CAR_Public/160826.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, August 26, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 171




                            Headlines


ADF MIDATLANTIC: Bid to Dismiss "Keim" Suit Denied
AIR MILES: Faces Complaints Over Travel Rewards Program
ALABAMA, USA: Dunn Seeks Cert. of Prisoners Class and Subclasses
ALL HOME: Certification of Three Classes Sought in Able Home Suit
ALL STAR AMUSEMENT: Carnival Workers File Wage Theft Class Action

ALLIANZ ASSET: Must Face Class Action Over Mutual Fund Fees
ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY: Settlement in "Dynabursky" Case Granted
ALLSTATE CORP: Appellate Court Affirms Trial Court's Judgment
AM PIZZA: Former Pizza Drivers' Suit Wins Class Certification
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Court Dismisses "Smith" Wage Suit

AMERICAN LANGUAGE: Appeal Filed From Ruling in "Volpe" Class Suit
ANASTASIOS BELESIS: Marcus Seeks Payment From John Thomas Deal
AUSTRALIA: Williamtown RAAF Base Class Action Obtains Funding
AUTOVEST LLC: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Harden" Suit
AUTOZONE INC: Rest-Break Case Can't Proceed as Class Action

AVNET INC: Extra Amount Given to Class Members in "Traylor" Suit
BALTIMORE, MD: To Reform Police Department Racist Policies
BANK OF AMERICA: Weaver Seeks Review of Verdict in "Bodnar" Suit
BAYLOR COLLEGE: Aguocha-Ohakweh Seeks Certification of Class
BIOMET INC: Leave to Appeal Class Certification Ruling Denied

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Settles MINI Cooper Owners' Class Action
CAH ACQUISITION: Court Certifies Class in "Hutson" Suit
CANADA: FCS Faces $75-Mil. Data Breach Class Action
CANADA: Face Immigrant Detainees Human Rights Class Action
CAPITAL ONE: Certification of Class Sought in "Hedman" Suit

CAREFIRST BLUECROSS: Judge Tosses Data Breach Class Action
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Gas Royalty Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action
CHEVRON CORP: Wins Bid to Uncover Identity of Class Action Funder
CHILI'S GRILL: Food Servers File Minimum-Wage Class Action
CLIFFS NATURAL: Brown Appeals From Ruling in Treasury Class Suit

COMMONWEALTH LAND: Class Certification Bid in "Coleman" Denied
CONAGRA FOODS: Grant of Summary Judgment in "Garrison" Affirmed
CONAIR CORP: Non-Calif. Individual Claims in "Czuchaj" Severed
CONTRA COSTA, CA: Judge Denies Temporary Restraining Order
CORDIS CORP: CAFA Hearing in "Dunson" Suit Moved to Sept. 8

CREDIT ONE: Court Sends AD Class Suit to Arbitration
CSR REPS: State Prisoner May Amend Complaint
CYNOSURE INC: LDGP's Bid to Certify Class Denied as Premature
DELL INC: Faces Shareholder Class Actions Over EMC Merger
DES MOINES REGISTER: Epstein Seeks to Certify Class of Reporters

DIRECTV: Faces Class Action Over Contract Cancellation Fees
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Class Action Waiver Not Enforceable, Judge Rules
DUKE UNIVERSITY: Employees File Class Action Over Retirement Plan
DUPONT: Lawyer Says Health Dep't Must Not Downplay PFOA Risks
EXPRESS MEDICAL: Seeks Review of Ruling in "LaCurtis" Class Suit

FACEBOOK INC: Class Action Settlement Puts Teens' Privacy at Risk
FIDO: Court Allows Class Action Over Roaming Fees to Proceed
GC SERVICES: FDCPA Class Certification Sought in "Dickens" Suit
GENERAL MILLS: Court Narrows Claims in "Coe" Suit
HARLEY-DAVIDSON INC: Settles Emissions Case for $15 Million

HEALEON MEDICAL: Cert. Bid in Physicians Suit Under Advisement
HSBC FINANCE: Can Put "Without Prejudice Letter" Before Court
HUMANA INC: Kinkead Seeks Conditional Certification of FLSA Class
HURONIA REGIONAL: Court Suggests Hiring New Lawyer for Settlement
IDENTIV INC: Court Dismisses "Rok" Securities Fraud Suit

ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS: Court Narrows Claims in "Tawil" Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces 13 Suits Over Levaquin Drug
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Settles Shareholder Suit Over Tyco Merger
JPMORGAN CHASE: Dismissal of RICO Claim in "Dusek" Suit Affirmed
JULIA PLACE: Court Won't Reconsider July 19 Order in "Reyes" Suit

LENDINGCLUB CORP: WPERP Appointed as Lead Counsel
LEPRINO FOODS: Judge Won't Dismiss "Finder" Suit
LINC ENERGY: Farmer Seeks Access to Insurance Policy for Lawsuit
LINCARE INC: Bid for Class Certification in "Culley" Suit Granted
LITTLE INDIA: Appeals From S.D.N.Y. Ruling in "Torralba" Suit

LLOYD'S REGISTER: Fullinwider Seeks Cert. of Class of Engineers
LOS ANGELES, CA: Faces Civil Rights Suits Over Police Shootings
LOS ANGELES, CA: Sued Over Suspension of Poor Drivers' Licenses
LYFT INC: Judge Approves Arbitration and Dismisses "Bekele" Suit
M&M ASPHALT: Bid to Certify Class in "Dyer" Suit Granted in Part

MAINE FISH: Court Certifies Class of Servers in "Dineen" Suit
MAJOR LEAGUE: Baseball Players Sue Over Minimum Wage Violations
MARIETTA MEMORIAL: Court Certifies Nurses Class in "Myers" Suit
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE: Employees Sue Over Retirement Funds
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE: Schlichter Bogard Files Class Action

MCDONALD'S CORP: Dec. 5 Jury Trial Scheduled in Wage Class Action
MDL 2437: Judge Directs Filing of Second Amended Class Complaint
MEDIA MIX 365: Faces Class Action Over Telemarketing Calls
MICHAELS STORES: Certification of Class Sought in "Rowe" Suit
MIDLAND CREDIT: Class Certification Sought in "Bentley" Suit

MILLENNIUM TOWER: Homeowners File $500-Mil. Class Action
MILWAUKEE, WI: Scott Walker Supporter Files Class Action v. DA
MONSANTO COMPANY: Court Narrows Claims in Princeton Suit
MULTI CABLE: Luviano Seeks Certification of Technicians Class
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Ex-Stanford Player Files Class Action

NAT'L FOOTBALL: Attempts to Defeat Sunday Ticket Class Action
NATURE'S WAY: Court Narrows Claims in "Hunter" Suit
NCB MANAGEMENT: Class Certification Sought in "Olson" Case
NESTLE PURINA: Court Narrows Claims in "Kacocha" Suit
NEW PRIME: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Wage Class Action

NEW YORK: Court Narrows Claims in Suit Over Occupy Wall Street
NEW YORK: Body Camera Program Still in Procurement Phase
NIANTIC INC: Faces Pokemon Go Privacy Class Action in Alberta
NIKE RETAIL: Employees Class Certified in "Rodriguez" Suit
NORTH CAROLINA: Spake, et al. Seek to Certify Inmates Class

NOVANT HEALTH: Settles Class Action Over Retirement Plan Fees
ONSITE HEALTHCARE: Class Certification Sought in Able Home Suit
PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Motion for Leave to File Proof of Claim Okayed
PAYNE & KELLER: Nullity Suit Barred by Peremption, Court Says
PIZZATI ENTERPRISES: Nieto Seeks Certification of FLSA Class

POLICE BENEVOLENT: Slager's Attorney Urges Officers to Join Suit
PORTLAND SPECIALTY: Workers File Wage Theft Class Action
PUNA GEOTHERMAL: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Gas Release
RESIDENTIAL CREDIT: Court Narrows Claims in "Sekula" Suit
ROBERT HALF: Attorneys Can Collect Percentage-Based Fees

SCHLUMBERGER TECH: Levy Seeks Cert. of Technical Specialist Class
SERENITY TRANSPORTATION: Group of Drivers File Class Action
SIMILASAN: Court Tosses Homeopathic Class Action Settlement
SLM STAFFING: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in "White" Suit
ST FRANCIS MEDICAL: Summary Judgment in "Rabun" Suit Reversed

ST. LOUIS, MO: Faces Class Action Over "Debtors' Prisons" System
STAAR SURGICAL: Certification of Class Sought in "Todd" Suit
STARBUCKS CORP: Status Hearing in "Pincus" Suit Set for Oct. 28
STARBUCKS: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Ice on Cold Beverages
SYNTHES: Settles Sales Consultants' Class Action for $5 Million

TENNESSEE: Court Narrows Defendants in "Shabazz" Suit
TENNESSEE VALLEY: 6th Cir. Rules on Suit Over COLA Benefits
TGI FRIDAY'S: Court to Consider Drink Price Class Action Status
TIME WARNER: Judge Dismisses Groshek Privacy Class Action
TORONTO-DOMINION: Appeals Court Authorizes HELOC Class Action

TRINITY HEALTH: To Settle Pension Fund Class Actions for $75 Mil.
TRS RECOVERY: Lakkard Seeks Class Certification in Wisconsin Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Cullinane Appeals D. Mass. Ruling to 1st Cir.
UNITED SERVICES: Attorneys Appeal Reprimands in Class Action
URBAN SETTLEMENT: 10th Cir. Reinstates "George" RICO Suit

VOLKSWAGEN AG: Must Compensate Australian Car Owners, Lawyers Say
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: More Than 70 Federal Lawsuits Pending in U.S.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: 9th Circuit May Reverse Arbitration Ruling
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Rejects $84MM Class Action Settlement
UNITED STATES: County's Suit over Federal Reimbursements Tossed

UNITED STATES: Cherokee Indians Tribe to Receive Settlement Funds
UNITED STATES: Loses Bid to Dismiss CMA's Class Action
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Class Cert. Bid in Cops' Suit Nixed
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Among Sued Over Retirement Plan Fees
VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Exorbitant Retirement Plan Fees

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Protective Order Issued on 2.0 Liter Settlement
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Fleshman Can't Intervene, Court Says
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Plaintiffs Lawyers' Fees Not to Exceed $324 Mil.
WALGREENS BOOTS: 7th Circuit Tosses Shareholder Settlement
WARREN RESOURCES: Files Securities Fraud Class Action in Colorado

WIDENER UNIVERSITY: Law Grads Lose Bid to Overturn Class Denial
YALE UNIVERSITY: Employees Sue Over High Retirement Fund Fees
ZAFGEN INC: Judge Tosses Drug Trial Fraud Class Action

* Class Action Possible Tool to Solve Administrative Backlog
* Defense Bar Seeks Review of Plaintiff-Friendly Jury Charges
* Italian Class Action Law Ineffective Despite Amendment
* Lawyers Call for Bipartisan Backing of Class Action Laws
* New Rules Target "Professional Objectors" in Class Actions


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gov't Partially Loses Recon Bid in "Dippolito"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. App. Flips Dismissal of Hoffman's Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Bid to Remand "Hovsepian"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Rules on Libery Allocation Method Dispute
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Win Summary Judgment in "Winhauer"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Borgwarner Continues to Defend Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Continues to Defend Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Had 34,790 Pending Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Had 1,200 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Had 79 Cases at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus Had $6.7MM Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Had 11,800 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Chattanooga Library Ceiling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Border Security Blamed for SA Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Unit of Yuanda Facing Asbestos Probe

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liverpool Council Workers Exposed to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Preparation Impacts Mesothelioma Risk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Bricklawyer Dies After Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Exposure Linked to Autoimmune Diseases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: York Victims' Families Seek Help from Colleagues

ASBESTOS UPDATE: P. Browder Co-Chairs 2016 Litigation Conference
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teaticket School Opening Due to Asbestos Find
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Manufacturer Wins Summary Judgment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Official Accepts Bribes to Ignore Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bags of Asbestos Dumped Near Children's Park

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Seek Summary Judgment in "Napoli"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Cir. Flips Dismissal of Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Victim Has Only Months to Live


                            *********


ADF MIDATLANTIC: Bid to Dismiss "Keim" Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BRIAN KEIM, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ADF
MIDATLANTIC, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 12-80577-CIV-MARRA (S.D. Fla.), Judge Kenneth
A. Marra denied the motion filed by the defendants, ADF
MidAtlantic, LLC, ADF Pizza I, LLC, and ADF PA, LLC, to dismiss
for lack of personal jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of Judge Marra's August 10, 2016 opinion and
order is available at https://is.gd/CfqbPG from Leagle.com.

Brian Keim, a Florida resident filed the class-action lawsuit
against Pizza Hut, Inc. and the ADF Companies alleging violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) after he began
receiving unwanted text messages containing Pizza Hut
advertisements from text-message marketing companies, Songwhale,
LLC and Cellit, LLC.  The ADF Companies moved to dismiss for lack
of personal jurisdiction.

Brian Keim, Plaintiff, represented by Amy L. Wells, Keogh Law,
LTD,Katherine Bowen, Keogh Law, LTD, pro hac vice, Patrick
Christopher Crotty, The Law Office of Scott D. Owens & Scott David
Owens, SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A..

ADF Midatlantic, LLC, American Huts, Inc., ADF Pizza I, LLC, ADF
PA, LLC, Defendants, represented by David S. Almeida --
dalmeida@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullins, Richter &
Hampton, LLP, David V. King, King & Chaves, LLC & Mark S. Eisen
-- meisen@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter &
Hampton LLP, pro hac vice.

Pizza Hut, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark S. Eisen,
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, pro hac vice & David V.
King, King & Chaves, LLC.


AIR MILES: Faces Complaints Over Travel Rewards Program
-------------------------------------------------------
Sophia Harris, writing for CBC News, reports that there's no
question that Air Miles is facing a public relations battle.

As customers rush to redeem their miles before the looming expiry
date, many continue to be frustrated with the program --
complaining about everything from the expiry date itself to
limited rewards options for aging miles.

"I'm just going to throw the card away," Toronto Air Miles
collector John MacKenzie told CBC News, after failing to find a
satisfactory way to use up his points.

This isn't the first time an expiry rule has generated a consumer
backlash.  In 2013, Aeroplan backtracked on a plan to implement an
expiry date for all points following customer complaints.

The travel rewards program is also facing two lawsuits, one a
class action, over a separate expiry rule it didn't nix.

One possible solution to avoid such customer furor in the future
would be for rewards programs to adopt clearly laid out industry-
wide rules, especially for when they slap on an expiry date.

"Put it in bold print, really tell people what they're possibly
facing," advised Lindsay Meredith, a marketing professor at Simon
Fraser University.  "And then if they want to play under those
rules, fine, they've been forewarned."

Canada's Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) has been calling
for industry-wide guidelines for rewards programs since 2013.

"This is a very hodgepodge, hit and miss kind of area," said
PIAC's Jonathan Bishop.  "There's no certainty for the consumer."

PIAC would also like to see an independent complaints commission
that consumers can turn to when they have beefs about their
rewards program.

Establishing industry standards would benefit not only consumers,
but could also help loyalty programs keep current customers and
entice new members.

"Why the hell would they start using your product when it looks
like there's big trouble trying to play the game with them?" asked
professor Meredith.

Changing the rules of the game

PIAC would like to see blanket guidelines for notifying customers
when rewards programs change their policies, such as devaluing the
points customers earn or introducing an expiry date.

"There's no rules around a notice period," Mr. Bishop said.

Air Miles says it gave customers plenty of notice that miles older
than five years would start expiring in 2017.  In late 2011, it
noted the coming change near the bottom of a news release about a
new cash rewards program.

Since then, it has posted information online for customers.  "We
have made expiry information very easy to find on our website,"
spokeswoman Natasha Lasiuk said in an email in July.

Until recently, collectors had to navigate the website's FAQ
section to learn details.

In late July, Air Miles sent an email to customers warning about
the coming expiry date.  It also now posts the news in a pop-up
message on its site.  The move followed stories by CBC News about
the rule change and customer frustrations.

Aeroplan battles lawsuits

Aeroplan is facing two lawsuits over a change to its expiry rules.

One is a class action where more than 7,000 members have signed on
across Canada and the second was launched by a single customer in
B.C.

In late 2006, Aeroplan announced that starting July 1, 2007,
members would lose all their miles if they didn't add or redeem
points at least once over 12 months.  Expired accounts could be
reinstated for a fee.

The lawsuits allege the rule change was a breach of contract and
that customers didn't receive adequate notice.

Mississauga Aeroplan customer Steve Woloshyn says he joined the
class action after 365,000 points were wiped from his account due
to 12 months of inactivity.

"I was shocked," said Mr. Woloshyn, who had been saving his miles
to take his wife to Australia and says he didn't know they were at
risk of expiring.  "It was like somebody deflated my balloon."

Aeroplan's owner, Aimia, says it believes it has strong arguments
to get the class action dismissed.

"It has always been our aim to ensure that Aeroplan's terms and
conditions remain not only fair but are clear to members," Aimia
spokeswoman Christa Poole said in an email to CBC News.

"Expiry policies are very common in the loyalty and frequent flyer
industries."

Even so, newly introduced ones continue to outrage many customers,
especially if they learned the news late in the game. But if there
was a clear, standard policy for how members must be notified,
perhaps companies could avoid some of that outrage and messy legal
battles.

Rules of engagement

Air Miles is also facing a customer backlash after some collectors
compared their membership accounts and discovered the company
makes different rewards available to different customers.

"I have never felt so cheated by a company," said Ashlea Langevin
of Ottawa.

Air Miles told CBC News it bases rewards selections on a
collector's past purchases and level of engagement with the
program.  The company contends this form of "personalization" has
become standard industry practice.

But perhaps it should also be standard industry practice to reveal
this information to customers when they choose their rewards.  CBC
continues to receive angry emails from collectors, including one
who told us, "This is despicable."

Sure, rewards programs are under no obligation to establish
industry-wide standards.  But, as PIAC points out, the effort
could wind up a win-win situation where rewards programs generate
more customer loyalty.

"The more confident consumers are" in understanding the rules of
the game, said Mr. Bishop, "the more confident they are to
participate in the program."


ALABAMA, USA: Dunn Seeks Cert. of Prisoners Class and Subclasses
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled JOSHUA DUNN, et al. v.
JEFFERSON DUNN, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the
Alabama Department of Corrections, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00601-
MHT-TFM (M.D. Ala.), ask for an order certifying them to represent
a general class of:

     "all prisoners in the custody of ADOC who have or will in
      the future have a serious medical condition and are now, or
      will in the future be, subject to Defendants' health care
      policies and practices" by virtue of serious medical,
      dental, or mental health needs.

In addition, the Plaintiffs seek certification of two subclasses:

     (a) A "Dental Subclass" consisting of "all persons with
         serious dental conditions who are now, or will in the
         future be, subject to defendants' dental care policies
         and practices at ADOC facilities," to be represented by
         Plaintiffs Richard Businelle, Robert Dillard, Richard
         Terrell, and William Sullivan.

     (b) A "Mental Health Subclass" consisting of "all persons
         with a serious mental health disorder or illness who are
         now, or will in the future be, subject to defendants'
         mental health care policies and practices in ADOC
         facilities and policies and practices relating to the
         treatment of persons with disabilities," to be
         represented by Plaintiffs Joshua Dunn, Edward Braggs,
         Quang Bui, Richard Businelle, Howard Carter, Robert
         Dillard, Daletrick Hardy, Sylvester Hartley, Christopher
         Jackson, Brandon Johnson, Roger McCoy, Kenneth Moncrief,
         Leviticus Pruitt, Richard Terrell, Jamie Wallace, and
         Robert "Myniasha" Williams.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Tt1d5wuI

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rhonda Brownstein, Esq.
          Maria V. Morris, Esq.
          Ebony G. Howard, Esq.
          Latasha L. McCrary, Esq.
          Brooke Menschel, Esq.
          Jaqueline Aranda Osorno, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAWCENTER
          400 Washington Avenue
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 956-8200
          Facsimile: (334) 956-8481
          E-mail: rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org
                  maria.morris@splcenter.org
                  ebony.howard@splcenter.org
                  latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org
                  brooke.menschel@splcenter.org
                  jaqueline.aranda@splcenter.org

               - and -

          Miriam Haskell, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          P.O. Box 370037
          Miami, FL 33137
          Telephone: (786) 347-2056
          Facsimile: (786) 237-2949
          E-mail: miriam.haskell@splcenter.org

               - and -

          Eunice Cho, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          1989 College Avenue NE
          Atlanta, GA 30317
          Telephone: (404) 221-5842
          Facsimile: (404) 221-5857
          E-mail: eunice.cho@splcenter.org

               - and -

          William Van Der Pol, Jr., Esq.
          J. Patrick Hackney, Esq.
          Glenn N. Baxter, Esq.
          ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY PROGRAM
          Box 870395
          Tuscaloosa, AL 35487
          Telephone: (205) 348-4928
          Facsimile: (205) 348-3909
          E-mail: wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu
                  jphackney@adap.ua.edu
                  gnbaxter@adap.ua.edu

               - and -

          William G. Somerville, III, Esq.
          Andrew P. Walsh, Esq.
          Dennis Nabors, Esq.
          Patricia Clotfelter, Esq.
          Lisa W. Borden, Esq.
          BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ PC
          420 20th Street North, Suite 1400
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 328-0480
          Facsimile: (205) 322-8007
          E-mail: wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com
                  awalsh@bakerdonelson.com
                  dnabors@bakerdonelson.com
                  pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com
                  lborden@bakerdonelson.com

               - and -

          Gregory M. Zarzaur, Esq.
          Anil A. Mujumdar, Esq.
          Diandra S. Debrosse, Esq.
          ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE
          2332 2nd Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 983-7985
          Facsimile: (888) 505-0523
          E-mail: gregory@zarzaur.com
                  anil@zarzaur.com
                  diandra@zarzaur.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Anne Hill, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Sees, Esq.
          Joseph G. Stewart, Jr., Esq.
          ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
          LEGAL DIVISION
          301 South Ripley Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (256) 353-3885
          E-mail: anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov
                  Elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov
                  joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov


ALL HOME: Certification of Three Classes Sought in Able Home Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Able Home Health, LLC, asks the Court to enter an order
determining that the action captioned ABLE HOME HEALTH, LLC, on
behalf of plaintiff and the class members defined herein v. ALL
HOME MEDICAL SUPPLY CO., and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-
08196 (N.D. Ill.), may proceed as a class action against the
Defendants.  The Plaintiff defines the classes as:

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

Able Home 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=4pyN7pav

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Heather A. 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


ALL STAR AMUSEMENT: Carnival Workers File Wage Theft Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexia Elejalde-Ruiz, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that
shortly after taking a job as a ride operator with a traveling
carnival company, John Thompson noticed his paycheck looked thin
as cotton candy.

Mr. Thompson, a retired security guard from Florida, said long
days at the carnival sometimes stretched 12 hours during normal
operating hours and even more when workers had to set up and break
down the rides at the start and end of each city's tour. But his
weekly paycheck routinely came in between $350 to $400, which
"didn't look right."

Mr. Thompson, who started working for Hoffman Estates-based All
Star Amusement, a subsidiary of carnival giant North American
Midway Entertainment, in 2013, didn't know what to do at first. He
enjoyed the job, felt grateful to be making a living and wondered
if his wage would improve with experience.

But last year he and his co-workers got together to review their
pay numbers, and came to the conclusion that they were being
stiffed.

"You're working 70, 80 hours a week and getting paid for 40, and
not getting paid overtime that you're owed," said Mr. Thompson,
50.

Mr. Thompson is one of four carnival employees who have sued All
Star Amusement, accusing it of not paying them for all the hours
they worked running and fixing rides at carnivals in Illinois,
Kentucky, Indiana and Florida.  The suit, filed in October in Cook
County Circuit Court, is seeking class-action status.

