Doma Group, whose
general manager of development, Gavin Edgar, said the first the
company had heard of the issue was when Yuanda had emailed. The
company had told Doma the materials used in Canberra were not the
same as those found to contain asbestos interstate, he said.

"It was news to us. Are we comforted by it? I don't know yet,. We
are going to understand the background to the incident then make
contact with the new owners," he said.

The building was now owned by Mirvac.

Yuanda did not respond to a request for comment.

In July, Yuanda told the ABC the contaminated product had been
supplied to the firm's China-based manufacturing plant, and had
unknowingly been used only on the Brisbane and Perth projects. The
supplier had provided a fraudulent test certificate saying they
were asbestos free, the company said, adding it would no longer
accept test certificates from China directly, instead having
products tested in Australia.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup in Johnson Controls Debris To Start
------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Schneider, writing for Goshen News, reported that a public
hearing has been set to inform city residents about the status of
piles of debris tainted with asbestos at the former Johnson
Controls factory site, 1302 E. Monroe St.

Goshen Mayor Jeremy Stutsman said cleanup of the debris will begin
Aug. 25 and last about 12 weeks.

"The EPA has been extremely proactive in dealing with the
contamination found at this site" said Mayor Stutsman. "We have
asked them to keep the community informed about the clean-up
process and they have agreed to hold an open house to answer
questions. The goal for the open house is to be completely
transparent so the public is fully informed about clean-up
activities."

The open house will be held at Schrock Pavilion in Shanklin Park,
411 W. Plymouth Ave. from 3 to 7 p.m. Stutsman said EPA officials
will be on hand to meet with residents.

Piles of debris from the demolition of the former factory building
and office have been left on the site, which is owned by TOCON
Holdings.

The asbestos contamination came to light in February when a report
about the debris was filed as part of federal lawsuits against
TOCON Holdings. The lawsuits were filed by two groups of residents
living around the factory site and who are seeking an order for
the company to cleanup contaminated groundwater.

The EPA responded quickly to the report of asbestos and the EPA
had the piles of debris covered with plastic and tarps so snow and
rain would not wash the cancer-causing material out of the debris.

Stutsman said EPA testing has confirmed the presence of asbestos
on the site.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Decision Not Good for Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------
James Beck, Esq. -- jmbeck@reedsmith.com -- at Reed Smith, in an
article for JD Supra Business Advisor, wrote that the recent
decision of the New York Court of Appeals in In re New York City
Asbestos Litigation, ___ N.E.3d ___, 2016 WL 3495191 (N.Y. June
28, 2016) ("NYCAL"), was not too good for asbestos defendants --
as it permitted, under certain circumstances, non-manufacturers to
be sued for failure to warn of a risk that the product they
manufactured didn't have (exposure to asbestos), where they
"encourage[ed]" the use of products containing that risk with
their products and thereby benefitted economically:

   [A] manufacturer's duty to warn of combined use of its product
with another product depends in part on whether the manufacturer's
product can function without the other product, as it would be
unfair to allow a manufacturer to avoid the minimal cost of
including a warning about the perils of the joint use of the
products when the manufacturer knows that the combined use is both
necessary and dangerous. And, the justification for a duty to warn
becomes particularly strong if the manufacturer intends that
customers engage in the hazardous combined use of the products at
issue.

            *          *          *          *

   [W]here a manufacturer creates a product that cannot be used
without another product as a result of the design of the product,
the mechanics of the product or the absence of economically
feasible alternative means of enabling the product to function as
intended, the manufacturer has a substantial, albeit indirect,
role in placing the third-party product in the stream of commerce.
. . .  Specifically, when the manufacturer produces a product that
requires another product to function, the manufacturer naturally
opens up a profitable market for that essential component, thereby
encouraging the other company to make that related product and
place it in the stream of commerce.

NYCAL, 2016 WL 3495191, at *__ (for some reason there is no
Westlaw star paging at the moment).  This opinion is very bad news
for the affected companies, who are now sucked into the maw of
interminable asbestos litigation on the basis of products they
didn't even make, but it's not bad at all for our prescription
medical product manufacturer clients.

Here's why.