Attorney Christopher Wilmes, who is representing the workers, said
wage theft is a widespread industry practice behind the flashing
lights, squealing children and fried foods that make carnivals a
staple of hot American summers.

"Many of the workers are in a vulnerable situation because they
are coming here to work a season or two and they are not familiar
with the state and federal laws," Mr. Wilmes said.

Two of the plaintiffs are South Africans who were brought in by
All Star Amusement on temporary work visas called H-2Bs, meant for
hospitality and other nonagricultural seasonal jobs.  Like with
other temporary work visas, including the high-skill H-1Bs and
agricultural H-2As, employers wishing to bring in H-2B workers are
supposed to establish that there are not enough U.S. workers who
are able, willing, qualified and available to do the temporary
work and that their wages won't adversely affect the wages and
conditions of U.S. workers.

David Pieterse, 28, from Cape Town, heard of the carnival
opportunity from a friend.  Mr. Pieterse hoped the extra cash
would help him pay for certification courses he was taking to
become a rope access technician -- those are the workers who
dangle from buildings for construction or maintenance purposes --
and he was excited to visit the U.S.

Mr. Pieterse was among 78 workers All Star requested last year for
H-2B certification, according to an application filed with the
lawsuit.

He said he was given paperwork that showed he would earn between
$8.38 and $11.66 an hour during the 30-fair tour, depending on
which state he was working in.  He immediately noticed that his
paychecks didn't reflect all the hours he worked at the promised
rates.

"I first thought it was a mistake," said Mr. Pieterse, who is
working as a ride operator again this year for the company.  "Then
it just kept being the same thing. Then I felt that I was getting
ripped off."

North American Midway Entertainment, based in Farmland, Ind., said
it doesn't comment on pending litigation.

Since the carnival lawsuit was filed, the plaintiffs' paychecks
have started to accurately reflect their hours, Mr. Wilmes said.
But they still are seeking back pay for what he says are hundreds
of hours that went unpaid over the last few years.

Wage theft is a common complaint, mostly among low-wage workers
who often are already scraping by.  The Illinois Department of
Labor received 5,455 wage claims last year and recovered $5.3
million.  Another $1.7 million in due wages has been recovered in
the first half of this year.

Advocates say the problem is worse than that.  A 2008 report from
the Center for Urban Economic Development at the University of
Illinois at Chicago, which studied 1,140 low-wage workers in
Chicago and suburban Cook County, found that nearly half of
workers experienced at least one pay-related violation in the
previous workweek.  On average, workers lost $50 out of average
weekly earnings of $322, or 16 percent of their earnings.  Applied
to the whole population of low-wage workers in the area, that
translates to $7.3 million of lost wages a week, the study said.

In May two former Dunkin' Donuts workers in Chicago filed a
federal lawsuit against a franchisee, alleging managers didn't pay
workers for closing time duties and docked employees' paychecks
for cash register shortages without permission.

Fighting can pay off.  This summer, 18 car wash employees from New
York and New Jersey were awarded a combined $1.65 million
settlement for wage theft and emotional distress, a record
settlement for the car wash industry.

It isn't clear how much money in back wages the suing carnival
workers seek, because the carnivals in each town had different
hours and each state paid a different wage rate, plus some states
don't require seasonal amusement industry workers be paid
overtime, Mr. Wilmes said.  Messrs. Thompson and Pieterse said
there was no official record keeping of their hours, though they
said they worked all the hours the carnival was open.

During a week in 2013 when Mr. Thompson's paycheck was $347, the
Miami-Dade Youth Fair was open for 12 hours daily, which would
work out to less than $5 an hour in pay, Mr. Wilmes said.

During another week in 2014 when the carnival moved from Arlington
Heights Frontier Days to Glendale Heights Summerfest, both
festivals in Illinois, Mr. Thompson's paycheck shows he was paid
for 45 hours, but the carnival's operating hours plus breakdown
and setup time would suggest he worked 55 hours,
Mr. Wilmes said.  And his paycheck did not reflect overtime pay.

Federal law exempts seasonal amusement and recreational
establishments from having to pay workers time-and-a-half for
working more than 40 hours a week, but some states -- including
Illinois and Kentucky -- do require overtime pay for those
positions.

The lawsuit alleges All Star Amusement violated Illinois' and
Kentucky's wage laws as well as claiming breach of contract in
Illinois, Kentucky, Indiana and Florida.

The lawsuit comes during a season when the dangers of carnival
work were on display.

In July, a ride operator at the Stephenson County Fair in
Freeport, Ill., suffered a head laceration and fractured vertebrae
when he was servicing a ride and it was activated, the county
sheriff said.  In April, a carnival worker from South Africa was
killed while conducting routine maintenance on a ride at the
Miami-Dade Youth Fair, the Miami Herald reported.

"People work hard and they subject themselves to a job that can be
a difficult job because it's long hours and you're out in the hot
sun, and can be dangerous," Mr. Wilmes said.  "They want to be
paid what they agreed to."


ALLIANZ ASSET: Must Face Class Action Over Mutual Fund Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that Allianz
Asset Management of America couldn't convince a federal judge to
dismiss class action claims challenging the allegedly high-fee,
in-house mutual funds in its 401(k) plan (Urakhchin v. Allianz
Asset Mgmt. of Am., L.P., C.D. Cal., No. 8:15-cv-01614-JLS-JCG,
8/5/16).

In largely denying Allianz's motion to dismiss the case, the judge
dealt a blow to the financial companies being hit by an ongoing
flurry of lawsuits challenging the in-house mutual funds in the
401(k) plans for their employees.  So far, these lawsuits have
been gaining traction, with judges declining to dismiss the claims
against Putnam Investments LLC, BB&T Corp. and now Allianz.

The companies currently defending similar lawsuits include:

   -- Neuberger Berman Group LLC;
   -- New York Life Insurance Co.;
   -- Franklin Resources Inc.;
   -- Deutsche Bank;
   -- American Airlines Inc.;
   -- M&T Bank Corp.
   -- American Century Services LLC; and
   -- Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America.

Case Against Allianz Proceeds

Last fall, two participants in Allianz's 401(k) plan filed a class
action complaint accusing the plan's fiduciaries of offering
Allianz-affiliated mutual funds that carried "outrageously high"
fees that benefited the company at the expense of its workers.
They also accused the fiduciaries of using the plan as a testing
ground for new funds that lacked a sufficient track record.

Allianz tried to have these claims dismissed by arguing that the
plan participants lacked standing to challenge the fees of funds
in which they weren't personally invested.  Judge Josephine L.
Staton of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California disagreed, explaining in an Aug. 5 opinion that the
participants' alleged injury related to the defendants'
"management and fund selection process as a whole rather than the
unique factual nature of individual funds."

Allianz also criticized the lawsuit as untimely, but Judge Staton
found nothing to back this up in the documents that were properly
before the court.

Moreover, Judge Staton found that the participants stated valid
claims for fiduciary breach under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.  On that point, Judge Staton found it "unavailing"
that Allianz also allowed workers to invest in unaffiliated mutual
funds through a Schwab Personal Choice Retirement Account.

"Whether the combination of the Allianz-affiliated 'core'
investment options and the Schwab investment option together
create a prudent portfolio is therefore a question of fact that is
inappropriate to resolve at the motion to dismiss stage," Judge
Staton wrote.

Finally, Judge Staton declined to dismiss the participants'
allegations related to the monitoring of plan fiduciaries, but she
agreed to dismiss their claims for restitution and disgorgement of
profits.  Specifically, Judge Staton found that the participants
didn't seek the return of any specific assets alleged to be in the
defendants' possession.

Goodwin Procter LLP represents Allianz.  The workers are
represented by Apollo Law LLC, Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP and
Nichols Kaster PLLP.

Nichols Kaster has been the driving force behind this flurry of
litigation over proprietary mutual funds, representing the
employees suing New York Life, Putnam, Deutsche Bank, American
Airlines, M&T Bank, American Century, and BB&T Corp.


ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY: Settlement in "Dynabursky" Case Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GREGORY DYNABURSKY, as an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY
SERVICES, LP and ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:12-cv-02210-JLS-RNBx
(C.D. Calif.), District Judge Josephine L. Staton granted
Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
and Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Awards.

The Court grants final approval of the Settlement Agreement, which
it determines to be fair, adequate, and reasonable under the
circumstances.

Class Counsel is awarded attorneys' fees of 28% of the Gross
Settlement Fund, which amounts to an award of $3,080,000. The
Court also awards Class Counsel $58,735.15 for reimbursement of
litigation costs and expenses.

Plaintiff Gregory Dynabursky is awarded service payment of $6,000,
Plaintiff Mikhail Babeshkov is awarded a service payment of
$8,000, and Plaintiff Jose Aguirre is awarded a service payment of
$7,000. Likewise, Rust Consulting is awarded $165,000 for
reasonable class administration services and expenses.

The Court shall have continuing jurisdiction over the matter and
over Plaintiffs, Defendants AlliedBarton Security Services, LP and
AlliedBarton Security Services, LLC, and Settlement Class Members
to the fullest extent necessary to address, enforce, and
effectuate the terms of the Settlement Agreement and this
Judgment.

A copy of the Court's Order dated August 18, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/1PymA4from Leagle.com.

Gregory Dynabursky, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas Rosenthal
-- nrosenthal@diversitylaw.com -- Diversity Law Group APC, Dennis
S. Hyun -- dhyun@hyunlegal.com -- Hyun Legal APC, Diane Elizabeth
Richard -- diane@denterichard.com -- Dente Richard LLP, Edward W.
Choi -- edward.choi@choiandassociates.com -- Law Offices of Choi &
Associates, Larry W. Lee -- lwlee@diversitylaw.com -- Diversity
Law Group APC & Paul M. Yi, Choi and Associates APLC.

Alliedbarton Security Services LP, Defendant, represented by
Jeremy T. Naftel -- jnaftel@cdflaborlaw.com -- Carothers DiSante
and Freudenberger LLP, Dawn M. Irizarry --
dirizarry@cdflaborlaw.com -- Carothers DeSante and Freudenberger
LLP & Robin E. Largent -- rlargent@cdflaborlaw.com -- Carothers
DiSante and Freudenberger LLP.


ALLSTATE CORP: Appellate Court Affirms Trial Court's Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge David F. Hamilton of the United States Court of
Appeals, Seventh Circuit, affirmed the judgment of the district
court in the case SYED RIZVI and PRIME BUILDERS & DEVELOPMENT,
INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ALLSTATE CORPORATION, also known
as ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, No. 15-2469
(7th Cir.)

Plaintiffs Syed Rizvi and his company, Prime Builders &
Development, Inc., performed repair work for Mirza Alikhan, whose
house had been damaged in a fire. The work was completed in 2009,
but Alikhan paid Rizvi only part of what he owed. Rizvi sued suit
for breach of contract in federal district court, invoking the
court's diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332, which
Rizvi and Prime Builders obtained a default judgment.

Plaintiffs then served a citation to discover assets on Allstate
Corporation, a resident corporation of Illinois. Allstate
responded to the citation by stating that Alikhan had no accounts
of any sort with Allstate, that Alikhan had no claims pending with
Allstate, that Alikhan's most recent claim had been opened and
closed in 2008 and that Allstate did not owe any insurance
payments to Alikhan.

Plaintiffs asked the district court to order Allstate to remit
outstanding insurance proceeds of $110,926.58 and to impose
sanctions against Allstate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 11(b)(4).

The district court held a status hearing and raised the question
of subject matter jurisdiction. After the hearing, the court
denied the turnover motion. The court noted that plaintiffs had
served Allstate with the citation to discover assets, and Allstate
had responded that it had no assets belonging to Alikhan,
completing the process. Plaintiffs appealed.

Judge Hamilton affirmed the judgment of the district court.

A copy of Circuit Judge Hamilton's opinion dated August 12, 2016,
is available at http://goo.gl/VDqxy3from Leagle.com.

Maurice J. Salem, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Guy M. Conti -- gconti@condoncook.com -- Matthew A. Cook --
mcook@condoncook.com -- Mark Ruda -- mruda@condoncook.com --
Peter W. Schoonmaker -- pschoonmaker@condoncook.com -- at Condon &
Cook, L.L.C., for Defendant-Appellee

The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit panel consists
of Circuit Judges, David F. Hamilton, Richard A. Posner and
Michael S. Kane.


AM PIZZA: Former Pizza Drivers' Suit Wins Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William G. Young of the District of Massachusetts
denied defendants' motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs'
motions for class certification in the case ATILA ADOLFO TIGGES,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. AM PIZZA, INC. and HENRY ASKEW, Defendants. TYLOR
REEVES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. PMLRA PIZZA, INC. and HENRY ASKEW, Defendants Civil
Action Nos. 16-10136-WGY, 16-10474-WGY (D. Mass.)

Atila Adolfo Tigges was employed by Am Pizza, Inc. as delivery
driver between 2008 and 2013, while Tylor Reeves was employed by
PMLRA Pizza, Inc. as a delivery drover between 2014 and 2015.

Am Pizza and PMLRA Pizza are franchisee of Domino that share the
same president in Henry Askew. PMLRA Pizza presented some of their
employees, including Reeves, with a contract under which the
employees would have to bring any action against their employer
through individual arbitration. The defendants pay their delivery
drivers a tipped minimum wage. The two entities also impose a
delivery charge on their customers that varies between $1.99 and
$2.99.

On November 13, 2015, Tigges filed a complaint against Am Pizza
and Askew in the Massachusetts Superior Court sitting in and for
the County of Middlesex. Reeves followed with his class action
complaint against PMLRA Pizza and Askew in the same forum on
January 7, 2016. Both complaints allege two counts, brought
pursuant to Section 150 of the Tips Act, and Section 20 of the
Minimum Wage Act. In Count I, the plaintiffs allege that the
defendants' retention of the delivery charge paid by customers
violated Section 152A of the Tips Act. In Count II, pursuant to
Sections 1 and 7 of the Minimum Wage Act, the plaintiffs allege
that the defendants' failure to pay their delivery drivers the
delivery charge and comply with applicable notice requirements
prohibited the defendants from paying their drivers the tipped
minimum wage.

On January 29, 2016, Am Pizza removed the action brought against
them to federal court, followed by PMLRA Pizza's removal on March
7, 2016. On February 16, 2016, Am Pizza moved partially to dismiss
Tigges's complaint and shortly thereafter Tigges filed a motion to
remand the case to the Massachusetts Superior Court, which the
court denied both motions.

Tigges sought to certify a class consisting of all individuals who
worked as delivery drivers for Am Pizza at any time since August
12, 2012. Reeves requested class certification for all individuals
employed as delivery drivers by PMLRA at any time since December
31, 2010.

On March 25, 2016, PMLRA moved to dismiss Reeves' complaint.

Judge Young denied PMLRA's motion to dismiss. The court also
certified the following classes: in the Tigges class action, a
class of delivery drivers that are not signatories of the
Arbitration Agreement where the class cut-off date is as required
by the Tips Act and the Minimum Wage Act statute of limitations,
that is August 12, 2012, and, in the Reeves class action, a class
of delivery drivers that are signatories of the Arbitration
Agreement where the class cut-off date is statutory January 7,
2013 for the Minimum Wage Act notice-requirement claim, and
December 31, 2010 for the other claims that had been asserted in
the previous class action lawsuits.

A copy of Judge Young's memorandum of decision dated July 29,
2016, is available at http://goo.gl/KIVp9efrom Leagle.com.

Atila Adolfo Tigges, Plaintiff, represented by Stephen S.
Churchill -- steve@fairworklaw.com -- Brant Casavant --
brant@fairworklaw.com -- at Fair Work P.C.

Defendants, represented by:

Eric R. LeBlanc, Esq.
Todd J. Bennett, Esq.
Bennett & Belfort PC
24 Thorndike St #300
Cambridge, MA 02141
Telephone: 617-577-8800


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Court Dismisses "Smith" Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Judge Nitza I. Quinones Alejandro granted the defendants' motion
to dismiss the case captioned DAVID SMITH, et al. Plaintiffs, v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., et al. Defendants, Civil Action No.
16-156 (E.D. Pa.).

The plaintiffs, David Smith, Andre Fields, Kendall Green, Andre
Roundtree, Trandom Milsip, Emanuel Taylor, Tyesha Johnson, Kellen
Pinckney, and Charles Trower, filed a second amended complaint in
state court against the defendants, American Airlines, Inc.
("AA"), US Airways, Inc., W. Douglas Parker, Robert D. Isom, Jr.,
Stephen L. Johnson, Bob Ciminelli, Cedric Rockamore, Ariel
Morales, Shelly Wattman, Robert Yori, and Manal El-Hajal.  The
plaintiffs asserted in Count I a claim for medical monitoring on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals,
and state law claims on behalf of only themselves; to wit:
negligence (Count II); battery (Count III); public nuisance (Count
IV); violation of the Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law; fraud (Count
VI); civil conspiracy (Count VII); and breach of contract as
third-party beneficiaries of the contract between AA and Deer
Park/Nestle (Count VIII).

On January 13, 2016, the defendants removed the state court action
to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005, contending that Count I is asserted on behalf of a class of
more than 100 potential plaintiffs, the amount in controversy
exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, and several plaintiffs are
citizens of Pennsylvania, while AA is a citizen of Delaware and
Texas.

On January 26, 2016, Defendants filed the a motion to dismiss
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), essentially
arguing that the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act, is the
exclusive remedy available to the plaintiffs and, therefore, this
matter should be dismissed.

Judge Alejandro agreed with the defendants and granted their
motion.  A full-text copy of Judge Alejandro's August 12, 2016
memorandum opinion is available at https://is.gd/OLFISD from
Leagle.com.

DAVID SMITH, ANDRE FIELDS, KENDALL GREEN, ANDRE ROUNDTREE, TRANDOM
MILSIP, EMANUEL TAYLOR, TYESHA JOHNSON, KELLEN PINCKNEY, CHARLES
TROWER,  Plaintiff, represented by BRIAN R. MILDENBERG, MILDENBERG
LAW FIRM PC.

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., US AIRWAYS, INC., W. DOUGLAS PARKER,
ROBERT D. ISOM, JR., STEPHEN L. JOHNSON, BOB CIMINELLI, CEDRIC
ROCKAMORE, ARIEL MORALES, SHELLY WATTMAN, ROBERT YORI, MANAL EL-
HAJAL, Defendant, represented by GREGG W. MACKUSE --
gregg.mackuse@dbr.com -- DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP & MARK W.
ROBERTSON -- mrobertson@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP.


AMERICAN LANGUAGE: Appeal Filed From Ruling in "Volpe" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff John Volpe filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Volpe v. American Language Communication Center,
Inc., et al., Case No. 15-cv-6854, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (New York City).

The appellate case is captioned as Volpe v. American Language
Communication Center, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-2869, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
commenced the Case on August 29, 2015), seeking to recover minimum
wages and liquidated damages, interest, costs and attorneys' fees
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor
Law and associated rules and regulations.

The Defendants owned, operated and controlled a language learning
center.

Plaintiff-Appellant John Volpe, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Raquel Gutierrez, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          1 Grand Central Place
          60 East 42nd Street
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          E-mail: rgutierrez@faillacelaw.com

Defendants-Appellees American Language Communication Center, Inc.,
DBA American Language Communication Center, Jean Pachter and Peter
Pachter are represented by:

          Andrew M. Spurchise, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          900 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 583-9600
          Facsimile: (212) 832-2719
          E-mail: aspurchise@littler.com


ANASTASIOS BELESIS: Marcus Seeks Payment From John Thomas Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled BENNETT MARCUS, JOHN KERR,
and TAREQ ABED, on behalf of themselves and 67 others similarly
situated v. ANASTASIOS "THOMAS" BELESIS, individually, Case No.
654314/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.), filed with the Court
their application for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint
against Anastasios "Thomas" Belesis.

This action is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs to enforce a
Settlement Agreement that the Defendant breached by failing to
make timely payments as required by the terms of the agreement.
Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Defendant
was required to pay to the Plaintiffs, as the first of three
installments, the sum of $100,000 on or before March 1, 2016, for
payment of unpaid overtime compensation.  The Defendant would then
be required to pay the second installment in the sum of $100,000
on or before January 15, 2017, and the final installment of
$50,000 on or before April 15, 2017.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant has failed to make the
first payment that was due on or before March 1, 2016.  Having
been put on notice of the default numerous times, the Defendant
still failed to cure.  Therefore, the Plaintiffs are entitled to
entry of summary judgment in lieu of complaint against the
Defendant in the amount of no less than $100,000, plus 15%
interest compounded monthly on the unpaid amount, until the full
$100,000 is paid.  The Plaintiffs are also entitled to $2,676 in
reasonable attorneys' fees associated with this enforcement.

The complaint recalls that in April 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a
Summons and Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, against John Thomas Financial, Inc.,
Registered Rep New Horizons, Inc., and Anastasios "Thomas"
Belesis, individually, seeking recovery of unpaid wages and
overtime compensation for work performed for the Defendants
selling financial products and training to sell financial
products.  In April 2015, the parties entered into a Settlement
Agreement whereby the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and 67
other similarly situated individuals, who opted-in to the action,
agreed to release and dismiss the claims brought against the
Defendants with prejudice in exchange for the total sum of
$250,000 to be paid in three installments.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kara Miller, Esq.
          Michele A. Moreno, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
          E-mail: kmiller@vandallp.com
                  mmoreno@vandallp.com


AUSTRALIA: Williamtown RAAF Base Class Action Obtains Funding
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Fellner, writing for Newcastle Herald, reports that
a class action against the Department of Defence by residents
whose lives have been "devastated" by firefighting contamination
from the Williamtown RAAF Base will go ahead, with funding locked
in after a target of over 300 sign-ups was achieved on Aug. 10.

A further 200 residents have registered their interest in joining,
but are yet to put pen to paper.

Litigation funder IMF Bentham agreed to bankroll the case in April
on the condition a critical mass of residents signed up, and on
Aug. 10 it announced to the Australian Stock Exchange that number
had been reached.

President of the Williamtown and Surrounds Residents Action Group
Cain Gorfine said the announcement was timely, coming a day after
residents clashed with Defence at a heated public meeting over its
human health risk assessment.

"The debacle of the human health risk assessment and last night's
meeting are reminders to all of us why the legal route is now the
only real option if we want to repair the devastation that Defence
has caused to our community," he said.

Nearly 12 months into the crisis, Mr. Gorfine said dozens of
meetings, a senate inquiry and a visit by Defence Minister Marise
Payne had failed to deliver residents the justice they were
"desperate" for.

"Sadly the uncertainty, the destruction of our lives continues and
shows no sign of easing," he said.

"Defence, through their inaction, has forced us into this
position."

The class action will be run by international firm Gadens, led by
partners John Dalzell and Ben Allen and Director Madeleine
Kearney.

In a statement, an IMF Bentham spokesperson said the Defence risk
assessment had confirmed the extent of the contamination was
"worse" than first thought and had "destroyed" people's economic
and social livelihoods.

He noted that a class action was already underway in the United
States against the manufacturers of the chemicals, and had
established a "probable link" to kidney cancer, testicular cancer
and four other diseases.

"While the Williamtown contamination class action is seeking
damages for pure economic losses only, the potential hazards to
human health are what underpin those losses," he said.

He said the firm was already fielding inquiries from other
communities across the country as a result of the 17 other
military sites being investigated for firefighting contamination.

"We believe Williamtown is the first community in Australia to
have arranged a funded class action in response to a major
contamination event; however, it is sadly not an isolated
incident," he said.


AUTOVEST LLC: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Harden" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Robert Holmes Bell denied the Plaintiff's motion to
certify a class in the lawsuit titled DANIEL M. HARDEN v.
AUTOVEST, L.L.C., Case No. 1:15-cv-00034-RHB (W.D. Mich.).

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=taI2XbqS


AUTOZONE INC: Rest-Break Case Can't Proceed as Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wiessner, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge
who once called a wage-and-hour class action against AutoZone Inc.
"a nightmare" has ruled that 20,000 California workers cannot sue
as a group after all, saying their claims about being deprived
rest breaks are too individualized.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco on Aug. 10
said AutoZone, represented by Littler Mendelson, did not have a
uniform rest break policy at its California stores during the
class period identified in four consolidated lawsuits, so class
members could not prove their collective claims predominated.


AVNET INC: Extra Amount Given to Class Members in "Traylor" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Levanna C Traylor, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Avnet Inc.;
Avnet Pension Plan, Defendants, No. CV-08-00918-PHX-FJM (D.
Ariz.), Senior District Judge Frederick J. Martone ordered the
Settlement Administrator, Rust Consulting, Inc., to conduct a
second distribution on the net residual settlement proceeds of the
345 Unreachable Class members to the 3,117 Lump Sum Class members
who have been successfully located and paid.

The Court finds that there are 345 members of the Lump Sum Class
("Unreachable Class members") who cannot be located by the
Settlement Administrator, Rust Consulting, Inc. ("Rust"), despite
its diligent efforts and that further efforts to locate these
missing class members are unlikely to succeed.

Accordingly, each Paid Class members shall receive a second
payment from the Total Net Residual Settlement Funds on the same
pro rata basis that the original net settlement benefits were
allocated to individual members of the Lump Sum Class, except that
all second payments shall be equal to the Class member's pro rata
share of residual net settlement proceeds or $45, whichever is
greater, but in no case shall the Class member receive a combined
payment that exceeds his or her actual damages, as described in
the Sturner Declaration.

The Court approves the proposed payment of $22,386.00 to the
Settlement Administrator from the residual settlement funds for
services to be rendered in connection with the second distribution
of net residual settlement funds to the Paid Class members. On or
before the later of February 28, 2017 or six months from the date
the Order is entered, the Settlement Administrator shall submit a
written status report confirming the distribution of all residual
settlement funds, or to the extent any residual settlement funds
remain, detailing efforts taken to locate the newly unreachable
Paid Class members and distribute residual settlement funds to
them.

A copy of the Court's Order dated August 17, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/yzRLzLfrom Leagle.com.

Levanna C Traylor, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel Lee
Bonnett, Martin & Bonnett PLLC, Eli Gottesdiener, Gottesdiener Law
Firm PLC, Jennifer Lynn Kroll, Martin & Bonnett PLLC, William
Henry Blessing, The Blessing Law Firm & Susan Joan Martin, Martin
& Bonnett PLLC.

Avnet Incorporated, Defendant, represented by D. Lewis Clark, Jr.
-- lew.clark@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Robert
D. Wick -- rwick@cov.com -- Covington & Burling LLP, Tara A.
Aschenbrand, Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP, Brian Andrew Cabianca
-- brian.cabianca@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP &
Frederick G. Sandstrom -- Sandstrom@BlankRome.com -- Covington &
Burling LLP.


BALTIMORE, MD: To Reform Police Department Racist Policies
----------------------------------------------------------
Josh Saul, writing for Newsweek, reports that the Department of
Justice (DOJ) just released the findings of its probe into the
Baltimore police department and announced its agreement with the
city to create a court-enforceable settlement that will reform the
racist policies uncovered by its investigation.

The Baltimore PD targets black people for stops, searches and
arrests; uses excessive force; does a poor job investigating
sexual assault; and puts detainees in danger when it transports
them, according to the 163-page DOJ report.  Baltimore Mayor
Stephanie Rawlings-Blake asked for the Justice Department probe
last year after Freddie Gray died of a spinal cord injury he
received while riding in the back of a police van.

At a City Hall press conference on Aug. 10, the head of the DOJ's
civil rights division, Vanita Gupta, said her office and the city
will negotiate an agreement on how to reform the department.  "We
need this entire community, and the energy of this entire
community, to help us craft the details of our consent decree and
drive real, lasting change in this city," she said.

The Justice Department is currently enforcing consent decrees in
14 cities -- including Ferguson, Missouri; Cleveland; and Newark,
New Jersey -- where it found constitutional violations by police.
Those decrees represent an agreement between the federal
government and the city to reform police practices and usually
include the appointment of a monitor who reports to a federal
judge on the department's progress. (Consent decrees can also be
reached as a result of a class-action lawsuit, as in the New York
City suit that severely curtailed stop and frisk by the city
police.)

"The goal is to have the Newark Police Department undertake
systemic reform, to put in new policies and, more importantly,
practices, that reflect modern policing," says Peter Harvey, the
independent monitor overseeing the consent decree signed by the
city of Newark in March.  Mr. Harvey, a former New Jersey attorney
general, tells Newsweek that his role includes showing the Newark
PD policies and practices used by other departments that reflect
"modern constitutional policing," encouraging the department to
educate its officers and then make sure they're following the new
guidelines.

And if the city or department refuses to reform? The federal judge
overseeing the decree has the power to order punishments such as
fines.

As the Justice Department and a city negotiate the consent
decree -- complete with specific areas of focus and
recommendations -- they'll also agree on the federal monitor who
will oversee the reforms and report to a federal judge on the
progress.  Then the monitor will assemble a list of law
enforcement and community experts to serve on the monitoring team.

"It seems like in Baltimore's case there are lots of concerns
about unconstitutional stops and arrests, so the monitor would put
together a list of experts who have experience dealing with reform
in those issues," says Rod Brunson, a member of the team
monitoring the Newark police and dean of the criminal justice
school at Rutgers University.

In cities where the Justice Department has investigated police
departments, the resulting consent decrees have usually been
effective at forcing reform.  "In places where you don't have
investigations, things are left to fester," says Ezekiel Edwards,
director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Criminal Law
Reform Project.  "The reality is that we need more DOJ
interventions.  It may seem that there's a flurry of these, but
that's a drop in the bucket compared to how many police
departments [there are.]"

Cincinnati is a positive example of reform stemming from a court
settlement, Mr. Edwards says, though the 2002 agreement there
differs from the consent decree signed in Newark and the one
coming in Baltimore in that it was the result of class-action
lawsuit, not a Justice Department probe.  "Cincinnati is one
example where there was success in reducing the number of police-
involved shootings and [improving] relations between the police
and communities of color," he says.

Lawyers experienced with consent decrees call for patience, and
maybe even pessimism, in Baltimore.  "If the leadership in the
city or in the police department stops valuing and enforcing
whatever agreements are made, it's going to be hard," says
David Kairys, a law professor at Temple University and a longtime
Philadelphia civil rights attorney.  "There's such a long history
of these kinds of abuses that with any positive change there's
always the danger of sliding back and regression to more
traditional modes of operating."

Mr. Kairys won a consent decree when he sued the city of
Philadelphia in 1985 over "Operation Cold Turkey," in which cops
arrested 1,444 almost entirely innocent people who merely walked
through intersections frequented by drug dealers.  Mr. Kairys
initially thought the "Cold Turkey" consent decree would bring
about significant reform, but he came to the disappointing
realization that it did not.

"For [reform] to work long term, it has to really be inculcated
into the policing system," he says.


BANK OF AMERICA: Weaver Seeks Review of Verdict in "Bodnar" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Party Dawn M. Weaver filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Sherry Bodnar v. Bank of America NA, Case No.
5-14-cv-03224, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.

The appellate case is captioned as Sherry Bodnar v. Bank of
America NA, Case No. 16-3408, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Sherry L.
Bodnar, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
filed the Case on June 6, 2014, arising from the alleged unfair
and unconscionable assessment of overdraft fees or insufficient
funds fees on transactions for which there are sufficient
available funds in customers' accounts at the time the
transactions are authorized and approved by the Bank.

According to the complaint, though customers' accounts have
sufficient available funds to cover the transactions, the Bank
assesses overdraft fees through the implementation of a policy and
procedure by which an overdraft fee determination is made not only
at the time the transaction is authorized and approved, but also
when the transaction "settles" and posts to customers' accounts.

Not Party-Appellant DAWN M. WEAVER is represented by:

          Glenn A. Manochi, Esq.
          LIGHTMAN & MANOCHI
          1520 Locust Street, 12th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 545-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 545-3001
          E-mail: gmanochi@lightmanlaw.com

Plaintiff-Appellee SHERRY L. BODNAR is represented by:

          Natalie F. Bennett, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLP
          35 East State Street
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (610) 891-9880
          Facsimile: (610) 891-9883
          E-mail: nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLP
          475 White Horse Pike
          Collingswood, NJ 08107
          Telephone: (856) 858-1770
          E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: jkaliel@tzlegal.com
                  hzavareei@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG
          1 West Las Olas Boulevard, 5th Floor
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 332-4200
          Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com

Defendant-Appellee BANK OF AMERICA NA is represented by:

          Jessica Kaufman, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          150 West 55th Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 336-4257
          Facsimile: (212) 468-7900
          E-mail: jkaufman@mofo.com

               - and -

          Michael B. Miller, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          250 West 55 Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 468-8009
          Facsimile: (212) 468-7900
          E-mail: mbmiller@mofo.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Soven, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          1717 Arch Street
          Three Logan Square, Suite 3100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 851-8288
          Facsimile: (215) 851-1420
          E-mail: asoven@reedsmith.com


BAYLOR COLLEGE: Aguocha-Ohakweh Seeks Certification of Class
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled 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.), file their
amended motion to certify class seeking to be deemed class
representatives in a class action lawsuit.  The Plaintiffs are
deemed 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.

Emily-Jean Aguocha-Ohakweh, et al., also ask the Court to appoint
Ernest C. Adimora-Nweke, Jr., Esq., of Adimora Law Firm, PLLC, and
his firm's designated co-counsel and of counsel (if any) as Class
Counsel.

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs alleges that they were subject
to the Defendants' conspiracies and actions in furtherance of such
to deprive them of their 14th Amendment U.S. Constitutional
takings, substantive and procedural due process, privileges and
immunities, and equal protection rights.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=CWl1HkSW

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ernest Adimora-Nweke, Jr., Esq.
          ADIMORA LAW FIRM
          5100 Westheimer Rd., Suite 200
          Telephone: (281) 940-5170
          Houston, TX 77056
          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
          HARRIS HEALTH SYSTEM
          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

Defendants 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


BIOMET INC: Leave to Appeal Class Certification Ruling Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley L. Paterson, Esq. -- patersona@bennettjones.com -- and
Hartlee R. Zucker, Esq. -- zuckerh@bennettjones.com -- of Bennett
Jones LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that the Divisonal
Court's recent decision in Dine v Biomet Inc, 2016 ONSC 4039 will
be of particular interest to members of the class action bar in
Ontario, as it will have implications for evidence led on
certification motions.

Overview

The defendants in Dine v Biomet sought leave to appeal Justice
Belobaba's decision certifying a proposed multiple model product
liability class action.  The case involved several models of
metal-on-metal hip implants that were allegedly defectively
manufactured and designed by the defendants.

In a decision released in June, leave to appeal was denied.
Justice Then's reasons focused largely on whether evidence of
commonality touching on the merits of the claim ought to be
considered at the certification stage of a proposed class action.

Positions of the Parties

The defendants argued that Justice Belobaba's refusal to consider
their evidence regarding the absence of commonality departed
"radically" from the decisions of other class action judges.  The
defendants pointed to Justice Perell's treatment of defense
evidence in O'Brien v Bard Canada Inc, 2015 ONSC 2470 and in
Vester v Boston Scientific, 2015 ONSC 7950, noting that "Justice
Perell recognized that evidence relevant to the merits may also be
relevant to the certification test and should be considered."

Granting leave to appeal may have also shed light on a practical
issue for the class action bar in Ontario.  The defendants noted
the following in their submissions:

"The difference in approaches taken by Justices Belobaba and
Perell effectively means that the outcome of a certification
motion may depend entirely on which of the two judges is assigned
to the matter.  On the one hand, Justice Perell compels disclosure
of plaintiff medical records with a low threshold and considers
defence evidence pertaining to different characteristics of
devices in assessing commonality; on the other hand, Justice
Belobaba refuses to grant disclosure of the plaintiffs medical
records and refuses to consider defense evidence on commonality."

Biomet also argued that Justice Belobaba failed to conduct a
rigorous preferability analysis, alleging that His Honour's
decision focused only on the existence of common issues and failed
to consider whether there was a need for individual inquiries.
Though Justice Belobaba's comments on preferability amounted to
little more than a paragraph of his decision, Justice Then
declined to grant leave to appeal on this basis, and stated that
Justice Belobaba had reached a reasoned decision as "an
experienced class action judge".

Decision

The Court found that the decision was not in conflict with those
of Justice Perell.  In Biomet, the plaintiffs had succeeded in
establishing some basis in fact for the existence of the proposed
common issues, so Justice Belobaba was correct in declining to
resolve conflicts in the evidence at the certification stage.  The
Court relied on the approach of the Supreme Court in Microsoft,
Sun-Rype, and AIC as support for that principle.

In Bard and Vester, by contrast, the plaintiffs failed to adduce
sufficient evidence of commonality.  As a result, the evidence
provided by the defense supplemented, rather than contradicted the
evidence of the plaintiffs, and could be properly considered.

Summary

It remains to be seen how the terms supplementary and
contradictory will play out in future certification decisions, but
counsel on both sides of the aisle should take note of this
development. In the meantime, this decision confirms that there is
a significant onus on the plaintiff to put its best foot forward
to establish some basis in fact at the certification stage.


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Settles MINI Cooper Owners' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Class Counsel Stephen M. Harris and Robert L. Starr on Aug. 10
announced that a settlement has been reached in a class action
lawsuit filed on behalf of certain MINI Cooper owners or lessees
who have faced or will face repairs to their vehicle due to an
alleged defective water pump prone to failure.

The settlement reached in Herremans v. BMW of North America, LLC,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA, Case No. 2:14-cv-02363-GW-PJW, will reimburse current
and former owners and lessees of certain MINI Coopers from model
years 2006-2012 for money they spent to replace an alleged faulty
water pump and related components such as, replacing coolant,
gasket and bolts.  The settlement relates to MINI owners and
lessees of covered vehicles who paid for a water pump replacement
on or before November 28th, 2016 and within seven years or 84,000
miles of when the vehicle was first placed into service.  MINI
owners may be reimbursed up to $500 of their out-of-pocket costs
for this repair.

The settlement also covers vehicle owners and lessees who have not
yet had a problem but may experience a problem in the future. The
owner or lessee of any covered vehicle which experiences an
alleged water pump failure after November 28th (or a failure
within 7 years or 84,000 miles) may take the vehicle to an
authorized MINI dealer and have the problem repaired at no cost to
the owner or lessee.  This free repair service applies to any
covered vehicle which experiences water pump failure within seven
years or 84,000 miles since the vehicles was first placed in
service.

Class Counsel Stephen M. Harris stated that, "we are pleased to
have achieved a settlement which allows class members to recover
their repair costs as soon as possible, without having to wait for
the conclusion of years of litigation and the uncertainty inherent
in any trial."

Informative Website Established for Class Members

A website has been established for class members as well as
members of the public to learn more information about the
settlement. Please visit http://www.MiniCooperSettlement.comto
find out whether you are covered by the settlement, download a
claim form, contact Class Counsel with questions, or learn more
about the class action and its resolution.


CAH ACQUISITION: Court Certifies Class in "Hutson" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CARRIE HUTSON, JEANNA SIMMONS, and JENIFER
SWANNER, individually and as Class Representatives, Plaintiffs, v.
CAH ACQUISITION COMPANY 10, LLC, d/b/a YADKIN VALLEY COMMUNITY
HOSPITAL, HMC/CAH CONSOLIDATED, INC., and RURAL COMMUNITY
HOSPITALS OF AMERICA, LLC, Defendants, No. 1:15CV742 (M.D.N.C.),
Judge William L. Osteen, Jr. granted the motion to certify class
filed by the named plaintiffs, Carrie Hutson, Jeanna Simmons,
Jennifer Swanner, both individually and as class representatives.

Hutson, Simmons, and Swanner were appointed as class
representatives and the Taibi Kornbluth Law Group, P.A., and the
Zachary Law Officers were appointed as Class Counsel.

A full-text copy of Judge Osteen's August 15, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/mzWIzl from
Leagle.com.

The named plaintiffs and the members of the class they sought to
certify are former employees of Yadkin Valley Community Hospital,
which was operated by the defendants, CAH Acquisition Company 10,
LLC, d/b/a Yadkin Valley Community Hospital, HMC/CAH Consolidated
Inc., and Rural Community Hospitals of America, LLC.

On February 27, 2015, the defendants issued a notice to the
employees of the Hospital that the Hospital would close, and all
employees terminated, on April 30, 2015.  The decision to close
the Hospital was apparently due to Yadkin County's unwillingness
to renew the Hospital's lease agreement on terms acceptable to the
defendants.  However, the defendants did not close the Hospital or
terminate its employees on April 30, instead agreeing to a lease
extension with the County of Yadkin until July 31, 2015, in order
to attempt to negotiate a long-term extension.  The defendants
were apparently unable to come to a long-term agreement with
Yadkin County, and the plaintiffs alleged that on May 21, 2015,
the defendants "notified some of its employees that their final
day of employment would be May 23, 2015," delivered Human
Resources paperwork to those employees, and closed the Hospital on
May 22.  The named plaintiffs then filed the action and sought
certification of a class consisting of the terminated employees of
the Hospital.

CARRIE HUTSON, Plaintiff, represented by ANTHONY DAVID TAIBI --
taibi@taibikornbluth.com -- TAIBI KORNBLUTH LAW GROUP, P.A.,
WALTER LEE ZACHARY, JR. -- zach@zwwlawyer.com -- ZACHARY LAW
OFFICES & MICHAEL A. KORNBLUTH -- mkornbluth@taibikornbluth.com
-- TAIBI KORNBLUTH LAW GROUP, P.A..

JEANNA SIMMONS, JENIFER SWANNER, Plaintiffs, represented by WALTER
LEE ZACHARY, JR., ZACHARY LAW OFFICES & MICHAEL A. KORNBLUTH,
TAIBI KORNBLUTH LAW GROUP, P.A..

CAH ACQUISITION COMPANY 10, LLC, HMC/CAH CONSOLIDATED, INC., RURAL
COMMUNITY HOSPITALS OF AMERICA, LLC, Defendants, represented by
JOHN J. DOYLE, JR. -- jdoyle@constangy.com --  CONSTANGY BROOKS &
SMITH, LLC & WILLIAM JOSEPH MCMAHON, IV -- bmcmahon@constangy.com
-- CONSTANGY BROOKS & SMITH, LLC.


CANADA: FCS Faces $75-Mil. Data Breach Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Nick Gardiner, writing for recorder.ca, reports that Two Smiths
Falls residents face jail time and $10,000 fines in connection to
the release of private information in April.

The suspects have been identified by Smiths Falls Police, which
laid multiple charges to conclude a nearly four-month
investigation into the release online of private files from Family
and Children's Services (FCS) of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville.

The security breach was discovered by FCS staff on April 18 and
resulted in the private information of 285 clients being revealed
on the Smiths Falls Swap Shop Facebook page.

Police say Kelley Denham, 28, and Derek Flegg, 50, are jointly
charged with the following: Theft under $5,000; Mischief over
$5,000; Mischief to data; Unauthorized use of a computer;
Trafficking in identity information; and publication of
identifying information.

In a news release, Det.-Const. David Rakobowchuk say a conviction
could result in up to 10 years in jail in addition to the five-
figure fine.

He said the accused have been released from custody and are
scheduled to appear in Perth court on October 3.

Police believe the suspects accessed the FCS computer system and
obtained multiple documents but only posted the one online.

No further details will be provided now that the matter is before
the courts, he added.

Raymond Lemay, executive director of Family and Children's
Services, said the agency has cooperated with the police
investigation and is aware of the charges being laid.

"The police have been taking this very seriously from the
beginning and I'm not surprised by these developments," he said.

Mr. Lemay has said the agency notified police and its lawyers as
soon as officials became aware of the breach after complaints
began to stream in about the information being posted on a swap
shop network with 11,000 members who buy and sell items.

It followed an earlier security breach in February that resulted
in an investigation and review of data systems that concluded with
assurances the FCS documents were safe, he said.

Mr. Lemay also apologized to clients, but that didn't prevent the
launch of a $75-million class-action lawsuit within days of the
breach.

A client identified only as M.M. by Flaherty McCarthy LLP, which
is handling the lawsuit, is seeking $25 million in general
damages, $25 million in special damages and $25 million in
punitive, aggravated and exemplary damages.

Lawyer Sean Brown has said Family and Children's Services used an
online portal system that was easily accessed by an individual
without any obvious hacking skills.

According to the lawsuit, the personal information of 285 clients
was compiled in an electronic file being prepared for the agency's
board of directors about new cases arising between April and
November of 2015.

That information was not properly secured, the suit argues.

The statement of claim cites the agency's negligence, breach of
fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, negligent misrepresentation,
intrusion of privacy, breach of statutory duty, misfeasance,
failure to act and breach of Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms.

The lawsuit seeks compensation for mental distress, damage to
reputation, loss of employment, reduced capacity for employment,
out-of-pocket expenses, humiliation, inconvenience, frustration
and anxiety.


CANADA: Face Immigrant Detainees Human Rights Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Koskie Minsky LLP and Henein Hutchison LLP on Aug. 11 disclosed
that they have commenced a class action against the Government of
Canada and the Province of Ontario alleging human rights
violations relating to the treatment of immigrant detainees in
Ontario's prisons.

The statement of claim issued on August 11, 2016, alleges, among
other things, that the Canada Border Services Agency and the
Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services
have been negligent, have breached their fiduciary duties and have
breached the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in
incarcerating immigrant detainees in Ontario's correctional
facilities.

The class includes all migrants detained by the Canada Border
Services Agency and incarcerated in a provincial prison between
December, 2003 and the present.  The Plaintiffs' lawyers believe
that thousands of people will be included in this class
proceeding.

Godday Dadzie, an Ivory Coast national incarcerated in the Central
East Correctional Centre in Lindsay, Ontario, and
Al Zeekehmens, a Liberian national incarcerated in Maplehurst
Correctional Complex in Milton, Ontario are the proposed
representative plaintiffs.

Kirk Baert -- kbaert@kmlaw.ca -- a partner at Koskie Minsky LLP,
stated "for too long, the governments of Ontario and Canada have
ignored ongoing human rights violations in their own institutions.
Innocent migrants are being housed in abhorrent conditions, often
indefinitely, without being charged with a crime."

Scott Hutchison -- shutchison@hhllp.ca -- a partner at Henein
Hutchison LLP, stated "immigrant detainees are being incarcerated
for years in the same sub-standard conditions as convicted
criminals.  This practice is shocking and the responsible
government actors should be held accountable."


CAPITAL ONE: Certification of Class Sought in "Hedman" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Hedman moves the Court to certify the classes described
in the amended complaint of the lawsuit entitled MICHELLE HEDMAN,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A., Case No. 2:16-cv-01079-DEJ (E.D.
Wisc.).

Ms. Hedman further asks that the Court both stay the Motion and to
grant her (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting
automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting
material to be filed with the Motion.

Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the
Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, Ms. Hedman contends, citing
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).

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, Ms.
Hedman says.  She asserts that she is obligated to move for class
certification to protect the interests of the putative class.

As the Motion 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, Ms. Hedman argues.

Ms. Hedman also asks to be appointed as class representative and
further asks the Court to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as class
counsel.

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

          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


CAREFIRST BLUECROSS: Judge Tosses Data Breach Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Pierson, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge
has dismissed a proposed class action over a 2015 cyberattack
against health insurance company CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield
that compromised the data of about 1.1 million people.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper in Washington, D.C. ruled
on Aug. 10 that the CareFirst policyholders who brought the
lawsuit had not shown that they faced actual harm, noting that the
most sensitive information, such as Social Security and credit
card numbers, was not compromised by the attack.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Gas Royalty Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Beauge, writing for PennLive, reports that a Bradford County
couple may continue their federal lawsuit that alleges Chesapeake
Energy and its affiliates wrongly reduced natural gas royalty
payments, but it will not be a class action.