First, the court's rationale for recognizing a limited duty to
warn of the risks of other manufacturer's products excludes any
possibility of innovator liability in New York.  That theory (that
innovator companies can be liable for inadequate generic drug
warnings) was pretty darn dead already in New York. See In re
Darvocet, Darvon, & Propoxyphene Products Liability Litigation,
756 F.3d 917, 949 (6th Cir. 2014) (applying New York law); Goldych
v. Eli Lilly & Co., 2006 WL 2038436, at *3-8 (N.D.N.Y. July 19,
2006); Weese v. Pfizer, Inc., 2013 WL 5691993, at *2 (Sup. N.Y.
Co. Oct. 8, 2013) -- all rejecting innovator liability under New
York law.  However, innovator liability is also 100% contrary to
the economic rationale followed by the court in NYCAL.

In the case of generic drug labeling, the "same" FDA-approved
branded labeling is mandated for generic drugs due to operation of
federal law, as discussed in PLIVA v. Mensing, 564 U.S. 604, 612-
13 (2011) (analyzing 21 U.S.C. Section 355(j)(2)(A)(v) and
355(j)(4)(G)).  In this regard, unlike NYCAL, branded drug
companies possess no "intent" to "encourage" anything -- least of
all that their products be driven off the market by cheaper
generic products.  The only intent is that of Congress.  Ditto the
economic rationale that NYCAL found persuasive, that the non-
manufacturer defendant was "open[ing] up a profitable market for
[an] essential component" required for the operation of its own
product, 2016 WL 3495191, at *__, is thus entirely inapplicable.
The opposite is true in innovator liability cases.  Generic drugs
are not used in in conjunction with innovator drugs, but rather
replace them.  An innovator drug manufacturer receives no direct
or indirect economic benefit from having an identically labelled
generic product substituted for its branded medication.

The Court of Appeals in NYCAL also emphasized that its "sensibly
confined" duty would have "a balanced and manageable economic
impact" and would "not impose[] extreme or unreasonable financial
liability on manufacturers" or "saddle [them] with an untenable
financial burden."  2016 WL 3495191, at *__.  As we've pointed out
from the outset, innovator liability is just the opposite --
potentially imposing liability in perpetuity (even after an
innovator leaves the market) upon innovator manufacturers for
generic drugs' 80%+ of the market, although innovator
manufacturers neither profit from generic sales nor can in any way
control how generic manufacturers make or market their products.

Thus, both the liability test and the underlying jurisprudential
principles in NYCAL are utterly incompatible with New York ever
adopting innovator liability.  So, like Schrodinger's cat (Erwin
Schrodinger was born on this date, back in 1887), non-manufacturer
failure-to-warn liability is both alive (in asbestos) and dead (as
to innovator liability) under New York law.

Second, there was also a warning causation issue in NYCAL, about
whether under New York law juries should be instructed with a pro-
plaintiff presumption, recognized in some states in inadequate
warning cases, that if a plaintiff had received some hypothetical
"adequate" warning s/he would have heeded it.  We've already
discussed in depth the morass that courts trying to apply New York
law had made on the heeding presumption question in the absence of
any definitive guidance from the Court of Appeals.  We're pleased
to point out that some guidance has been provided in NYCAL.
Although the court found that existence, or not, of a heeding
presumption had been waived because the defendant "did not raise
this argument" at trial, it did not stop there.  2016 WL 3495191,
at *__.  Rather, the Court strongly suggested that no heeding
presumption existed in New York and that traditional causation
principles applied in product liability warning cases:

   [Defendant's] current complaint about the court's instructions
on the presumption is unpreserved. Of course, our rejection of
[defendant's] claim on preservation grounds should not be taken as
an acceptance or rejection of the trial court's heeding
instructions on the merits, and regardless of the propriety of
those instructions, trial courts must continue to ensure that
their jury instructions honor the principle that the burden of
proving proximate causation, which in a case like this one
includes the burden of demonstrating that the injured party would
have heeded warnings, falls squarely on plaintiffs.

Id. at *__ (emphasis added).  For this proposition the court cited
Sosna v. American Home Products, 748 N.Y.S.2d 548 (N.Y.A.D. 2002).
Sosna just happens to be -- as we discussed in our prior post --
the leading case in New York rejecting the existence of any
heeding presumption.

Thus, although the court's observation in NYCAL on the heeding
presumption is dictum (due to waiver), that the court saw fit to
go out of its way to reiterate that the burden of proving warning
causation "falls squarely on plaintiffs" provides strong guidance
to to courts going forward that no heeding presumption exists in
New York.

For these two reasons, unlike asbestos defendants, manufacturers
of prescription medical products are better off in New York
product liability litigation after the Court of Appeals decision
in NYCAL.



                            *********

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  * * *