U.S. Middle District Judge John E. Jones III on Aug. 8 ruled there
is no provision in the lease of Edward M. and Kathleen Ostroski
that allows for class arbitration.

The Athens-area couple had sought to represent more than 2,000
property owners in Pennsylvania who they allege in aggregate have
been cheated out of more than $5 million in royalty payments.

Leases with Chesapeake, an Oklahoma City company, state
disagreements are to be submitted to arbitration.

Judge Jones, citing a U.S. Supreme Court decision, wrote since the
leases are silent when it comes to class arbitration, Chesapeake
cannot be compelled to submit to such a proceeding.

The Ostroskis detail in their suit reasons they allege they are
not receiving the royalties they believe they should.

They include deduction of inflated costs and paying royalties on
less than what a buyer paid for the gas.

Attempts to reach a lawyer for the Ostroskis were unsuccessful.
The couple seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.


CHEVRON CORP: Wins Bid to Uncover Identity of Class Action Funder
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq. -- gmaatman@seyfarth.com -- and Alex
W. Karasik, Esq. -- akarasik@seyfarth.com -- of Seyfarth Shaw LLP,
in an article for Lexology, report that the increasingly common
practice of third-party funding of class actions, which provides
tax incentives to plaintiffs' attorneys and third-party funders
alike, may no longer be protected under confidentiality
agreements.  Finding a class action funding agreement to be
relevant in determining the adequacy of class counsel, a court in
California granted a defendant's motion to compel the plaintiff to
produce the litigation funding agreement and reveal the identity
of the third-party funder.  This ruling is key for all employers
facing class action litigation.

A recent trend has emerged in the class action landscape whereby a
third-party funder pays the owner of a civil claim an up-front
monetary payment in return for the claim owner's promise to convey
a portion of the potential recovery.  Class action plaintiffs'
attorneys and third-party funders are incentivized under this
approach through tax advantages, whereby the attorneys can defer
tax liability on the monetary advancement until the claim pays off
while the funders can deduct their expenses and pay tax on any
profit at the lower capital-gains rate. Predictably, many of the
third-party funders enter into such agreements with plaintiffs'
attorneys confidentially for varying business or personal reasons.

In a novel decision that will profoundly impact the practice of
third-party funding of class actions, Judge Illston of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California recently
granted defendant's ("Chevron") motion to compel plaintiff to
reveal the identity of who was funding its proposed class action
regarding a gas explosion off the coast of Nigeria in Gbarabe v.
Chevron Corp., No. 14-CV-173 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2016).  This
ruling provides businesses facing class actions, including
employers facing workplace class actions, a blueprint as to how to
compel plaintiffs to identify stakeholders in class action
lawsuits against their companies.

Case Background

Plaintiff, a Nigerian fisherman near the coastal waters of
Bayelsa, Nigeria, brought a class action suit on January 13, 2014
for alleged losses to the classes' livelihood and health problems.
Id. at 2.  After several rounds of motion practice and extensions,
plaintiff moved for class certification on April 8, 2016.

To determine whether plaintiff's counsel could adequately
represent the proposed class of Nigerian fisherman and residents,
Chevron requested that plaintiff be ordered to produce "documents
reflecting or relating to the actual or potential financing or
funding of the prosecution of this litigation" and to comply with
Civil Local Rule 3-15. Id.  Chevron argued that when the Court
ruled on the upcoming class certification motion, it must examine
the resources that plaintiff's counsel will commit to representing
the class, which was especially important in a case like this
involving claims that are likely to be expensive to investigate,
prepare for trial, and prosecute to verdict. Further, Chevron
noted that plaintiff did not dispute that his counsel, a group of
solo practitioners, were dependent on outside funding to prosecute
the case.

After initially refusing to produce the requested documents,
plaintiff produced a heavily redacted copy of a litigation funding
agreement. Id. at 3. Chevron argued the redactions made it
impossible for it to assess whether counsel could commit adequate
resources to the class.  While plaintiff conceded the relevance of
the funding agreement to the class certification adequacy
determination, and further did not assert that the agreement was
privileged, plaintiff argued that he and "his counsel are under a
contractual obligation to preserve the confidentiality of the
funder's identity, as well as the terms of the agreement, absent a
Court order or a determination that it would be prudent to do so."
Id.  Plaintiff thereafter proposed submitting an unredacted copy
of the litigation funding agreement to the Court for in camera
review, along with an executed declaration by the funder's Chief
Investment Officer which addresses each item identified by
defendant in their motion. Id.

The Court's Decision

The Court rejected plaintiff's proposed approach and granted
Chevron's motion to compel production of the litigation funding
agreement.

The Court noted that under the circumstances of the case, the
litigation funding agreement was relevant to the adequacy
determination and thus should be produced to defendant. Further,
the Court noted that the confidentiality provision of the funding
agreement did not prohibit plaintiff from producing the agreement.
Id.  Plaintiff's proposal for in camera review of the agreement by
the Court was found to be inadequate because it would deprive
Chevron of the ability to make its own assessment and arguments
regarding the funding agreement and its impact, if any, on
plaintiff's ability to adequately represent the class.
Accordingly, the Court ordered plaintiff to produce the litigation
funding agreement to Chevron along with any other documents that
were responsive to Chevron's document request. Id. at 4.

Implications For Employers

A business confronted with class action litigation absolutely
would want to know if someone other than the plaintiffs themselves
have a financial interest in a "bet-the-company" case. The ruling
in Gbarabe arms employers with a potential strategy to unmask
third-party funders that may have an interest in seeing their
financial demise as a class action defendant.  Given that this
ruling stemmed from internationally-based class action litigation
involving solo practitioners, businesses should be cautioned that
courts may not always find litigation funding agreements to be
relevant in determining the adequacy of plaintiffs' counsel.
Nonetheless, the arguments presented by Chevron are instructive in
showing class action defendants how they can attempt to figure out
who is bankrolling litigation battles against them.  Finally, this
ruling should serve as a cautionary tale to those third-party
funders who desire anonymity, and ideally result in a chilling
effect of this practice that amounts to tax-incentivized gambling
on class action litigation.  Workplace class actions can expect to
see similar challenges to the adequacy of class counsel with
motions to compel the production of litigation funding agreements
in the very near future.


CHILI'S GRILL: Food Servers File Minimum-Wage Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Burger, writing for PennRecord, reports that Attorneys for
Brinker International, the Dallas-based owner of casual dining
restaurants including more than 800 Chili's Grill & Bar outlets,
will need to respond to a class action lawsuit filed July 22 in
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Former Chili's waitress Nicole Augustine asserts that she and
others employed by Brinker in Pennsylvania were paid less than the
required minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.  Ms. Augustine requested
a trial by jury in the case, in which she is seeking unpaid wages,
interest, liquidated damages and compensation for legal costs, as
well as any additional relief the court deems appropriate.

Covering an estimated 100 food servers employed by Brinker from
around 2012 to April 2014, the class action was filed online by
attorneys Peter Winebrake, R. Andrew Santillo and Mark J.
Gottesfeld of Dresher law firm Winebrake & Santillo.  Another suit
was filed in Tennessee by attorney Jerry Martin of Nashville-based
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison.

In the class action lawsuit, Augustine alleges that Brinker
violated FLSA and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA) by
requiring servers to share tips with expediters while taking
advantage of the state's "tip credit."

By law, Pennsylvania employers are required to pay employees a
minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.  Restaurant owners can pay a
minimum $2.83 per hour to employees who earn at least $300 a month
in tips and apply a maximum tip credit of $4.42 per hour towards
meeting their legal minimum wage obligations.

"The general theory on which this case rests is that restaurant
owners are allowed to pay less than minimum wage and fulfill their
minimum wage obligations by allowing food servers to earn and keep
tips," Winebrake & Santillo attorney and partner
Peter Winebrake told the Pennsylvania Record.

"If the restaurant allows food servers to share those tips with
other employees who don't typically interact with customers -- in
this case expediters -- they are not allowed to apply the state
tip credit."

Brinker in August 2014 settled a 10-year-long class action
regarding wages and working conditions that made its way to the
California Supreme Court.  In a preliminary agreement subject to
court approval, Brinker agreed to pay $56.5 million to a class of
some 120,000 workers employed at Chili's and Maggiano's.

In its 2012 ruling, the California Supreme Court stated that
businesses must provide employees uninterrupted 30-minute meal
breaks, but that they are not required to ensure that they don't
do any work during them.

Furthermore, the court warned employers that they must not "impede
or discourage workers" from taking their breaks.  The court also
clarified state law regarding rest periods, ruling that employers
must provide hourly employees one 10-minute rest period for every
four hours worked or every major fraction thereof.

Brinker did not respond to requests for comment on the filing of
Augustine's class action in Pennsylvania.  Company executives did
address the issue of workplace lawsuits in Brinker's 2015 annual
report to shareholders, however.

"We have experienced and continue to expect adjustments in payroll
expenses as a result of federal and state mandated increases in
the minimum wage; we cannot be certain there will be no additional
significant increases in the future," management wrote.

The report continued: "Enactment and enforcement of various
federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations on
immigration and labor organizations may adversely impact the
availability and costs of labor for our restaurants in a
particular area or across the United States.  Other labor
shortages or increased team member turnover could also increase
labor costs."

In a case that may serve as a precedent, Winebrake & Santillo
litigated a class action on behalf of food servers who alleged
that that Red Robin franchise restaurant owner Lehigh Valley
Restaurant Group (LVRG) violated the FLSA and PMWA by requiring
them to share tips with food service expediters.

In March, U.S. District Court Judge James M. Munley for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania granted final approval to a $1.3 million
class-action settlement that Winebrake & Santillo reached with
LVRG.  Plaintiffs attorneys argued that the company violated the
FLSA and PMWA by requiring food servers to contribute 3 percent of
their gross sales to a tip pool that was distributed to
expediters.

The class action Winebrake & Santillo filed on behalf of Augustine
centers on a similar tip pool practice by Brinker at its Chili's
restaurants.  Regarding prospects for the class action Winebrake &
Santillo has filed on behalf of Augustine, Winebrake said "We'll
wait for Brinker to file their response and the litigation will
proceed from there."


CLIFFS NATURAL: Brown Appeals From Ruling in Treasury Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Jeff M. Brown filed an appeal from an order and judgment
entered by the District Court on June 30, 2016, in the lawsuit
styled Department of the Treasury of the State of New Jersey and
Its Division of Investment v. Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:14-cv-01031-DAP, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio.

The appellate case is captioned as The Dept. of the Treasury etc.,
et al. v. Jeff M. Brown, Case No. 16-3405, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 16,
2016, Cliffs Natural said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, that the
parties in the lawsuit have settled the case for $84 million and
the case was dismissed on June 30, 2016.

In May 2014, alleged purchasers of the Company's common shares
filed suit in against the Company and certain former officers and
directors of the Company.  The action is captioned Department of
the Treasury of the State of New Jersey and Its Division of
Investment v. Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., et al., No. 1:14-CV-
1031.  As amended, the action asserted violations of the federal
securities laws based on alleged false or misleading statements or
omissions during the period of March 14, 2012, to March 26, 2013,
regarding operations at the Company's Bloom Lake mine in Quebec,
Canada, and the impact of those operations on the Company's
finances and outlook, including sustainability of the dividend.
According to the complaint, the alleged misstatements caused the
Company's common shares to trade at artificially inflated prices.

Plaintiff-Appellee The Department of the Treasury of the State of
New Jersey and its Division of Investment, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          James A. Harrod, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019-0000
          Telephone: (212) 554-1502
          Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
          E-mail: jim.harrod@blbglaw.com

               - and -

          Michael T.G. Long, Esq.
          LOWENSTEIN & SANDLER LLP
          65 Livingston Avenue
          Roseland, NJ 07068-1791
          Telephone: (973) 422-6726
          Facsimile: (973) 422-6727
          E-mail: mlong@lowenstein.com

               - and -

          Scott D. Simpkins, Esq.
          CLIMACO, WILCOX, PECA, TARANTINO & GAROFOLI CO., LPA
          55 Public Square, Suite 1950
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 621-8484
          Facsimile: (216) 771-1632
          E-mail: sdsimp@climacolaw.com

Defendants-Appellees Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., Joseph
Carrabba, Laurie Brlas, Terry Paradie and David Blake are
represented by:

          Adrienne F. Mueller, Esq.
          Geoffrey J. Ritts, Esq.
          JONES & DAY
          901 Lakeside Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44114-0000
          Telephone: (216) 586-7370
          Facsimile: (216) 579-0212
          E-mail: afmueller@jonesday.com
                  gjritts@jonesday.com


COMMONWEALTH LAND: Class Certification Bid in "Coleman" Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, (1) STEPHANIE COLEMAN AND JANELLE BOWMER, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Class Action
No. 09-679 (E.D. Pa.); and (2) MITCHELL AND RANDI SCHWARTZ, and
EDWARD AND MARY BURNSIDE, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Civil Action. No. 09-841 (E.D. Pa.), District
Judge Joel H. Slomsky granted the Defendants' Motion to Strike in
both cases and denied Plaintiffs' Corrected Motion for Class
Certification.

The Court ordered that its opinion dated August 16, 2016 shall be
filed under seal and further ordered the Clerk of Court to close
both cases for statistical purposes.

A copy of the Court's order is available at http://goo.gl/q8ar2i
from Leagle.com.

STEPHANIE COLEMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by ELIZABETH W.
FOX, BERGER MONTAGUE PC, ANN MILLER -- alm@miller.law --  Law
Office of Ann Miller, DANIEL M. HARRIS -- dan@nmilawyers.com --
THE LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL HARRIS, SHOSHANA MICHELLE SAVETT --
stsavett@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. & TODD S. COLLINS --
tcollins@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C..

COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented
by GEOFFREY A. KAHN -- kahn@ballardspahr.com -- BALLARD SPAHR
ANDREWS & INGERSOLL LLP, DANIEL J.T. MCKENNA --
mckennad@ballardspahr.com -- BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL,
LLP, EDWARD D. ROGERS -- rogerse@ballardspahr.com -- BALLARD,
SPAHR, ANDREWS AND INGERSOLL & ROBERT EVAN HAIMES --
haimesr@ballardspahr.com -- BALLARD SPAHR LLP.


CONAGRA FOODS: Grant of Summary Judgment in "Garrison" Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Evelyn Garrison, et al., Appellants/Cross-
Appellees, v. ConAgra Foods Packaged Foods, LLC, d/b/a ConAgra
Foods, Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Nos. 15-1177, 15-1428 (8th Cir.),
the United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit affirmed the
district court's grant of summary judgment, but vacated the
district court's denial of the motion for costs filed by ConAgra
Foods Packaged Foods, LLC, d/b/a ConAgra Foods.

Evelyn Garrison and 10 opt-in plaintiffs brought a suit against
ConAgra under the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act (AMWA), and the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), alleging misclassification as exempt
employees and unpaid overtime.  Garrison and nine of the opt-in
plaintiffs appealed the district court's grant of summary
judgment.  One plaintiff, Ruben Garcia, was dismissed prior to the
grant of summary judgment.  ConAgra cross-appealed the district
court's denial of costs.

The Eighth Circuit concluded that ConAgra is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law on both the federal and state law claims and
affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment.  The
appellate court then held that a prevailing FLSA defendant is not
precluded from recovering costs as a result of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 54(d) and the silence in 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).
Therefore, the Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's denial
of ConAgra's motion for costs.  The case was remanded to the
district court to consider whether ConAgra's costs should be
awarded pursuant to Rule 54(d) and whether costs should be
assessed against Garrison and 10 opt-in plaintiffs jointly and
severally.

A full-text copy of Eighth Circuit's August 15, 2016 decision is
available at https://is.gd/EnH0Sa from Leagle.com.

Jon R. Sanford, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Mark G. Arnold -- mark.arnold@huschblackwell.com -- Carolyn B.
Witherspoon -- cspoon@cgwg.com -- Josef S. Glynias --
joe.glynias@huschblackwell.com -- Andrew J. Weissler --
aj.weissler@huschblackwell.com -- Brittany M. Falkowski --
brittany.falkowski@huschblackwell.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.


CONAIR CORP: Non-Calif. Individual Claims in "Czuchaj" Severed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CYNTHIA L. CZUCHAJ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
CONAIR CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No.
3:13-cv-01901-BEN-RBB (S.D. Cal.), Judge Roger T. Benitez severed
and transferred the non-California individual claims, but declined
to sever the California subclass claim from the New York subclass
claim.

The action arose from two alleged defects in Conair Corporation's
Infinity Pro 1875 Watt hair dryer, a defect to the strain relief
in the product's cord and a defect to coils in the barrel of the
product.  The plaintiffs argued that all hair dryers suffered from
the coil defect, even if the hair dryers first failed due to
problems with the cord.  There are four named plaintiffs: Czuchaj,
Carter, McConnell, and Mundy.  Czuchaj is the only California
resident.  Carter resides in New York, McConnell resides in
Michigan, and Mundy resides in Pennsylvania.  The hair dryers of
Czuchaj and McConnell had cord failures, while the hair dryers of
Carter and Mundy failed because of the coil issue.

Conair filed a motion to sever and transfer certain claims,
seeking the following orders: (1) to sever individual claims from
class claims; (2) to sever the California subclass count from the
New York subclass count; (3) to transfer the New York subclass
count to the Southern District of New York or the District of
Connecticut; and (4) to transfer the individual claims to their
respective Federal District Courts.

Judge Benitez severed the individual claims of Carter, McConnell,
and Mundy.  Carter's claims were transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of New York.  McConnell's claims
were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan.  Mundy's claims were transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

A full-text copy of Judge Benitez's August 10, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/7Kazst from Leagle.com.

Cynthia L Czuchaj, Plaintiff, represented by Isam C. Khoury --
jkhoury@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer, Jeff Geraci --
jgeraci@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer, Jerusalem F.
Beligan -- jbeligan@bisnarchase.com -- Bisnar & Chase, Katherine
J. Odenbreit, Odenbreit Law, APC, Michael D. Singer --
msinger@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan, Khoury & Singer, Jennifer Lynn
Connor, Cohelan Khoury & Singer & Timothy D. Cohelan --
tcohelan@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer.

Conair Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ryan Donald Saba --
rsaba@rosensaba.com -- Rosen Saba LLP & Momo Emily Takahashi --
mtakahashi@rosensaba.com -- Rosen Saba LLP.


CONTRA COSTA, CA: Judge Denies Temporary Restraining Order
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the Northern District of California
ruled on the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order
in the case RETIREE SUPPORT GROUP OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, Defendant, Case No. 12-cv-
00944-JST (N.D. Cal.)

On June 14, 2016, the court conditionally certified a settlement
class and preliminarily approved a settlement.  On June 17, 2016,
AFSCME Local 2700, AFSCME Local 512, AFSCME Retiree Subchapter
142, and Richard Cabral filed a motion to intervene in order to
oppose the proposed settlement, which the court denied.

On July 20, Retiree Support Group of Contra Costa County (RSG),
jointly with the County, filed a motion requesting a temporary
restraining order. RSG alleges that during the week of July 4,
AFSCME Retiree Chapter 57, through its officers Nadine Peyrucain,
Ruth Roe, and Mr. Cabral, sent to many class members a letter
urging them not to participate in the class settlement. The letter
included a form by which recipients could opt out and object to
the settlement, and in so doing agree to be represented by Beeson,
Tayer & Bodine, the same firm that represented the various
objectors who filed the motion to intervene.

RSG contends that the letter is false and misleading and requests
a TRO enjoining Chapter 57 and its officers from communicating any
further with the class members, as well as a preliminary
injunction that requires Chapter 57 to send a corrective notice,
declares ineffective any elections made by class members through
Chapter 57's form, and enjoins Chapter 57 from further
communications without prior approval.

In addition, RSG's motion also requests that the court order
Chapter 57 to show cause why the Court should not issue a
preliminary injunction in response to Chapter 57's communications.
Specifically, RSG requests that a corrective letter be sent that
corrects any false and misleading statements in Chapter 57's
letter, that any elections made by class members using Chapter
57's form be invalidated and that a preliminary injunction be
entered enjoining Chapter 57 from sending any further
communications to class members without prior review by the Court
and the parties.

Judge Tigar denied RSG's motion for a temporary restraining order
and granted in part and denied in part the request for preliminary
injunction. Judge Tigar granted RSG's request to invalidate the
obtained opt-outs and to issue a curative notice, and deny its
request to enjoin further communications from Chapter 57. The
parties and Chapter 57 were ordered to meet and confer, and submit
on August 1, 2016 at 5:00 p.m., a proposal that covers:

     1. A process by which the Settlement Administrator shall
determine which class members wish to invalidate their opt-out
elections based on the misleading communications sent by Chapter
57.

     2. A proposed form of corrective notice. The notice will be
issued on court letterhead and should inform the recipients that
any opt-out elections obtained through Chapter 57's form and
communications have been invalidated by the Court, as well as the
reasons for the invalidation.

     3. A proposed method to confidentially submit to the
Settlement Administrator a complete list of the recipients of
Chapter 57's communications. The Settlement Administrator shall
distribute the corrective notice only to those recipients.

     4. A responsible official shall certify, under penalty of
perjury, that the list submitted to the Settlement Administrator
is a complete and accurate list of the persons who received
Chapter 57's letter, and the official's declaration shall be filed
without attachment on the docket. Chapter 57 shall also lodge with
the Court a copy of that declaration, attached to the list
supplied to the Settlement Administrator.

     5. A proposed stipulated protective order, or other method,
to ensure the list remains confidential. If appropriate, the Court
may order the Settlement Administrator to be bound by the order.

     6. If necessary, whether, and how, the deadline for the class
to respond to the settlement, as well as the remaining deadlines
regarding the approval process, should be extended.

If the parties cannot agree, they are ordered to submit clearly
red-lined competing proposals to the court, bearing in mind that
the court will choose one of the parties' proposals, and avoid
crafting something anew, if at all possible.

Upon receipt of the proposal or proposals, the court shall issue
an order directing the Settlement Administrator to circulate the
corrective notice and to invalidate the necessary opt-out
elections. Chapter 57 is also required to reimburse the Settlement
Administrator for all printing and mailing costs related to the
curative notice.

A copy of Judge Tigar's order dated July 29, 2016, is available at
http://goo.gl/G5EMcMfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs represented by, Jeffrey Greg Lewis --
jlewis@kellerrohrback.com -- Jacob Avery Richards --
jrichards@kellerrohrback.com -- at Keller Rohrback, L.L.P.

Contra Costa County, Defendant, represented by Raymond Francis
Lynch -- rlynch@hansonbridgett.com -- Lawrence M. Cirelli --
lcirelli@hansonbridgett.com -- Matthew Joseph Peck --
mpeck@hansonbridgett.com -- Stephen B. Peck --
speck@hansonbridgett.com -- at Hanson Bridgett LLP; Mary Ann
McNett Mason -- Sharon Louise Anderson -- at Office of County
Counsel

Ruth Roe, Defendant, represented by Lorrie Elizabeth Bradley --
lbradley@beesontayer.com -- Sheila Kathleen Sexton -- at Beeson,
Tayer and Bodine PC

AFSCME Retiree Chapter 57 and Nadine Peyrucain, Objectors, by
Lorrie Elizabeth Bradley -- lbradley@beesontayer.com -- Sheila
Kathleen Sexton -- at Beeson, Tayer and Bodine PC


CORDIS CORP: CAFA Hearing in "Dunson" Suit Moved to Sept. 8
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen granted the parties' joint
stipulation to reschedule the hearing on federal jurisdiction of
the case, JERRY DUNSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CORDIS CORPORATION,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-CV-03076-EMC (N.D. Calif.).

As per Court order, the hearing on the question of federal
jurisdiction of the case is initially set for September 1, 2016
and is rescheduled to September 8, 2016.

A copy of the Court's Order dated August 18, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/aeAe4Vfrom Leagle.com.

Jerry Dunson, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Troy Alexander
Brenes -- tbrenes@breneslawgroup.com -- Brenes Law Group.

Cordis Corporation, Defendant, represented by Andrew D. Kaplan --
akaplan@crowell.com -- Crowell & Moring LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin
Cooper Mayer -- kmayer@crowell.com -- Crowell Moring LLP & Rebecca
B. Chaney -- rchaney@crowell.com -- Crowell & Moring LLP, pro hac
vice.

Confluent Medical Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Michelle A. Childers -- machilders@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle &
Reath LLP.


CREDIT ONE: Court Sends AD Class Suit to Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Matthew F. Kennelly entered a memorandum opinion and
order in the lawsuit styled A.D., by and through her guardian ad
litem Judith Serrano, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A., Case No. 1:14-cv-
10106 (N.D. Ill.), denying Credit One's motion to dismiss for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction but grants its motion to compel
arbitration.

In light of the class action waiver contained in the user
agreement that binds A.D., the Court denies A.D.'s motion for
class certification.  The Case is, accordingly, stayed pending the
outcome of arbitration, and the Case will be administratively
terminated in the interim.

A joint status report regarding the status of arbitration
proceedings is to be filed as of February 28, 2017.

A.D., a minor acting through her guardian ad litem Judith Serrano,
has sued Credit One under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
on behalf of herself and others similarly situated.  A.D. alleges
that Credit One violated the TCPA by repeatedly calling her on her
cellular phone without her consent, using an automated dialer,
ostensibly to collect on a debt she did not owe.

Credit One is a national bank that provides banking services and
credit cards throughout the United States.

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


CSR REPS: State Prisoner May Amend Complaint
--------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng of the Eastern District of
California dismissed the plaintiff's complaint in the case GEORGE
E. JACOBS, Plaintiff, v. CSR REPS, et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-00791-DAD-MJS (PC) (E.D. Cal.)

George A Jacobs is a state prisoner currently incarcerated at
California State Prison, Corcoran.  Corcoran officials made false
allegations that Jacobs had safety and security concerns, but
Warden Dave Davey held that the allegations were invalid and
released Jacobs to the general population pending transfer to
another institution.  Jacobs successfully programmed on the
general population yard for several months. During that time,
Jacobs was denied transfer by CSR Reps and CP-R Reps based on the
bogus allegations of safety concerns.

Jacobs was injured on November 13, 2015, and alleged that the
injury would not have occurred were it not for the bogus
allegations that prevented his transfer. Jacobs was placed on
Administrative Segregation status by Sergeant Alvarado. However,
Jacobs was not immediately placed in the AdSeg unit, apparently
because he was hospitalized. Jacobs's arm was broken and was not
operated on for a month.

On May 3, 2016, Jacobs was taken to an Institutional
Classification Committee (ICC) hearing. The Committee confirmed
that the allegations of security concerns were invalid. The ICC
determined to release Jacobs to the general population pending an
accelerated transfer to another institution for treatment of
Jacobs's mental health conditions.

On May 4, 2016, Jacobs filed a so-called 602 challenging the ICCs
decision not to send him to a medical prison for treatment of his
arm. He states that the prisons the ICC indicated it would
transfer him to are violent and would subject him to risk of
further injury to his arm. He alleges that such transfer violates
various provisions of the California Code of Regulations.

CSR Reps and CP-R Reps cancelled the accelerated transfer. Jacobs
believes this was done in retaliation for Plaintiff's filing of a
602.

Jacobs claims violation of his First, Eight, and Fourteenth
Amendment rights and Article 5 of the California Constitution. He
claims that Warden Davey and the hiring authority failed to train
their designees and turned a blind eye to violations. He seeks
release from solitary confinement and money damages.

Magistrate Judge Seng dismissed plaintiff's complaint for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Within 30 days
from the date of service of the order, plaintiff must file a first
amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the court
or a notice of voluntary dismissal.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Seng's order dated August 9, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/y30TVLfrom Leagle.com.

George E. Jacobs, Plaintiff, Pro Se


CYNOSURE INC: LDGP's Bid to Certify Class Denied as Premature
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Frederick J. Kapala entered an order in the lawsuit
entitled LDGP, LLC, et al. v. Cynosure, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-
50148 (N.D. Ill.):

   * dismissing as premature without prejudice the Plaintiffs'
     motion for class certification;

   * granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion
     for judgment on the pleadings; and

   * granting the Plaintiffs' motion to file a sur-reply.

The Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings with
respect to three claims: negligent misrepresentation (Count I);
breach of contract-breach of express warranties under the Uniform
Commercial Code (Count IV); and violation of Texas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act-Consumer Protection Act (Count VI).

Plaintiffs LDGP, LLC d/b/a Hartsough Dermatology; Ritacca Cosmetic
Surgery and Med Spa, Ltd.; Black Alsatians, LLC d/b/a Pigment
Demographics and Laser Removal; and Saxon and Susan Hatchett,
Burke Dermatology, P.A., allege false advertising by the Defendant
relating to the Picosure Picosecond Aesthetic Workstation, a
tattoo removal machine manufactured and sold worldwide by the
Defendant.  The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant breached the
purchase contracts and negligently misrepresented the capabilities
of the Picosure machine because it knew the Picosure machine did
not remove or eliminate tattoos as advertised.

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


DELL INC: Faces Shareholder Class Actions Over EMC Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Calnan, writing for Austin Business Journal, reports
that Dell Inc.'s proposed merger with EMC Corp. has prompted 15
class action lawsuits, and at least one of the suits is still
being considered in a court of appeals, EMC reported on Aug. 8 in
a regulatory filing.

The Massachusetts-based technology giant reported that 13 of the
lawsuits were filed "purportedly" on behalf of EMC shareholders,
and two on behalf of shareholders of affiliate VMware Inc.

A consolidated lawsuit involving nine plaintiffs was dismissed in
December 2015 but it has been under appeal before the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court since June.  The $60 billion
merger, which was overwhelmingly approved by EMC shareholders on
July 19, is scheduled to be completed during the third quarter
that ends Sept. 30, according to the EMC filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Eleven of the lawsuits alleged the merger violated the fiduciary
duties of EMC directors.  Some lawsuits also alleged EMC "aided
and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the
directors."

Plaintiffs in the initial 15 lawsuits include several labor
organizations such as IBEW Local No. 129 in Ohio, the City of
Miami Police Relief and Pension Fund and the City of Lakeland
Employees Pension and Retirement Fund, the filing indicates.

The buyout, which was first proposed in October 2015, would be the
largest technology merger in history.  Denali Holding Inc., parent
company of Round Rock-based Dell, has agreed to pay EMC
shareholders $24.05 a share as well as 0.111 shares of a tracking
stock related to California-based VMware.

Dell, the No. 3 computer maker in the world, employs 13,000
workers in Central Texas.  The company has posted losses for the
last three years. During fiscal 2016, it reported a loss of $1.1
billion on revenue of $54.8 billion compared with a loss of $1.2
billion on revenue of $58.1 billion during fiscal 2015, SEC
filings show.

Last year, EMC reported a profit of $1.9 billion -- well below the
$2.7 billion profit it posted in 2014.  Dell plans to rename the
combined company Dell Technologies after the acquisition that's
being done in partnership with California-based Silver Lake
Partners LP.


DES MOINES REGISTER: Epstein Seeks to Certify Class of Reporters
----------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Epstein moves the Court for conditional certification of
the collective action entitled VICTOR EPSTEIN v. DES MOINES
REGISTER AND TRIBUNE COMPANY, an Iowa Corporation, and GANNET CO.,
INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 4:15-cv-00453-JAJ-CFB (S.D.
Iowa), on behalf of himself and a group of similarly situated
individuals, who worked as Reporter I's, II's, and Senior
Reporters/Reporter III's for the Defendants at the Des Moines
Register at any time since three years prior to the filing of the
amended complaint.

Mr. Epstein also moves the Court for an order to:

   (1) set a 60-day notice period;

   (2) approve the form of the Plaintiff's proposed notice and
       reminder notice;

   (3) authorize the Plaintiff's counsel to mail and e-mail the
       notice at the beginning of the 60-day notice period and a
       reminder notice at the 30th day of the notice period;

   (4) order the Defendants to post the Court-approved notice in
       a conspicuous location in all Des Moines Register reporter
       break rooms;

   (5) order the Defendants to produce a list of persons it
       employed as reporters at the Register at any time from the
       date of the Court's order on conditional certification to
       three years preceding the filing of the Amended Complaint,
       including their name, job title, e-mail address, mailing
       address, and dates of employment; and

   (6) order the Defendants to provide the Plaintiff's counsel
       with the last known telephone number, date of birth, and
       last four digits of the reporter's Social Security number,
       if available, within three business days of the
       Plaintiff's request.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qJf2Fsvs

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew H. Morgan, Esq.
          Jason Hungferford, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          Facsimile: (612) 215-6870
          E-mail: morgan@nka.com
                  jhungerford@nka.com

               - and -

          Wesley T. Graham, Esq.
          GRAHAM, ERVANIAN & CACCIATORE, LLP
          317 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900
          Des Moines, IA 50309
          Telephone: (515) 244-9400
          Facsimile: (515) 282-4235
          E-mail: wtg@grahamlawiowa.com


DIRECTV: Faces Class Action Over Contract Cancellation Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
WFTV reports that an Orlando man was forced to pay nearly $550 to
cancel a DirecTV contract he had for just 20 days.

Hundreds of customers have complained to Florida's attorney
general about surprise fees with the company.

Action 9's Todd Ulrich investigated how anyone could be hit with
big cancellation fees and what the state is doing to stop it.

The DirecTV dish is still on Mackel Warren's roof in Orlando, but
there's no satellite television service inside his house.

Mr. Warren said he canceled it three weeks after signing up
because of serious reception issues.

"It will just freeze up and it will stop and say, 'No signal,' and
it just kept doing that," he said.

Mr. Warren said the salesman said he had 30 days to cancel, but he
still received a DirecTV bill for $547 that was listed as an early
cancelation fee.

He called to challenge that fee without success.

"They told me I only have 24 hours to cancel.  Who evaluates
something in 24 hours?" said Mr. Warren.

He's far from alone.

The Federal Trade Commission charged DirecTV with deceptive
advertising and misleading customers about contract terms and
fees.

Recent Yelp reviews and many consumers claim they were told they
had 30 days to cancel, and then were hit with cancelation fees.

Florida's attorney general accused DirecTV of deceptive billing
after getting hundreds of complaints.

It reached a settlement agreement in 2010, but reopened its
investigation because so many new customers complained.

DirecTV also faces a class action lawsuit in California where it's
accused of small print hidden fees.

Advocacy groups, such as Consumer Watchdog, say its contracts have
not changed.

The organization's spokesman, Harvey Rosenfield, said the
termination fee catches many customers by surprise.

"It's hard to read let alone understand what is says and it
doesn't say anything about termination fees," he said.

DirecTV workers told Ulrich all customer fees are fully disclosed,
and it cooperates with all investigations.

The company also said it's reviewing Mr. Warren's complaint and
has made an offer to settle the issue.


DOMINO'S PIZZA: Class Action Waiver Not Enforceable, Judge Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric T. Berkman, writing for New England In-House, reports that a
class-action waiver in a mandatory arbitration agreement between a
Domino's Pizza franchisee and its employees could not be enforced
against delivery drivers asserting wage and tip law violations, a
U.S. District Court judge has ruled.

The plaintiff was a delivery driver who claimed in a putative
class action that a "delivery charge" imposed on customers was in
fact a "service charge" that the defendant franchisee illegally
withheld from him and other drivers.

He argued that the waiver interfered with employees' right to
engage in protected concerted activity under Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act, even though the arbitration
agreement had an opt-out provision.

Judge William G. Young agreed, granting the plaintiff's motion for
class certification and denying the defendants' motion to dismiss.

"What are the class actions before the Court, if not employees
'band[ing]' together as a class, in 'confronting' their employer
'regarding the terms . . . of their employment?'" Judge Young
wrote, quoting the NLRA.

He went on to say that the National Labor Relations Board's
interpretation of Section 7  "-- that these agreements, even with
opt-out provisions, 'burden' the exercise of Section 7 rights, and
unlawfully 'require . . . employees to prospectively waive their
Section 7 right to engage in concerted activity . . .' -- is a
reasonable one, in light of the statute's text and purpose."
The 53-page decision is Tigges v. AM Pizza, Inc., et al.; Reeves
v. PMLRA Pizza, Inc., et al.

'Positive development'

Plaintiffs' counsel Stephen S. Churchill of Boston declined to
comment due to the ongoing nature of the case.

But Nicholas F. Ortiz, who represents employees in wage and hour
class actions, called the ruling a "positive development."
To have a local judge take the side of employees in a nationwide
debate over the enforceability of class-action waivers in the
employment context is critical, Ortiz said.

"Seeing class actions as a way that employees exercise the key
right to collective action that's longstanding in American history
is extremely important," the Boston lawyer said.  "The hope of
plaintiffs' counsel like myself is that ultimately the national
debate in the courts will come out in employees' favor, and the
Federal Arbitration Act won't be used as an extraordinarily
powerful trump to these other key rights that consumers and
employees have."

Shannon Liss-Riordan, a Boston lawyer who also represents workers
in class actions, said the U.S. Supreme Court eventually will have
to address the matter, given the split between the 7th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals and other circuits on whether clauses
like the one at issue should be enforced.

When that happens, Ms. Liss-Riordan said, hopefully the court will
not expand its recent decisions upholding the enforceability of
class-action waivers in the consumer context to cover employment
cases.

"The employment context raises different issues from the consumer
and antitrust contexts, and it is evident that employees who
depend on their employers for their livelihoods will feel more
pressure to accept arbitration agreements," she said.

Cambridge attorney Eric R. LeBlanc, who represented the
defendants, said his client is considering an appeal.
He noted that an essentially identical claim was made against
Domino's in Minnesota and that the 8th Circuit overturned a
federal judge's certification of the class in its 2011 Luiken, et
al. v. Domino's Pizza LLC decision.

Additionally, he said, the franchisee in the case before Judge
Young went through a full "exemplar" trial in October on the
merits of similar claims brought by a different driver, and the
jury found for Mr. LeBlanc's client on all counts.

"The mere idea that the delivery driver who went through the
exemplar trial and lost could now potentially be a member of the
class [in this case] because -- according to Judge Young's opinion
-- he's exactly in the same position as [the plaintiff], doesn't
line up," Mr. LeBlanc said.

Michael Mankes, a Boston lawyer who represents employers, said not
only is Young's decision at odds with the majority of decisions
across the country, it goes even further than those rulings that
have found class-action waivers unenforceable.
"Judge Young ruled that even if there's an opt-out provision,
[class-action waivers] are unlawful," he said, noting that a
recent federal District Court decision from Ohio and a 9th Circuit
ruling both contradict Judge Young's decision.

Meanwhile, Judge Young's ruling could put Massachusetts employers
in a tough spot, Mr. Mankes said.

"Whenever the law is in flux like it is here, it's difficult for
an employer to know what's permitted and what's not permitted," he
said.

Mr. Mankes said he would still recommend mandatory arbitration
provisions because they give both employer and employee a quicker,
less costly avenue to get disputes resolved.  But he added that
employers would have to "think harder" about including class-
action waivers.  And employers who do include them should also
incorporate a severability provision so that if a waiver is ruled
invalid, it will not void the entire arbitration agreement, he
said.

Class-action waiver

Plaintiff Tylor Reeves was employed as a delivery driver for
defendant PMLRA Pizza, Inc., which owns a number of Domino's Pizza
franchises, and its president, defendant Henry Askew, from 2008 to
2013.

The employer presented some of its employees, including Reeves,
with a contract under which any dispute with the employer would be
handled through individual arbitration.  The arbitration agreement
also barred class actions against the employer.
The agreement did, however, contain a provision that allowed
employees to opt out of the agreement by doing so in writing
within 30 days of signing it.  The provision contained language
that promised employees they would not suffer retaliation for
opting out, but also reminded them that they remained "at-will"
employees.

Mr. Reeves, like other drivers, received a "tipped minimum wage."
In other words, he received less than the hourly minimum wage,
supplemented by tips.

Meanwhile, the employer imposed a delivery charge on customers
ranging between $1.99 and $2.99.  Customers were told of the
delivery charge by disclosures on the Domino's website, its
smartphone app and on the pizza boxes themselves.

Information about each order was recorded on Domino's information
systems and included the date and time of each order, the amount,
the delivery driver, and the amount of any delivery charge and/or
credit card tips.

Beginning in 2013, a series of drivers started filing putative
class actions against the defendants alleging that the defendants'
failure to pay their drivers the full amount of the "delivery
charge" violated the state Minimum Wage Act and Section 152A of
the Tips Act.  A number of prior claims settled.

Reeves filed his claim on Jan. 7, 2016, and in March moved for
class certification for all drivers who worked for his employer at
any time since the end of 2010.

The employer moved to dismiss, citing the arbitration agreement
with the class-action waiver.

'Achilles' heel'

Addressing the defendants' motion, Young suggested that the
arbitration agreement would have been valid if not for the class-
action waiver provision, which he described as its "Achilles'
heel."

Specifically, Young rejected the defendants' argument that the FAA
mandated enforcement of the arbitration agreement, including the
class-action waiver.

"The FAA does not place arbitration agreements on a 'pedestal' on
which all other legal rights are to be sacrificed," the judge
said, quoting the Supreme Court's 2002 decision in E.E.O.C. v.
Wafffle House, Inc.  "[R]ather, the FAA merely ensures that
arbitration agreements -- which, at the time of the FAA's
enactment, were subject to 'longstanding judicial hostility,' --
are placed on an 'equal footing' with contracts."

Here, enforcing the arbitration agreement and its class-action
waiver would infringe on a substantive federal right -- the right
to engage in concerted activity as protected by Section 7 -- and
the FAA does not require a court to enforce an illegal agreement,
Judge Young said.

The judge further found that the opt-out provision did not save
the waiver, citing the NLRB's prior decisions that class-action
waivers in the employment context, even with opt-out provisions,
still violate Section 7.

Accordingly, Judge Young denied the defendants' motion to dismiss
and allowed the plaintiff's motion for class certification.


DUKE UNIVERSITY: Employees File Class Action Over Retirement Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a St. Louis law firm says it has
filed a class action lawsuit against Duke University on behalf of
more than 20,000 of its employees enrolled in the school's
contribution retirement plan.

A statement from Schlichter, Bogard & Denton on Aug. 10 said the
lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of North Carolina.

Attorney Jerry Schlicter said Duke caused plan participants to pay
millions of dollars in fees for record keeping, administrative and
investment services.  The plaintiffs also say Duke failed to
consider or offer lower-cost investment alternatives, and selected
and retained a number of duplicative options, some of which had
historically underperformed.

A statement from Duke said the investments are reviewed and
carefully managed to provide low costs and good outcomes for
employees.


DUPONT: Lawyer Says Health Dep't Must Not Downplay PFOA Risks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan J. Lyons, writing for Times Union, reports that an Ohio
lawyer who represents an estimated 3,500 people in a class-action
lawsuit against DuPont is urging the state Health Department not
to downplay the health risks of a dangerous chemical that
contaminated drinking water supplies in eastern Rensselaer County.

Robert A. Bilott, in a letter sent to the state agency's Bureau of
Water Supply Protection, said a fact sheet it posted on its
website fails to cite information from validated scientific
studies that found a "probable link" between six serious diseases,
including cancer, in people who were exposed to drinking water
contaminated with PFOA.

The Health Department's information sheet was posted on the
agency's website Aug. 1 and said "nearly all people in the United
States have PFOA in their blood" and that "some human health
studies have found associations between PFOA exposure and health
effects. Others have not.  The studies that found associations
were not able to determine with certainty if the health effects
were caused by PFOA or some other factors.  These studies did not
show that PFOA caused diseases."

Mr. Bilott said the information is misleading, neglects to include
any citations to the scientific studies that were conducted on
PFOA exposure in humans, and ignores recent information on the
health risks of PFOA exposure that have been put forth by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and the European Union.  He said
the agency also is citing "outdated" information on PFOA from the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry.
Dr. Nathan Graber, director of the state Health Department's
Center for Environmental Health, said the agency is "not trying to
downplay" the health risks of exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid
or other perfluoronated chemicals, and that the science on the
effects of the chemicals is evolving.  "It was only put on the Web
and it's only one piece of all the information we've put out to
the community," Dr. Graber said.

"We're trying to be objective about providing to the public
information they can use in making decisions about their health,"
Graber added, explaining the fact sheet challenged by Mr. Bilott
was intended to provide information ahead of blood test results
released on Aug. 4.  "Essentially, there's always uncertainty and
there's always things that we don't know because of the emerging
science . . . a lot of gaps in the data that's available."
The Health Department's information sheet was posted on its
website several days before the agency conducted a public meeting
in the village of Hoosick Falls and announced that the levels of
PFOA in adult residents of the village are more than 30 times the
national average.  In older residents, the levels of PFOA in their
blood stream were significantly higher, at roughly 91 parts per
billion.  The national average is about 2 ppb.

"The agency's recent document includes language suggesting that
people should 'expect' to find PFOA in their blood," Mr. Bilott
said.  "Although it may be true that PFOA has been found in blood
across the country, that data does not suggest or imply that there
is any 'normal' or acceptable 'background' level of PFOA in human
blood, as PFOA is a man-made, non-naturally occurring substance,
and its presence in any human blood is the result of non-naturally
occurring contamination."

Mr. Bilott said the Health Department's newest information does
not provide any links, or citations of, the findings of a science
panel that was formed as a result of the class-action litigation
with DuPont and other manufacturers of PFOA.  The panel conducted
a comprehensive health study on the exposure to PFOA of people in
the Ohio and West Virginia areas where PFOA was manufactured for
decades.  The scientists issued a peer-reviewed report that
concluded the chemical has a "probable link" to six diseases:
kidney cancer; testicular cancer; ulcerative colitis; thyroid
disease; preeclampsia/pregnancy-induced hypertension; and
medically diagnosed high cholesterol.

DuPont paid for the study by a group of scientists known as the
"C8 Science Panel," and, as a result of the panel's findings, the
company has to concede in the personal injury lawsuits that PFOA
causes cancer.

It's the second time Mr. Bilott has urged the Health Department to
strengthen its characterization of the health effects of PFOA. In
December, he criticized the agency for distributing a fact sheet
to residents stating "Health effects are not expected to occur
from normal use of the water."

Dr. Graber said the advisories for PFOA exposure set by the
federal government are conservative estimates based largely on
animal studies and they include statistics that take into account
humans will face exposure to the chemical from sources other than
water.

In May, the EPA issued a new health advisory setting a long-term
exposure limit of 70 parts per trillion for drinking water, down
from the 400 ppt level recommended by the agency in 2009 for
short-term exposure.

"There's always emerging literature and we've recognized that in
all of our documents," Dr. Graber said.


EXPRESS MEDICAL: Seeks Review of Ruling in "LaCurtis" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Express Medical Transporters, Inc. and Hospital Shuttle
Service, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
entitled Michael LaCurtis, et al. v. Express Medical Transporters,
et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00427-AGF, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Case is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a week.

Express Medical Transporters Inc. is a Missouri corporation that
provides non-emergency medical and student transportation.

The appellate case is captioned as Michael LaCurtis, et al. v.
Express Medical Transporters, et al., Case No. 16-3378, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellee Michael LaCurtis is represented by:

          Daniel Craig, Esq.
          DONELON, P.C.
          6614 Clayton Road, Suite 320
          Saint Louis, MO 63117
          Telephone: (314) 297-8385
          E-mail: dan@donelonpc.com

               - and -

          Brendan J. Donelon, Esq.
          DONELON, P.C.
          420 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 221-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 709-1044
          E-mail: brendan@donelonpc.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Kris Daniels and Gerald Young, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Brandy B. Barth, Esq.
          NEWTON & BARTH
          7515 Delmar Boulevard
          Saint Louis, MO 63130
          Telephone: (314) 272-4490
          E-mail: bbarth@newtonbarth.com

Defendants-Appellants Express Medical Transporters, Inc., and
Hospital Shuttle Service, Inc., are represented by:

          David Coburn, Esq.
          Alice Elizabeth Loughran, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
          1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036-0000
          Telephone: (202) 429-3000
          Facsimile: (202) 429-3902
          E-mail: dcoburn@steptoe.com
                  aloughra@steptoe.com

               - and -

          John Joseph Gazzoli, Jr., Esq.
          Jessica C. Gittemeier, Esq.
          ROSENBLUM & GOLDENHERSH
          7733 Forsyth Boulevard, 4th Floor
          Saint Louis, MO 63105-0000
          Telephone: (314) 854-0439
          Facsimile: (314) 726-6786
          E-mail: jgazzoli@rosenblumgoldenhersh.com
                  jgittemeier@rosenblumgoldenhersh.com
FACEBOOK INC: Class Action Settlement Puts Teens' Privacy at Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert C. Fellmeth, writing for Sacramento Bee, reports that a
class-action settlement covers adult users of Facebook, but also
11 million teenagers whose need for privacy is underlined by their
immaturity and the angst when they discover their posts or photos
have been seen by the wider world.  The results can range from
memorable embarrassment to occasional suicide.

The teens had no real legal representation in Fraley v. Facebook,
which, if upheld, will give the social media giant with more than
1 billion subscribers worldwide a blank check to capture, revise
and republish any posting.  There will be no advance permission
required, and not even advance notice.

The approved contract terms will include a condition that if you
are under 18 "you represent that at least one of your parents or
legal guardians has also agreed to the terms of this section (and
use of your name, profile picture, content and information) on
your behalf."

This result is an indictment of our class-action system that
assumes all sides are represented and the ignorance of some courts
about social media, the internet and children.

First, this is not a legitimate settlement.  The attorney
representing the teen plaintiffs also represents the adults, who
do get some remedy.  The teens get crushed, and in a way that
makes it actually a net win for Facebook.  The company gave the
attorney millions in fees and threatened to make the teen
representatives pay Facebook's attorneys' fees if they lost that
part of the case.  This is called "forced collusion."

Second, the settlement violates the law.  Facebook conceded that
California law applies to its operations, but contends that all
state laws are pre-empted by the federal Children's Online Privacy
Protection Act.  But that act only applies to children under age
13, as pointed out in briefs by the California attorney general
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission.

There is a series of California statutes that this settlement
violates, and there is also the state Constitution's "inalienable
right of privacy."  They were not raised by lawyers or considered
by the trial court or any other judge.

Not everyone is blind to what is happening.  A dozen major public
interest and privacy rights groups, including Public Citizen,
joined the Children's Advocacy Institute and the American Academy
of Pediatrics in objecting to the settlement.

All of this was ignored by the trial court and then by a three-
judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.  The panel
treated the case as a matter of housekeeping and depublished its
decision under the false impression that this eliminated its legal
effect.  But when one of the parties to the settlement includes 11
million teens, the result is indeed a precedent, and a profound
one.  A petition for review has been filed with the U.S. Supreme
Court, but they are very rarely granted, especially where
decisions are not published.

The Supreme Court needs to look at this case, both because of the
flaws in class-action settlements it reflects and for its
profoundly dangerous precedent.  There is no more extensive
surrender of teen privacy and parental supervision rights than
this one.


FIDO: Court Allows Class Action Over Roaming Fees to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that the Quebec Court of Appeal has given the go-
ahead to a class-action lawsuit on behalf of Quebec consumers,
challenging the international data roaming fees charged by major
Canadian cell phone service providers and their subsidiaries.

In September 2012, Montrealer and Fido customer Inga Sibiga went
on vacation in the United States.

She used her mobile phone about six times to access Google Maps
and hadn't added a pre-paid travel package to her plan.

Ms. Sibiga used 40.82 megabytes of data at a rate of $6.14 per MB,
which resulted $250.81 of extra charges.

Months later, she was contacted by Trudel Johnston & Lesperance, a
Montreal legal firm specializing in class-action lawsuits.  The
firm was looking into international roaming fees charged to Quebec
consumers and was seeking customers who had incurred charges they
deemed to be excessive.

With the firm's help, Ms. Sibiga filed a motion in January 2013
for authorization of the lawsuit, naming Fido and its owner
Rogers, along with Bell Mobility and Telus, as the defendants.

Initial motion rejected

Quebec Superior Court Justice Michel Yergeau denied the
application in 2014.  Among his reasons, Justice Yergeau said
Ms. Sibiga did not prove that the roaming fees she paid were
exploitative, and because Ms. Sibiga only had a contract with
Fido, she couldn't represent clients of the other companies.

She appealed the decision, and on Aug. 10, the Court of Appeal
reversed it.

"We don't know what's the exact cost of providing a megabyte of
data while you're outside the country, but we know it's a very
small fraction of what they're charging," said Bruce Johnston, Ms.
Sibiga's lawyer.

Writing for the panel of three appeal court judges, Justice
Nicholas Kasirer explains that Ms. Sibiga paid $6.14 per MB for
roaming, but according to Fido's website, had she purchased a $30,
31-day plan, the roaming rate would have been $1.50 per MB.

Justice Kasirer said that difference suggests the companies are
charging exploitative rates to pay-as-you-go customers.

As for the assertion that Ms. Sibiga can't represent customers of
other telecommunications companies, Johnston said that's not true.

"The requirement to have a contract with each [company] is
somewhat artificial, when you think that the same trial can settle
the issue against every defendant," he said.

The class action will cover consumers residing in Quebec who were
charged international mobile data roaming fees by the defendants
at a rate higher than $5 per megabyte after Jan. 8, 2010.

Ms. Sibiga is asking to be refunded any amount over $5 per MB.
Johnston says some of the people who have come forward have been
charged as much as $30 per MB.


GC SERVICES: FDCPA Class Certification Sought in "Dickens" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ronnie E. Dickens asks the Court to certify the action titled
RONNIE E. DICKENS, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Case No. 8:16-cv-
00803-JSM-TGW (M.D. Fla.), as a class action.

The Plaintiff, who alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, submits that the Court should certify this class:

     (1) All persons with a Florida address, (2) to whom GC
     Services Limited Partnership mailed an initial communication
     that stated: (a) "if you do dispute all or any portion of
     this debt within 30 days of receiving this letter, we will
     obtain verification of the debt from our client and send it
     to you," and/or (b) "if within 30 days of receiving this
     letter you request the name and address of the original
     creditor, we will provide it to you in the event it differs
     from our client, Synchrony Bank," (3) between April 4, 2015
     and April 4, 2016, (4) in connection with the collection of
     a consumer debt, (5) that was not returned as undeliverable
     to GC Services Limited Partnership.

Mr. Dickens also asks the Court to appoint him as class
representative, and appoint his counsel as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=N8H9y5Wa

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
          Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33486
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
                  mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com
                  jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael Sperounes, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          3812 Coconut Palm Drive, Suite 200
          Tampa, FL 33619
          Telephone: (813) 739-1971
          Facsimile: (813) 739-1919
          E-mail: michael.sperounes@lewisbrisbois.com

               - and -

          William S. Helfand, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1400
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 659-6767
          Facsimile: (713) 759-6830
          E-mail: bill.hefland@lewisbrisbois.com


GENERAL MILLS: Court Narrows Claims in "Coe" Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Judge Thelton E. Henderson granted, in part, and denied, in part,
the defendant's motion to dismiss the case captioned NANCY COE, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MILLS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-
cv-05112-TEH (N.D. Cal.).

Nancy Coe, Tori Castro, and Pamela Mizzi filed the putative class
action against General Mills, Inc. to challenge the labeling and
advertising of its Cheerios Protein product.

The plaintiffs sought relief for both California and New York
classes of consumers.  The first four claims were asserted under
California laws that prohibit "unlawful, unfair or fraudulent"
business acts or practices, false or misleading advertising, and
deceptive business practices.  The remaining two claims were
asserted under New York laws that prohibit deceptive acts or
practices and false advertising.  General Mills sought dismissal
of the entire complaint.

Judge Henderson granted the motion with prejudice as to the "Fuel
Up" advertising claims and granted the motion without prejudice as
to the injunctive relief claims.  The judge denied the motion in
all other respects.

A full-text copy of Judge Henderson's August 10, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/axvNAo from Leagle.com.

Nancy Coe, Tori Castro, Pamela Mizzi, Plaintiffs, represented by
Laurence D. King -- lking@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer
LLP, Linda M. Fong -- lfong@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer LLP, Maia Kats -- mkats@cspinet.org -- Center for
Science in the Public Interest, pro hac vice, Michael Robert
Reese, Reese LLP & William Thanhauser, Center for Science in the
Public Interest, pro hac vice.

General Mills, Inc., Defendant, represented by David T. Biderman
-- dbiderman@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP, Charles
Christian Sipos -- csipos@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP, pro
hac vice & Joshua A. Reiten -- jreiten@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins
Coie LLP.


HARLEY-DAVIDSON INC: Settles Emissions Case for $15 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zoe Tillman, writing for Law.com, reports that the Environmental
Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Justice are putting the
brakes on devices that regulators say increase air pollution.

The feds on Aug. 18 announced a $15 million settlement with
Harley-Davidson Inc. to resolve allegations that the company sold
products that, while improving motorcycle power, also caused the
release of higher levels of harmful emissions.

The agreement with Harley-Davidson comes less than two months
after Volkswagen AG reached a $14.7 billion settlement with state
and federal regulators over allegations that the carmaker cheated
on emissions tests.  A criminal investigation is ongoing,
according to the Justice Department.

Harley-Davidson did not admit liability.  The company in a
statement maintained that it was legal for customers to use the
main product at issue -- the Screamin' Eagle Pro Super Tuners --
which was intended for "competition-only" use.  A second product
mentioned in the complaint, a different Screamin' Eagle tuner, is
no longer being sold.

The settlement "represents a good faith compromise with the EPA on
areas of law we interpret differently," Ed Moreland, Harley-
Davidson's government affairs director, said in the statement.

A Harley-Davidson spokeswoman declined to comment on whether any
outside law firms are representing the company.  The consent
decree papers filed in court on Aug. 18 are signed by the
company's chief financial officer, John Olin, and only reference
in-house company counsel.

Under the terms of the deal, Harley-Davidson will no longer sell
the Screamin' Eagle tuner, and will buy back and destroy devices
that were already sold.  The complaint filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia on Aug. 18 alleges that a main
effect of the tuner was "to bypass, defeat, or render inoperative
devices or elements of design" in a motorcycle that complied with
federal environmental regulations.

"Given Harley-Davidson's prominence in the industry, this is a
very significant step toward our goal of stopping the sale of
illegal aftermarket defeat devices that cause harmful pollution,"
Assistant Attorney General John Cruden, head of the DOJ's
Environment and Natural Resources Division, said in a statement.

Prosecutors also accused Harley-Davidson of selling more than
12,000 motorcycles that weren't certified by the EPA as being in
compliance with engine emissions standards.  The consent decree
requires Harley-Davidson to make sure that all motorcycles sold in
the future are properly certified.

Under the agreement, Harley-Davidson will pay a $12 million civil
penalty and contribute $3 million toward efforts to improve air
quality by promoting the use of cleaner-burning stoves.

The consent decree between the government and Harley-Davidson will
be subject to a 30-day public comment period and must be approved
by a judge.


HEALEON MEDICAL: Cert. Bid in Physicians Suit Under Advisement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on August 17, 2016, in the case
entitled Physicians Healthsource, Inc. v. Healeon Medical, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-07474 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing
held before the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly.

The minute entry states that the Plaintiff's Damasco motion for
class certification is taken under advisement, and that an initial
status conference will be set in due course.

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


HSBC FINANCE: Can Put "Without Prejudice Letter" Before Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gillian S.G. Scott, Esq., and W. David Rankin, Esq., of Osler
Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that a
business subject to a class action receives a "without prejudice"
letter from a potential class member offering to settle a small
personal claim for nearly a million dollars, or else the writer
will "go public" with the allegations and seek class
certification.  The business does not accept the "extortionate"
offer and the writer proceeds with certification.  Can the
business put this "without prejudice" letter before the court? And
does the appearance of extortion disqualify the writer from acting
as representative plaintiff?

The British Columbia Court of Appeal recently answered "yes" to
both questions in Sandhu v. HSBC Finance Mortgages Inc.

Background

The original plaintiffs in Sandhu were brothers.  They obtained a
mortgage from the defendants to purchase residential property. The
defendants provided a disclosure statement to the plaintiffs
identifying $357 of the mortgage proceeds as going toward a "Title
insurance premium."  The plaintiffs subsequently alleged that of
this $357, only $115 was the actual insurance "premium", with the
remainder being for "policy insurance costs" and "additional
charges."  They commenced an action in 2007 that eventually
evolved into a complaint regarding fee disclosure.

In 2011, prior to the certification application, the plaintiffs
offered "without prejudice" to settle the action for $876,000, or
$438,000 each.  Such amounts represented over 3,600 times their
individual claims.  They threatened that unless these
disproportionate sums were paid, they would amend their claim to
allege "actual fraud, or at the very least fraudulent
misrepresentation."  The plaintiffs pitched this offer as the
defendants' "one chance before it becomes publically known."

Defense counsel put this letter before the court on the
certification application, arguing that the plaintiffs' efforts at
personal enrichment disqualified them from acting as
representative plaintiffs.

The applications judge held that the "without prejudice" letter
was not admissible on grounds of settlement privilege and faulted
defense counsel for putting it on the record.  The court certified
a class action and designated the two original plaintiffs (and two
others) as representative plaintiffs.

British Columbia Court Of Appeal Decision

The B.C. Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.  Justice Saunders
held, among other things, that the "without prejudice" letter was
properly before the court and that the original plaintiffs had
disqualified themselves from representing the class.

Justice Saunders held that the "without prejudice" letter fell
within an exception to the blanket privilege for settlement
communications because it provided a "reasonable basis to
question" the plaintiffs' fitness to represent the class. She
explained that this flows from the importance of the
representative plaintiff to the integrity of class proceedings:
"It is obvious that the confidence of the community of class
members and to a large degree the integrity of the proceeding
rests on the representative plaintiffs."  Courts should not close
their eyes to evidence challenging this integrity.

Taking into account the letter, Justice Saunders held that the
application judge erred in principle by designating the original
plaintiffs as representatives of the class.  In her view, "such a
demand for large scale payment on the threat of a certification
application is highly problematic." She held:

In failing to weigh the lingering effect of this combination of
menace and disproportionate recovery, the certification order does
not reflect the values inherent in the Class Proceedings Act.
Above all, no litigation should be, or reasonably be seen to be,
extortionate.  This letter, when sent, bore that character and in
my view is a disqualifying event for the appointment of its
authors as representative plaintiffs.

The original plaintiffs sought to put a fresh affidavit before the
Court of Appeal claiming that the "without prejudice" letter was
sent fearing a potential adverse cost award and that any surplus
would have been given "to non-profit consumer advocacy groups."
Justice Saunders considered this fresh evidence but held that it
"does not lessen the appearance of large personal gain, or the
appearance of using the threat of a class proceeding to extract a
disproportionate payment."

One would hope that such a situation would not arise frequently.
Where it does, however, Sandhu permits defendants to put evidence
of the plaintiffs' "extortionate" behavior before the court -- and
challenge the fitness of representative plaintiffs who seek to
personally enrich themselves through class actions.


HUMANA INC: Kinkead Seeks Conditional Certification of FLSA Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daverlynn Kinkead asks the Court to conditionally certify the
matter captioned as DAVERLYNN KINKEAD, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. HUMANA, INC., HUMANA AT HOME,
INC., and SENIORBRIDGE FAMILY COMPANIES (CT), INC., Case No. 3:15-
cv-01637-JAM (D. Conn.), as a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and to approve proposed notice to class
members.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Dd0mTlqb

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          Scott E. Brady, Esq.
          BOHRER BRADY LLC
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (225) 925-5297
          Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
          E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
                  scott@bohrerbrady.com

               - and -

          Michael J.D. Sweeney, Esq.
          Edward Tuddenham, Esq.
          Artemio Guerra, Esq.
          GETMAN & SWEENEY, PLLC
          9 Paradies Lane
          New Paltz, NY 12561
          Telephone: (845) 255-9370
          Facsimile: (845) 255-8649
          E-mail: msweeney@getmansweeney.com
                  aguerra@getmansweeney.com


HURONIA REGIONAL: Court Suggests Hiring New Lawyer for Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Ballingall, writing for Toronto Star, reports that to fix the
"very awkward" rift between the plaintiffs and their own lawyers
in the Huronia institution lawsuit, a Superior Court judge came up
with a creative solution on Aug. 10 -- hire another lawyer.

The ruling from Justice Paul Perell pertained to a prolonged
disagreement over how nearly $5 million of settlement money --
part of the $35-million Huronia agreement reached in the fall of
2013 -- will be distributed in the coming months.  Justice  Perell
ruled that another lawyer be hired to help the plaintiffs
negotiate the rollout of this money with the Crown and the counsel
that spearheaded the historic class action lawsuit.

"I think it provides them with a voice, and it deals with your
conflict problem, and it allows this process to move forward,"
Justice Perell said during a hearing in an Osgoode Hall courtroom
on Aug. 10.

The Huronia Regional Centre in Orillia was an institution for
people with developmental disabilities, part of a network of such
facilities that operated for more than a century. People who lived
at Huronia and other institutions have long insisted that abuse
and neglect were rampant.

Three years ago, days before a class action lawsuit for hundreds
of Huronia residents went to trial, the government reached a
settlement with the survivors' lawyers: Kirk Baert and Jody Brown
from the Koskie Minsky law firm.  The agreement was worth $35
million and individual claimants were to receive up to $42,000
each for the abuses they suffered at Huronia.

After the individual payments were doled out in the Huronia case,
the agreement stipulated that up to $5 million of the settlement
money -- officially called "Schedule D" funds -- would be used to
finance program to educate the public about Huronia and to fund
organizations that help people with developmental disabilities.

Marilyn Dolmage and her husband Jim helped start the class action
lawsuit with former Huronia residents Marie Slark and Patricia
Seth.  Seth and Slark were appointed as the plaintiffs to
represent all survivors in the case, while Ms. Dolmage and her
husband were named litigation guardians to help them with the
legal process.

The group has had concerns about how the Koskie Minsky lawyers
have handled the suit since the settlement was reached in 2013,
Ms. Dolmage said on Aug. 10.  Speaking on behalf of the
plaintiffs, Ms. Dolmage claimed in court on Aug. 10 that the
Koskie Minsky lawyers weren't listening to their concerns that the
Schedule D funds would be channeled to programs and organizations
that don't directly benefit former residents of Huronia.

"My opinion was that the Schedule D money belonged to survivors,"
Seth told the Star after the hearing.  "It was important to us.
Our power was taken away by our own lawyers."

Mr. Baert, one of the class members' lawyers, said in court that
it was his duty to represent the entire class of survivors, and it
was in the interest of the survivors as a whole for the judge to
"break this impasse" and order the beginning of the process where
various groups can apply for some of the Schedule D funding.

"We can't let the money simply sit there and not be given out,"
Mr. Baert said.  "We've had to come to you to ask that you break
this logjam."

Justice Perell agreed that the process for distribution should
start, but ordered that a new lawyer be hired -- with payment
coming out of the Schedule D funds -- to represent the plaintiffs
in the negotiations over which groups should get the money.

Ms. Dolmage and the plaintiffs said they were happy with the
result.  "We don't just have a voice (now), we've got help,"
Ms. Dolmage said outside the courtroom.

Once Koskie Minsky sends out notices to a list of interested
groups, there will be a four-month window to solicit applications
for the money, Ms. Dolmage said.

The law firm earned more than $8 million from the settlement fund
for their work on the case.

The case precipitated a slew of class action settlements that
Koskie Minsky handled for survivors of other institutions in
Ontario.  In April, the government agreed to a $35.9 million
agreement for former residents of 12 more institutions that was
modeled on the Huronia settlement.


IDENTIV INC: Court Dismisses "Rok" Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LIKAR ROK, Plaintiff, v. IDENTIV, INC.,
JASON HART, and BRIAN NELSON, Defendants, No. 15-cv-5775-CRB (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Charles R. Breyer denied the defendants' motion to
strike, but granted the defendants' three motions to dismiss with
leave to amend.

The case is a proposed securities fraud class action against
Identiv, Inc., Identiv's Chief Executive Officer Jason Hart, and
Identiv's Chief Financial Officer Brian Nelson.  The lead
plaintiff, Thomas Cunningham, brought the case on behalf of all
persons who purchased Identiv's common stock between November 13,
2013, through November 30, 2015.  Cunningham filed an amended
complaint alleging that the defendants made "materially false and
misleading statements and omissions with scienter" with regards to
numerous public statements about Identiv's executive compensation
and internal financial controls, in violation of Securities
Exchange Act Section 10 (b) and SEC Rule 10b-5.  Cunningham also
alleged that Hart and Nelson are liable for Identiv's fraudulent
conduct as "controlling persons" of the company under Section
20(a) of the same act.

The defendants collectively and individually moved to dismiss the
complaint, arguing that Cunningham failed to meet his heightened
pleading burden to assert with particularity specific facts
showing any actionable material misrepresentations or omissions, a
strong inference of scienter as to those statements, and loss
causation.

Judge Breyer granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, but
stated that Cunningham might be able to cure his pleadings by
alleging with particularity material misrepresentations, scienter,
and loss causation.

A full-text copy of Judge Breyer's August 10, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/r6AD1S from Leagle.com.

Likar Rok, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Punzalan, Punzalan Law,
P.C..

Identiv, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher Harold
McGrath -- chrismcgrath@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP,
Edward Han -- edwardhan@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP,
James M. Lindfelt -- james.lindfelt@pillsburylaw.com -- Pillsbury
Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP & Raymond Winters Stockstill, IV, Paul
Hastings LLP.

Jason Hart, Defendant, represented by James M. Lindfelt, Pillsbury
Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Michael Todd Scott -- tscott@orrick.com
-- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP & Robert P. Varian --
rvarian@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

Brian Nelson, Defendant, represented by Sara B. Brody --
sbrody@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, James M. Lindfelt,
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Nicole Marie Ryan --
nicole.ryan@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP & Stephanie J. Kelly
-- stevie.kelly@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP.

Ryan Oswald, Movant, represented by Willem F. Jonckheer --
wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com -- Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP.

Michael Garsva, Movant, represented by Adam Christopher McCall --
amccall@zlk.com -- LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP.

Thomas Cunningham, Movant, represented by Jason Lee Krajcer --
jkrajcer@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Robert
Vincent Prongay -- rprongay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP, Casey Edwards Sadler -- csadler@glancylaw.com --
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Frank James Johnson --
frankj@johnsonandweaver.com -- Johnson & Weaver, LLP, Lesley F.
Portnoy -- lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay and Murray
LLP, Lionel Z. Glancy -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP, Phong L. Tran -- phongt@johnsonandweaver.com --
Johnson & Weaver LLP & Shawn Eric Fields, Johnson and Weaver, LLP.

Ronald Manzani, Jerome Davis, John Gaddum, Movant, represented by
Jennifer Pafiti -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.


ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS: Court Narrows Claims in "Tawil" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DAVID TAWIL, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS,
INC., and SOUTH/WIN LTD. Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-8747
(FLW) (LHG) (D.N.J.), Judge Freda L. Wolfson granted, in part, and
denied, in part, the motion filed by the defendants Illinois Tool
Works, Inc., and South/Win Ltd., seeking dismissal of the
complaint filed by David Tawil.

Tawil alleged that the sensor of his car's windshield wiper system
was damaged by the defendants' product, Rain-X windshield washer
fluid, because that product was not compatible with cars that used
continuity prong windshield washer fluid sensors.  The plaintiffs
asserted claims individually, and on behalf of a putative class,
for (1)failure to warn (Count I); and (2) design defect (Count II)
under the New Jersey Products Liability Act (PLA); and
(3)violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA)(Count
III).

Judge Wolfson dismissed Count III of the complaint, alleging
violations of the CFA, because it is subsumed within the
plaintiff's claims under the PLA.  The judge, however, denied the
defendants' motion to dismiss Counts I and II of the complaint,
based on failure to properly plead the required elements of a
claim against a manufacturer under the components parts doctrine.
The plaintiff's request for injunctive relief was dismissed.

A full-text copy of Judge Wolfson's August 10, 2016 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/UjZbB3 from Leagle.com.

DAVID TAWIL, Plaintiff, represented by ERIC H. GIBBS --
ehg@classlawgroup.com -- GIRARD GIBBS LLP, ERIC LECHTZIN --
elechtzin@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. & SHANON J. CARSON --
scarson@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C..

ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC., SOUTH/WIN LTD., Defendants, represented
by B. JOHN PENDLETON, JR. -- john.pendleton@dlapiper.com -- DLA
PIPER LLP & JAMES VINCENT NOBLETT -- james.noblett@dlapiper.com
-- DLA PIPER LLP.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces 13 Suits Over Levaquin Drug
----------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
Johnson & Johnson has been hit with a new crop of suits in federal
court in Newark claiming its blockbuster drug Levaquin caused
users to suffer nerve damage.

Between Aug. 1 and 11, the firm of Bernstein Liebhard has filed 13
Levaquin suits with 18 plaintiffs in the District of New Jersey
against Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary, Janssen
Pharmaceuticals.

The attorney filing the suits, Dae Yeol Lee, said he hopes to see
them moved to the District of Minnesota as tag-along cases in a
multidistrict litigation established in August 2015 for suits
claiming Levaquin and two other antibiotics, Avelox and Cipro,
made by Bayer, caused users to develop peripheral neuropathy.  All
told, Mr. Lee said his firm will be filing about 10 additional
Levaquin suits in New Jersey.

The suits linking Levaquin to neuropathy are the second wave of
litigation over the drug, following hundreds of suits linking its
use to tendonitis and injured tendons.  An MDL for that group of
suits was created in Minnesota in 2008, and federal and state
litigation of the tendonitis cases is still underway.

The neuropathy suits come on the heels of a May 12 warning from
the Food and Drug Administration that "disabling" side effects of
Levaquin and other drugs in the fluoroquinolone family "generally
outweigh the benefits" for patients with sinusitis, bronchitis and
urinary tract infections who have other treatment options.
According to Mr. Lee's suits, Levaquin is the most-prescribed
antibiotic in the world, and in 2007 it generated $1.6 billion in
revenue, accounting for 6.5 percent of Johnson & Johnson's total
revenue.  The suits say the company failed to adequately warn
users and their physicians about the dangerous risks of neuropathy
associated with use of the drug.  The drug was sold from 2004 to
2013 with a label saying neuropathy was "rare" among users of the
drug and could be avoided by discontinuing its use on onset of
certain symptoms.  But the onset of neuropathy is often rapid and
discontinuing use will not ensure it can be reversed, the suits
say.

The suits claim a series of studies going back to 1990 point to a
connection between fluoroquinolone drugs and neuropathy, and in
2002 and 2003 Johnson & Johnson was on notice that numerous
reports to the FDA's Adverse Event Reporting System identified
users of fluoroquinolone who suffered from neuropathy that
persisted after they stopped taking the drug.

The neuropathy litigation represents a second round of suits over
Levaquin, following an earlier group alleging the drug caused
tendon damage among users.  The JPML created a multidistrict
litigation in those cases in 2008, before the same Minnesota
judge, and many have settled.  In 2012, Johnson & Johnson
disclosed that it settled lawsuits with about 845 plaintiffs in
the tendonitis MDL who claimed the drugmaker didn't properly warn
of the risks of tendon damage from Levaquin.  The company did not
say how much it paid the litigants.  In 2013 the label for
Levaquin was updated to discuss the risk of rapid-onset
neuropathy, but the label remained "inadequate and confusing,"
Lee's suits say.

Lee said the severity of symptoms for those plaintiffs with
neuropathy cover a wide range, with some experiencing tingling
extremities and others whose cases are more severe.
"It's sad what happens to these plaintiffs.  I have at least one
client who cannot walk and is wheelchair-bound," Mr. Lee said.

A spokeswoman for Janssen, Jessica Castles Smith, said in a
statement, "At Janssen, our first priority is the well-being of
the people who use our medicines.  Levaquin is part of an
important fluoroquinolone class of anti-infective prescription
medications that has been used for nearly 20 years to treat
infections, including those that may be serious or life
threatening.  Since it was first approved in 1996, the Levaquin
label has provided information on the benefits and risks
associated with the medication, including warnings and
precautions.

"We continually monitor the safety and efficacy of all our
medicines and, in cooperation with the U.S. FDA and other health
authorities, we update our product labels with new information so
doctors and patients can make informed decisions.  We will
vigorously defend against the claims in these litigations,"
Ms. Smith said.


JOHNSON CONTROLS: Settles Shareholder Suit Over Tyco Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Thomas, writing for BizTimes, reports that Glendale-based
Johnson Controls Inc. has reached a settlement in a lawsuit that
sought to block the company's proposed merger with Tyco
International plc.

Johnson Controls and Tyco have both set shareholder votes for Aug.
17 on the $3.9 billion deal that will place the company's
headquarters to Ireland.  The companies are hoping to close on the
transaction by Sept. 2, a month ahead of the original target when
the deal was announced in January.

The lawsuit was brought by Chana Laufer, a Johnson Controls
shareholder who lives in New York.  The suit was intended to be a
class action case and was filed in Milwaukee County Circuit Court
in May.  It alleged company executives and directors had breached
their fiduciary responsibility to shareholders in agreeing to the
merger.

The settlement would still need to be approved by a judge, but
Johnson Controls has filed documents amending its proxy statement
related to the merger.  Those changes are part of a memorandum of
understanding developed by the two sides.

"We have reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiff's
attorneys to resolve the litigation. Our merger plans with Tyco
remain on schedule," said Fraser Engerman, Johnson Controls
spokesman.

The changes include an additional explanation of why Johnson
Controls turned down a strategic transaction with another company
just weeks before the Tyco merger was announced.

Johnson Controls had been in talks with a number of companies
about different possibilities in the summer of 2015.  One of those
companies sought to restart discussions in early January. Johnson
Controls' previous proxy statement said the company didn't pursue
the deal because it was less likely to be completed than the Tyco
merger and could potentially adversely affect its planned spin-off
of Adient, its automotive seating business.

The amended proxy says specifically the deal with the unnamed
company could have affected the timing of the Adient spin-off.
Johnson Controls plans to spin-off the new company officially on
Oct. 31, after the Tyco merger is set to close.  Spinning Adient
off after allows the new company to also have its headquarters in
Ireland and take advantage of a lower tax rate.

Besides citing disagreements over management and governance, the
amended document also says Johnson Controls management determined
the unnamed company did not have the financial capacity to
complete the deal on terms similar to the Tyco merger.

The company's filings also add details about comparisons the
company's financial advisors made to comparable firms before the
merger was announced.  The original proxy included names of
companies, but not specific results of the analysis.

The lawsuit had alleged the Tyco merger was the "result of a
flawed process" and that the company "utterly failed to
investigate or confirm the fair market value of the company."

The Johnson Controls filing says the settlement will not affect
the consideration to be paid to company shareholders.

The lawsuit said that any tax benefit from moving the combined
company's headquarters to Ireland would be outweighed by Johnson
Controls shareholders having to pay taxes on their gains from the
merger.

"The inversion will force thousands of JCI shareholders to dig
into their pockets and pay taxes on their gains just to remain
shareholders," the lawsuit says.

Attorneys for the plaintiff did return emails seeking additional
comment on the settlement.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Dismissal of RICO Claim in "Dusek" Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit affirmed the
judgment of the district court in the case captioned RUSSELL
DUSEK, MARSHA PESHKIN, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JPMORGAN
CHASE & CO., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK N.A., et al., Defendants-
Appellees, No. 15-14463 (11th Cir.).

In the wake of the bankruptcy proceedings and the Securities and
Exchange Commission's (SEC) civil suit against Bernard Madoff and
Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS), several class
actions were filed against JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, and J.P. Morgan
Securities, Ltd. (collectively "JPMorgan") in the Southern
District of New York by customers who directly had capital
invested with BLMIS as of December 2008.  BLMIS maintained a
series of accounts at JPMorgan that received the majority of funds
that Madoff's victims "invested."  The cases were consolidated on
December 5, 2011.  JPMorgan entered a global resolution on January
6, 2014, involving three settlements.

On March 28, 2014, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida.  The
plaintiffs-appellants' Second Amended Complaint sought to hold
liable JPMorgan and two JPMorgan employees: John Hogan, who served
as Chief Risk Officer and later Chairman of Risk for JPMorgan, and
Richard Cassa, who served as Client Relationship Manager for one
of Madoff's accounts.  The plaintiffs-appellants argued that
JPMorgan and the two employees were liable as control persons
under federal securities laws given their banking relationship
with Madoff and BLMIS and their access to BLMIS's bank accounts.
The plaintiffs-appellants also asserted a federal claim under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) for
JPMorgan's investments in BLMIS feeder funds and failure to report
suspicious banking activities to the SEC.  The plaintiffs-
appellants sought to recover the value of the securities listed on
account statements issued by BLMIS on November 30, 2008 --
totaling nearly $64.8 billion in net investments and related
fictitious gains.

On September 17, 2015, the district court granted the appellee-
defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.  It
dismissed Count One, alleging violations of Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Count Nine, the federal RICO
claim, with prejudice, and declined supplementary jurisdiction for
the remaining counts brought under state law, dismissing them
without prejudice.

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the judgment of the
district court, finding that the plaintiff-appellants' Section
20(a) claim was untimely and their federal RICO claim was barred
by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

A full-text copy of the Eleventh Circuit's August 10, 2016
judgment is available at https://is.gd/qzX998 from Leagle.com.

Grace Lee Mead -- gmead@stearnsweaver.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Eugene E. Stearns -- estearns@stearnsweaver.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

John Kevin Miller -- kmiller@bplegal.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Carlos Juan Canino, for Defendant-Appellee.

Helen Davis Chaitman -- hchaitman@chaitmanllp.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Lance Gotthoffer, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Nicole Giuliano, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Emil A. Kleinhaus -- eakleinhaus@wlrk.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

John Ford Savarese -- jfsavarese@wlrk.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Stephen R. DiPrima -- srdiprima@wlrk.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Scott M. Danner, for Defendant-Appellee.


JULIA PLACE: Court Won't Reconsider July 19 Order in "Reyes" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Carl J. Barbier denied the plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration of the court's July 19, 2016 order in the case
captioned NICOLE REYES, ET AL., v. JULIA PLACE CONDOMINIUMS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL., SECTION: "J"(3), Civil
Action No. 12-2043 (E.D. La.).  Judge Barbier also ordered that
all claims against the defendant, The Rotunda Condominiums
Homeowners Association, Inc. are dismissed.

The class action lawsuit was brought by Nicole Reyes and Mike
Sobel on behalf of themselves and other condominium owners at
various properties throughout New Orleans against their respective
condominium associations as well as Steeg Law LLC.  The plaintiffs
alleged that the defendants have engaged in debt collection
practices that violate state and federal law.

In their motion for reconsideration, the plaintiffs argued that
the court committed a manifest error of fact in its July 19, 2016
Order when it held that the court's September 11, 2013 Order
considered Mr. J. Brian Kelley's affidavit but nevertheless found
that no genuine issue of material fact existed.  Specifically, the
plaintiffs argued that Mr. Kelley's affidavit was not submitted
until April 25, 2016, and thus could not have been considered by
the court's September 11, 2013 Order  In all, the plaintiffs
argued that Mr. Kelley's affidavit establishes that he paid a
usurious fee and thus has standing to seek injunctive and monetary
relief against Rotunda.  Accordingly, the plaintiffs argued that
Rotunda's Second Motion for Summary Judgment should not have been
granted.

Judge Barbier found that the court misstated in its July 19, 2016
Order that the court's September 11, 2013 Order considered Mr.
Kelley's affidavit.  However, Judge Barbier held that the court's
June 7, 2016 Order which dismissed Rotunda from the lawsuit
remains sound.  The judge explained that the plaintiffs did not
seek reconsideration of the court's September 11, 2013 Order which
dismissed the plaintiff's usury claims against Rotunda.  Further,
the judge also found that Mr. Kelley's affidavit does not create a
genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment in
favor of Rotunda, as Mr. Kelley's affidavit only states that he
merely reviewed the same ledgers the court has already analyzed in
its previous orders.  Thus, Judge Barbier concluded that despite
the plaintiffs' suggestion, Mr. Kelley's affidavit is not "new
evidence" which creates an issue of fact.

A full-text copy of Judge Barbier's August 15, 2016 order and
reasons is available at https://is.gd/qdu2AZ from Leagle.com.

Nicole Reyes, Patrick Andras, Plaintiffs, represented by Todd G.
Crawford -- tcrawford@frfirm.com -- Fowler Rodriguez, George J.
Fowler, III -- fow@frfirm.com -- Fowler Rodriguez & John Steven
Garner -- jgarner@frfirm.com -- Scialdone Law Firm, PLLC.

Mike Sobel, Plaintiff, represented by Todd G. Crawford, Fowler
Rodriguez & John Steven Garner, Scialdone Law Firm, PLLC.

MESA Underwriters Specialty Insurance Company, Consol Plaintiff,
represented by Paula Marcello Wellons -- pwellons@twpdlaw.com --
Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC & Jonathan B. Womack --
jwomack@twpdlaw.com -- Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC.

Mills Row Condominiums Homeowners Association, Inc., Carondelet
Place Condominiums Owners Association, Inc., Gallery Row
Condominiums Association, Inc., 1750 Saint Charles Condominium
Homeowners Association, Inc., Henderson Condominium Association,
Inc., Defendants, represented by Elizabeth A. Roussel --
elizabeth.roussel@arlaw.com -- Adams & Reese, LLP & Justin Boron -
- justin.boron@arlaw.com -- Adams & Reese, LLP.

Lofts Condominiums Homeowners Association, Inc., Defendant,
represented by John William Waters, Jr., Bienvenu, Foster, Ryan &
O'Bannon, Ernest Lynwood O'Bannon, Bienvenu, Foster, Ryan &
O'Bannon & Kristin Grace Mosely-Jones, Bienvenu, Foster, Ryan &
O'Bannon.

FQRV Resort Condominium Association, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Warren Horn -- whorn@hellerdraper.com -- Heller, Draper,
Hayden, Patrick & Horn, LLC & Heather Cheesbro, Heller, Draper,
Patrick & Horn, LLC.

Steeg Law, LLC, Margaret V Glass, Defendants, represented by
William Everard Wright, Jr. -- wwright@deutschkerrigan.com --
Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Andrew Joseph Baer --
abaer@deutschkerrigan.com -- Deutsch Kerrigan LLP & Judy Lynn
Burnthorn -- jburnthorn@deutschkerrigan.com -- Deutsch Kerrigan
LLP.

Julia Place Condominium Association, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Ethan N. Penn -- enp@mmpfirm.com -- Musgrave, McLachlan & Penn,
LLC & Amanda Huling Aucoin -- aha@mmpfirm.com -- Musgrave,
McLachlan & Penn, LLC.

Parkview Condominiums Homeowners Association, Defendant,
represented by Richard G. Duplantier, Jr. --
rduplantier@gallowayjohnson.com -- Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins,
Burr & Smith, Benjamin D. Reichard -- breichard@fishmanhaygood.com
-- Fishman Haygood, Carlina C. Eiselen --
ceiselen@gallowayjohnson.com -- Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr
& Smith & Loretta G. Mince -- lmince@fishmanhaygood.com -- Fishman
Haygood.

Magazine Place Condominiums Homeowners Association, Inc.,
Defendant, represented by Donald Carl Hodge, Jr., Donald Hodge
Attorney at Law.

FQRV Condominium Association, Inc., Consol Defendant, represented
by James P. Doherty, III, Becker & Hebert, LLC.

Property One Inc, Movant, represented by Richard A. Aguilar --
raguilar@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC & Gabriel A.
Crowson -- gcrowson@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC.


LENDINGCLUB CORP: WPERP Appointed as Lead Counsel
-------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned STEEVE EVELLARD, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. LENDINGCLUB
CORPORATION, RENAUD LAPLANCHE, and CARRIE L. DOLAN, Defendants.
NICOLE WERTZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. LENDINGCLUB CORPORATION, RENAUD LAPLANCHE,
and CARRIE L. DOLAN, Defendants, Nos. C 16-02627 WHA, C 16-02670
WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William Alsup has appointed Water and Power
Employees' Retirement, Disability and Death Plan of the City of
Los Angeles (WPERP) as lead plaintiff.  The judge also granted the
motion to consolidate cases and set forth the procedure to be used
for the selection and approval of class counsel.

A full-text copy of Judge Alsup's August 15, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/1kcVsD from Leagle.com.

The two putative class actions arose from allegations of false and
misleading statements in violation of federal securities laws.
The plaintiffs in the class actions are individual investors.  The
defendants are the LendingClub Corporation, Renaud LaPlanche, the
company's former Chief Executive Officer, and Carrie L. Dolan, the
company's Chief Financial Officer.

Nicole Wertz, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob Allen Walker --
jake@blockesq.com -- Block & Leviton LLP & Lesley Elizabeth Weaver
-- lesley@blockesq.com -- Block & Leviton LLP.

Renaud Laplanche, Defendant, represented by Robert John Liubicic -
- rliubicic@milbank.com -- Milbank Tweed & Sarah L. Rothenberg
-- srothenberg@milbank.com -- Milbank, Tweed, Hadley McCloy LLP.

Carrie Dolan, LendingClub Corporation, Defendants, represented by
Kevin Peter Muck -- kmuck@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP, Carly
Lee Bittman -- cbittman@fenwick.com -- Fenwick and West, Jay L.
Pomerantz -- jpomerantz@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West, Nair Diana
Chang -- dchang@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP & Sebastian Elan
Kaplan -- skaplan@fenwick.com -- Fenwick and West LLP.

U.S. Equity Fund, Movant, represented by Robert J. Gralewski, Jr.
-- bgralewski@kmllp.com -- Kirby McInerney LLP.

Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii, Movant,
represented by Blair Allen Nicholas -- blairn@blbglaw.com --
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann.


LEPRINO FOODS: Judge Won't Dismiss "Finder" Suit
------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Anthony W. Ishii of the Eastern District of
California ruled on the defendants' motion in the case JERROD
FINDER, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, a Colorado
Corporation; LEPRINO FOODS DAIRY PRODUCTS COMPANY, a Colorado
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 1:13-CV-02059 AWI BAM (E.D. Cal.)

Jerrod Finder is a former employee of Leprino Foods Company.
Finder alleges that during his employment at Leprino Foods, he and
other employees have not been provided with meal breaks as
required by California law. Finder filed a class action suit in
state court and defendants removed the claims to the present court
based on the Class Action Fairness Act.

On his second amended complaint, Finder alleged five causes of
action: (1) failure to provide meal periods in violation of
California Labor Code Sections 512 and 226.7, (2) failure to
provide accurate wage statements in violation of California Labor
Code Section 226, (3) failure to promptly pay wages due in
violation of California Labor Code Sections 201 and 202, (4)
violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200,
and (5) enforcement of California Labor Code provisions under the
Private Attorney Generals Act.

Defendants moved for a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss as a procedural
prerequisite to defendants' motion seeking certification for
interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) and a stay of
proceedings in the present court pending the Ninth Circuit's
resolution of the Section 1292(b) appeal. Defendants moved to
dismiss plaintiff's third cause of action in its entirety and
plaintiff's second, fourth, and fifth causes of action to the
extent that they raise claims asserting that failure to itemize or
pay meal period premiums constitutes failure to itemize or pay
wages.

Senior District Judge Ishii denied defendants' motion to dismiss
but granted defendants' motion to certify interlocutory appeal
under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b). Defendants' motion to stay
proceedings pending appeal is denied without prejudice.

A copy of Senior District Judge Ishii's order dated July 29, 2016,
is available at http://goo.gl/NxS8MSfrom Leagle.com.

Jerrod Finder, Plaintiff, represented by:

Morris Nazarian, Esq.
Law Offices of Morris Nazarian
1875 Century Park E, Ste 1790
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: 877-225-4529

Jonathon Talavera, Plaintiff, represented by Cory Lee --
downeyjusticelee@gmail.com -- at The Downey Law Firm, LLC

Defendants, represented by Kyle Aaron Mabe --
kmabe@hansonbridgett.com -- Molly L. Kaban --
mkaban@hansonbridgett.com -- Sandra L. Rappaport --
srappaport@hansonbridgett.com -- at Hanson Bridgett LLP


LINC ENERGY: Farmer Seeks Access to Insurance Policy for Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Isobel Roe, writing for ABC, reports that a farmer whose property
adjoins the failed Linc Energy project on Queensland's Darling
Downs is hoping the Supreme Court will force the company
liquidator to hand over its insurance policy.

Linc Energy is accused of wilfully and unlawfully causing serious
environmental harm with its trial underground coal gasification
(UCG) plant at Hopeland on the Darling Downs by allowing
contaminants to leech into surrounding farmland.

A report commissioned by the Queensland Government found Linc had
caused "widespread" and in some areas "irreversible" damage to
arable farmland.

The company was committed to stand trial on five environmental
charges but has since been placed in liquidation.

Pamela Bender, who owns more than 800 hectares of land near the
site, has filed an 1,174-page application in the Supreme Court in
Brisbane, arguing Linc's insurance documents would reveal whether
a class action was financially viable.

Her husband George Bender took his own life last year.

At the time, the Bender family said George had died "from a broken
heart" after fighting Origin Energy and other companies over coal
seam gas mining on his property.

Their property Valencia is inside a 320-kilometre excavation
caution zone set up around the Linc trial site in 2015.

So far, 50 people have signed up to join any future class action.

In her statement lodged with the Supreme Court, Ms. Bender said
liquidator PPB Advisory had refused to provide access to Linc
Energy's insurance policy.

The court documents show Ms Bender is seeking to pursue Linc
Energy and its former directors, including Peter Bond, for damages
to her land value.

"The Queensland State Government's testing, the scientific
reports, the establishment of the [excavation caution zone] and
the institution of criminal proceedings have all been the source
of significant concern for myself and my family," she said in the
documents.

"I wish to make a claim against Linc for diminution of my property
as a result of the stigma affecting my land as a result of
environmental contamination allegedly emanating from Linc's UCG
facility."

Stephen Longley from PPB Advisory told the ABC if Mrs Bender or
anyone else was successful in legal action against Linc Energy,
they would join a list of unsecured creditors unlikely to receive
their full debts.

He said the cost of that legal action might outweigh the return.

Mrs. Bender and her daughter Helen Bender remain outspoken
objectors to the coal seam gas and UCG industry.

The Queensland Government banned UCG activity earlier this year.

The Supreme Court application was due to be heard on August 23.


LINCARE INC: Bid for Class Certification in "Culley" Suit Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CHRISTINA CULLEY, Plaintiff, v. LINCARE
INC.; ALPHA RESPIRATORY INC.; and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, Defendants,
No. 2:15-cv-00081-MCE-CMK (E.D. Cal.), Judge Morrison C. England,
Jr. ordered as follows:

     -- granting the plaintiff, Christina Culley's motion for
        class certification;

     -- denying the objections and counter-motions filed by the
        defendants, Lincare Inc. and Alpha Respiratory Inc., to
        strike the declarations of Eric Lietzow, Aaron Huff and
        Michael Zachwieja; and

     -- overruling Culley's objections to the defendants evidence
        in support of the opposition to the motion for class
        certification.

Judge England appointed Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik as class
counsel and approved the designation of Culley as the class
representative.

A full-text copy of Judge England's August 10, 2016 memorandum and
order is available at https://is.gd/si2CKO from Leagle.com.

The case is a putative class action which proceeds on Christina
Culley's First Amended Complaint against her employers, Lincare
Inc. and Alpha Respiratory Inc.

Christina Culley, Plaintiff, represented by Norman Blumenthal --
norm@bamlawca.com -- Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Aparajit
Bhowmik, Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Ruchira Piya Mukherjee,
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik &Victoria Bree Rivapalacio --
victoria@bamlawca.com -- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Lincare Inc., Alpha Respiratory Inc., Defendants, represented by
David Cheng -- dcheng@fordharrison.com -- Ford & Harrison LLP,
Todd S. Aidman -- taidman@fordharrison.com -- Ford and Harrison
LLP, pro hac vice & Alexandria M. Witte -- awitte@fordharrison.com
-- Ford & Harrison LLP.


LITTLE INDIA: Appeals From S.D.N.Y. Ruling in "Torralba" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Sushma Gupta, Little India Grocery Inc. and Little
India Stores Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Torralba v. Little India Stores Inc., Case No.
14-cv-595, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (New York City).

The appellate case is captioned as Torralba v. Little India Stores
Inc., Case No. 16-2833, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Santiago
Torralba, et al., filed the lawsuit on January 31, 2014, alleging
that, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, they are entitled
to unpaid wages from the Defendants for their work, and for
overtime work for which the Plaintiffs did not receive overtime
pay.

The Defendants owned and operated the Little India Stores during
the relevant period.

Plaintiffs-Appellees Santiago Torralba and Alejandro Zacatenco, on
behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, are represented
by:

          Joshua Adam Butnick, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSHUA A. BUTNICK P.C.
          40 Wall St., 28th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 362-1197
          E-mail: JButnick@Butnicklaw.com

Defendants-Appellants Little India Stores Inc., Little India
Grocery Inc., Sushma Gupta and Shipra Doe are represented by:

          Satish Kumar Bhatia, Esq.
          BHATIA & ASSOCIATES P.C.
          38 West 32nd Street
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 239-6898
          E-mail: satishbhatiaus@yahoo.com


LLOYD'S REGISTER: Fullinwider Seeks Cert. of Class of Engineers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled RANSON R. FULLINWIDER v.
LLOYD'S REGISTER DRILLING INTEGRITY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 4:16-
cv-00168 (S.D. Tex.), moves for conditional certification of
misclassification claims against the Defendant for purposes of
notice and discovery.  The Plaintiff seeks conditional
certification of a collective action consisting of, and judicially
approved notice to, this group of individuals:

     "ALL SUBSEA ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS EMPLOYED BY LLOYD'S
      REGISTER DRILLING INTEGRITY SERVICES, INC. DURING THE PAST
      3 YEARS." ("PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS")

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to (1) order that judicially-
approved notice be sent to all Putative Class Members; (2) approve
the form and content of the Plaintiff's proposed judicial notice
and reminder notice; (3) order the Defendant to produce to the
Plaintiff's Counsel the contact information (including the name,
address, telephone number, and email address) for each Putative
Class Member in a usable electronic format; (4) authorize a 60-day
notice period for Putative Class Members to join the Case; and (5)
authorize notice to be sent via First Class Mail and e-mail to the
Putative Class Members.

Ranson R. Fullinwider filed the lawsuit to recover unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, attorney fees, and costs owed to
current and former subsea engineers and surveyors employed by
Lloyd's Register over the past three years.  The Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendant misclassified its subsea engineers and
surveyors as exempt from the overtime requirements of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Lloyds Register is global provider of subsea engineers and
surveyors.  The Company maintains multiple offices throughout the
United States.  The Houston office is central hub for North
America.  Subsea engineers and surveyors are assigned to client
worksites throughout the United States and abroad.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lu Ann Trevino, Esq.
          THE TREVINO LAW FIRM
          13201 Northwest Freeway, Suite 800
          Houston, TX 77040
          Telephone: (713) 341-7550
          Facsimile: (888) 896-2102
          E-mail: latrevino@trevino-law.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kerry E. Notestine, Esq.
          Karmyn McCloud, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          1301 McKinney Street, Suite 1900
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 951-9400
          Facsimile: (713) 951-9212
          E-mail: knotestine@littler.com
                  kwedlow@littler.com


LOS ANGELES, CA: Faces Civil Rights Suits Over Police Shootings
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that two prominent
civil rights attorneys have filed lawsuits over recent police
shootings in Los Angeles, with one calling for an end to the
"epidemic of police violence."

The suits are the latest to be brought over police shootings
across the country.  In Los Angeles, Black Lives Matter protesters
have been camped outside City Hall for the past month amid a
recent spate of recent incidents involving law enforcement.

"These police need to keep their guns in their holsters," said
John Burton, who is president of the National Lawyers Guild's
National Police Accountability Project, a network for 600 lawyers
focused on police abuse cases.  On Aug. 15, Mr. Burton, of the Law
Offices of John Burton in Pasadena, California, filed a lawsuit
over the death of William "Bill" Bowers, an unarmed homeless man
who was shot by a Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department deputy
two weeks ago.

"We need to bring these suits, we need to bring them quickly, and
this epidemic of police violence needs to stop," Mr. Burton said.

Another suit was filed on Aug. 12 by civil rights attorney
Dan Stormer, a partner at Hadsell Stormer Renick, also in
Pasadena, over the 2015 death of Charly Keunang, another unarmed
homeless man whose shooting by LAPD officers on skid row got
worldwide attention after it was captured on video.

Mr. Keunang was "presumed to be" mentally ill and living in a tent
when LAPD officers confronted him on March 1, 2015, according to
the complaint.  Mr. Keunang was black.

The suit, which names the city of Los Angeles and four LAPD
officers as defendants, was filed on behalf of Mr. Keunang's
parents and sister, who have a separate case pending in Los
Angeles Superior Court.

Mr. Keunang's family is seeking $20 million, Mr. Stormer said.

On Feb. 2, the Los Angeles Police Commission found that LAPD
officers did not violate policy in shooting Mr. Keunang, 43, who
had reached for one of their holstered guns during the
altercation.

Mr. Stormer said the report won't be admissible in court and, even
if it were, a jury won't come to the same conclusion.

"This was essentially premediated murder," he said.  "There's a
pattern in these cases in which police officers claim to feel
threatened and use that claim to shoot and kill people."

Los Angeles City Attorney spokesman Rob Wilcox declined to
comment.

Mr. Burton's suit was brought on behalf of the mother of
Mr. Bowers, 51, a white man who fled from his bicycle before
getting shot in northern Los Angeles County.  It names the Los
Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Sheriff Jim McDonnell and a
deputy officer.

The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office did not respond
to a request for comment.

"They can't even explain why they shot him," Mr. Burton said.  "He
wasn't suspected of any crime.  There wasn't any crime reported.
They were just hassling him, and within moments of the initial
stop they had stopped and killed him."


LOS ANGELES, CA: Sued Over Suspension of Poor Drivers' Licenses
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Sibilla, writing for Forbes.com, reports that an unbuckled
seat belt caused Gloria Mata Alvarado to lose her driver's
license.

When her husband was driving Ms. Mata to a doctor's appointment
for her gastritis in August 2012, her stomach began hurting.  For
relief, Ms. Mata adjusted her seat belt.  But a police officer saw
her take off the belt and cited her.  When Ms. Mata tried to
explain she had a genuine medical condition, the officer curtly
responded, "That's what everyone says."

In court, Ms. Mata was ordered to pay $712, almost half the
monthly income for her and her husband.  (Both are on disability.)
After telling the judge that she couldn't pay the fine because of
her limited means, a judge graciously reduced the fine -- to $600.
Unable to pay, her license was ultimately suspended.

On behalf of Ms. Mata, the Western Center on Law & Poverty filed a
lawsuit to stop the Los Angeles County Superior Court from
suspending driver's licenses from those unable to pay court fines
and fees.  "Each year, tens of thousands of people in Los Angeles
County are affected by this practice, losing their right to drive
solely because of their poverty," the Western Center asserted in
its complaint.

Suspending Ms. Mata's license without "notice and an opportunity
to be heard" violated her right to due process under both the U.S.
and California Constitutions, claimed the lawsuit, which was also
filed by A New Way of Life Reentry Project, Rapkin & Associates,
Schonbrun Seplow Harris & Hoffman and the USC Gould School of Law.

In Los Angeles County alone, nearly 200,000 drivers had their
licenses suspended simply because they failed to pay fines or
appear in court.  Statewide, from 2006 to 2013, the California
Department of Motor Vehicles suspended more than 4.2 million
driver's licenses for those reasons, according to a report by Back
on the Road, a coalition of civil rights groups.  By comparison,
that number is the equivalent to roughly one out of every six
drivers in California.

Throughout the Golden State, motorists are routinely nickeled-and-
dimed in traffic court.  Looking to raise revenue, state lawmakers
slapped on additional fees and surcharges to the base fines for
traffic tickets.  For instance, the fine for failing to signal or
running a stop sign is $35.  But after all the surcharges and fees
have been imposed, that fine soars to $238. Likewise, a $20 ticket
for using a cell phone while driving balloons to $162, while a
$100 traffic ticket for failing to carry proof of car insurance
actually costs $490.

Even worse, failing to pay can trigger an additional $300 "civil
assessment" fee.  So for many low-income Angelenos, a $20, $35 or
$100 ticket can easily become $462, $538, and $815 respectively.
That perversely punishes those unable to pay, like Ms. Mata.
Notably, the courts themselves receive the collected civil
assessment penalties, granting them a strong financial incentive
to levy fees.

Yet under the California Penal Code, those civil assessment fees
are discretionary and are supposed to be "against a defendant who
fails, after notice and without good cause" to pay.  In their
lawsuit, the Western Center asserts that "the lack of income . . .
presents a compelling good cause."

Losing the legal right to drive can be devastating for many
people, especially in a car-centered city like Los Angeles.  A
suspended license can thwart the ability to run basic errands,
meet appointments and take care of children and other family
members.  And without a license, many people have a difficult time
getting to work, which can not only prevent them from earning a
living but also prevent them from paying off their court debts and
regaining their licenses.  In one landmark study on driver's
license suspensions in New Jersey, 42 percent of those surveyed
lost their jobs because of their suspensions.

Moreover, driving on a suspended license could mean risking jail
time and even more fines.  An April report by the Back on the Road
coalition found that the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
made over 19,000 arrests for driving on a suspended license
between 2013 and 2015.  That number explicitly excludes licenses
that were suspended for a "public safety reason," like a previous
charge of driving under the influence.  In San Joaquin County,
police even jailed over 220 people just for driving on a suspended
license.

According to the coalition, their collected data revealed
"dramatic racial and socioeconomic disparities in driver's license
suspensions and arrests related to unpaid traffic fines and fees."
In Los Angeles County, about one-third of those arrested for
driving on a suspended license were black, even though African
Americans are less than ten percent of the county's population.
Predominantly Hispanic and black communities had "driver's license
suspension rates range as high as five times the state average."

Perversely, other sentencing options are also out of reach for
indigent drivers.  Consider Toneshawa Jones, another plaintiff in
the Western Center's lawsuit.  When Ms. Jones was sentenced for a
traffic violation, she was homeless at the time.  Unable to pay
her fine, the court slapped her with both an extension and civil
assessment fee, ultimately raising her fine to $929.  According to
the Western Center, Jones was also unable to perform community
service in lieu of fines, because the sign-up fees were
"prohibitively high."

"It is counterintuitive to charge a poor person exorbitant fees to
complete community service when the person is only utilizing
community service as an alternative because they are too poor to
pay exorbitant government fines and fees," Antionette Dozier,
senior attorney at the Western Center, said in an interview.

Ms. Jones has since had her license suspended and has been cited
and arrested for driving with a suspended license.

In addition to California, at least seven other states allow
courts to suspend driver's licenses for unpaid court debt,
according to the Brennan Center.  In July, the Legal Aid Justice
Center filed a class-action lawsuit against the Virginia DMV for
suspending driver's licenses, blasting that policy as a "form of a
debtor's prison."  Each year, 360,000 people have their licenses
suspended "due to unpaid court costs or fines."

Other municipalities have found even more insidious ways to raise
revenue.  Pagedale, Missouri saw the number of non-traffic tickets
issued skyrocket by 495 percent between 2010 and 2014.  In this
small suburb of St. Louis, residents have been ticketed for saggy
pants, uncut grass and fallen trees.  The city also managed to
outlaw holding a front-yard barbecue on days that aren't national
holidays.  In 2013, almost one-fifth of Pagedale's revenue came
from court fines and fees.  On behalf of multiple residents, in
November, the Institute for Justice filed a class-action lawsuit
against Pagedale for transforming its "code enforcement and
municipal court into revenue-generating machines."

Fortunately, hope is on the horizon.  In March, the Civil Rights
Division at the U.S. Department of Justice sent a "Dear Colleague"
letter that admonished municipalities that use license suspensions
as a "debt collection tool" and have "a direct pecuniary interest
in the management or outcome of a case."  A bill currently under
consideration in the California legislature would scrap automatic
license suspensions for failure to appear or pay.

As far back as 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court held that driver's
licenses "may become essential in the pursuit of a livelihood,"
and "are not to be taken away without that procedural due process
required by the Fourteenth Amendment."  Without those safeguards,
drivers are now treated as little more than ATMs.


LYFT INC: Judge Approves Arbitration and Dismisses "Bekele" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV of the District of
Massachusetts granted defendant's motion to compel arbitration in
the case YILKAL BEKELE, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LYFT, INC., Defendant, Civil
Action No. 15-11650-FDS (D. Mass.)

Lyft, Inc. is a California-based company that facilitates peer-to-
peer ridesharing through a mobile-phone application.

Yilkal Bekele is a Massachusetts resident who has worked as a Lyft
driver since August 2014.  Bekele brought a suit before the
Massachusetts Superior Court, individually and on behalf of other
individuals working as drivers in Massachusetts for defendant
Lyft. The complaint alleges that Lyft has wrongfully classified
its drivers as independent contractors, rather than employees, in
violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149,
Section 148B. It alleges that as a result of that
misclassification, drivers must pay for expenses that their
employer Lyft should pay for, including costs of vehicle ownership
and maintenance, gas, and insurance.  Bekele seeks a declaratory
judgment that Lyft drivers are employees under Massachusetts law,
as well as damages for unpaid wages and other forms of
restitution.

Lyft removed the proceeding to the Massachusetts federal district
court. Lyft moved to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and the Federal Arbitration
Act, 9 U.S.C. Section 1 et seq.  Lyft contends that when Bekele
agreed to Lyft's clickwrap terms of service agreement, he agreed
to a valid arbitration provision requiring him to submit any legal
disputes or claims arising out of or related to Lyft's terms of
service agreement to binding individual arbitration.

Bekele contends that the agreement is invalid because he did not
receive adequate notice of the arbitration provision, and did not
assent to it. He also contends that the agreement is unenforceable
under the FAA because it is unconscionable under Massachusetts law
and illegal under the National Labor Relations Act.

During the motion hearing, the parties agreed that the court
should convert Lyft's motion into a motion for partial summary
judgment as to arbitrability, and that no further evidentiary
hearing or submission was necessary.

Judge Saylor granted defendant's motion to compel arbitration and
dismisses the complaint.  A copy of Judge Saylor's memorandum and
order dated August 9, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/88uhHh
from Leagle.com.

Yilkal Bekele, Plaintiff, represented by Adelaide H. Pagano --
apagano@llrlaw.com -- Shannon E. Liss-Riordan -- sliss@llrlaw.com
-- at Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.

Lyft, Inc., Defendant, represented by David J. Santeusanio --
david.santeusanio@hklaw.com -- James D. Smeallie --
jd.smeallie@hklaw.com -- Michael T. Maroney --
michael.maroney@hklaw.com -- Nathaniel F. Hulme --
nathaniel.hulme@hklaw.com -- Robert M. Shaw --
robert.shaw@hklaw.com -- at Holland & Knight, LLP


M&M ASPHALT: Bid to Certify Class in "Dyer" Suit Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Roy B. Dalton, Jr., granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of class in
the lawsuit entitled KENNETH A. DYER, JR. ; MICHAEL A. HILL;
ROBERT P. ANDERSON; JOSEPH T. ALLEN; COREY W. BOWERS; CALVIN A.
WILLIAMS; TAVAREN D. LATIMER; RICKY R. MCGEE; PATRICK B. MINOR;
ANDREW TOMLIN; and JOHNNY L. WALTERS v. M&M ASPHALT MAINTENANCE
INC.; ALL COUNTY PAVING, INC.; JEFFREY COHEN; KENNETH GOLDBERG;
and DAVID GOLDBERG, Case No. 6:15-cv-01512-RBD-KRS (M.D. Fla.).

The Motion is granted to the extent that Carlos Enrique Candelario
Figueroa is added as a party Plaintiff.  In all other respects,
the Motion is denied.

The Plaintiffs have moved for conditional certification of a
collective class of "Laborers" and "Drivers," who were employed by
the Defendants at their Orlando, Florida, location as of
June 16, 2015, and were retaliated against after they filed a
lawsuit complaining about not receiving their statutory living
wage protected by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=c5QooKO8


MAINE FISH: Court Certifies Class of Servers in "Dineen" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William I. Garfinkel granted the joint motion for
preliminary approval of class settlement, provisional
certification of the settlement class, appointment of the
Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel, and approval of the proposed
notices of settlement filed by the parties in the lawsuit styled
KRISTEN DINEEN and JOHN TEDONE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. MAINE FISH MARKET RESTAURANT, INC.
d/b/a MAINE FISH MARKET and NICHOLAS VAMVILIS, Case No. 3:15-cv-
01554-WIG (D. Conn.).

The Court concludes that the proposed Settlement Agreement is
within the range of possible settlement approval such that notice
to the Class is appropriate.  For settlement purposes only, the
Court provisionally certifies this class:

     All persons employed in the Server, Bartender and/or
     fulltime kitchen worker job classifications by Maine Fish
     Market at any time between October 26, 2012 and June 30,
     2016.

For settlement purposes only, the Court appoints Pechman Law Group
PLLC and Madsen, Prestley & Parenteau, LLC as Class Counsel.

The Court will hold a final fairness hearing on November 14, 2016,
at 10:30 a.m. to consider final approval of the Settlement.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=CTW2PShd

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Louis Pechman, Esq.
          PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
          488 Madison Avenue
          11th Floor Suite 1120
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 583-9500
          E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com


MAJOR LEAGUE: Baseball Players Sue Over Minimum Wage Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Blythe, writing for, reports that Aaron Senne played first
base and left field for the Greensboro Grasshoppers in 2012, the
year the Class A baseball team's Major League affiliate, the Miami
Marlins, moved into its new $634 million stadium.

Mr. Senne says he was paid $7,000 to play that season and that
despite being a college graduate in his 20s he still had to call
his parents and ask for money to get by.

Now Mr. Senne and two other players are pursuing a lawsuit that
contends the major league teams with which they were affiliated
failed to meet federal and state minimum wage standards.  The
suit, which names the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball as a
defendant, has the potential to fundamentally change the business
model for American baseball.

"We're not asking for millions of dollars," Mr. Senne told the
Toronto Star earlier this summer.  "What the lawsuit asks for is
that we deserve the same rights as employees of any other company
-- your McDonald's or Wal-Mart or Target, whoever it might be.  We
believe we should fall into the same category and that Major
League Baseball should be complying with the same laws that these
other companies have to comply with."

By earlier this year, the players had some 40 other players
willing to join their legal fight if a federal judge granted
class-action status.  The judge ruled last month that the players'
claims were not similar enough to grant class-action status.

Garrett Broshuis, a former minor leaguer turned lawyer who is
representing Mr. Senne, says he is considering an appeal of that
decision.  But whether the case moves forward as a class-action or
as individual players challenging a pay structure that
overwhelmingly benefits those at the top, Mr. Broshuis said the
questions and legal challenge will not go away.

"What people who go to these minor league games should know is
some of those players came to the stadium that day without eating
breakfast that day, and not by choice," he said.  "I think the
fans would like to know what their lives are like."

Mr. Senne was a high school standout in Rochester, Minn., and
played college ball at the University of Missouri.  After his
senior year in high school and again after his third season with
the Missouri Tigers, the Minnesota Twins drafted Mr. Senne.  But
he chose to finish out his college career before the Marlins
drafted the left-handed first baseman in 2010 in the 10th round.

Mr. Senne received a $25,000 one-time bonus for a seven-year
contract, according to his lawsuit, and received two semesters in
a college scholarship fund.  His career began in 2010 with the
Jamestown Jammers of the New York-Penn League.  Two years later,
when he played with Grasshoppers, a South Atlantic League farm
team for the Marlins, the team lost the championship series to the
Asheville Tourists.

During those years, Mr. Senne sometimes lived in a two-bedroom
apartment with five other players.  He bought pizza rolls and
peanut butter and jelly in bulk, regretting that he never had
enough money to eat quality food as he trained to become a better
athlete.  On road trips, the players got a meal allowance of $25
per day.

During the season, players are at the ballpark for about 60 hours
a week; they also attend spring training, which pays nothing.
Mr. Senne's lawsuit alleges "labor exploitation" and seeks to
recover damages and prohibit "the cartel known as MLB from
subjecting future minor leaguers to Defendants' illegal wage and
labor practices."

Major League Baseball disputes the allegations.  League officials
argue that minor league baseball was conceived to be more of a
stepping stone, or a de facto internship, toward the majors, where
players make millions.  They argue the minor leagues were never
intended to be a career.

Stan Brand, MLB's executive director, has vowed to fight the
lawsuit and has pushed for changes in Congress.

"In the coming year, we will be seeking legislation to clarify
that professional baseball players are not covered by these
federal wage and hour laws," Mr. Brand told a packed ballroom of
minor league team owners and executives in 2015.

Mr. Brand urged those in the room "to heed the clarion call, man
the battle stations and carry the message to Congress loudly and
clearly: The value of grassroots baseball and our stewardship of
the game needs to be protected against the onslaught of these
suits."

Such a bill was introduced by U.S. Rep. Cheri Bustos, a Democrat
from Illinois, and U.S. Rep. Brett Guthrie, a Republican from
Kentucky.

The bill, titled Save America's Pastime Act, would amend the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 to add "any employee who has entered
into a contract to play baseball at the minor league level" to the
list of employees exempted from federal minimum wage and maximum
hour requirements.  Existing law exempts "any employee employed by
an establishment which is an amusement or recreational
establishment . . . if (A) it does not operate for more than seven
months in any calendar year."

In July, several weeks after the bill was introduced, Ms. Bustos
withdrew her support, saying that while she thought it was
important to sustain the minor league teams that provide an
economic boost to many small communities across the country, she
could not support legislation that did so at the expense of the
players that draw fans to the stadiums.

"Whether it's on the factory floor, in classrooms or on the
playing fields of one of America's revered traditions, I strongly
support raising the minimum wage and the right to collective
bargaining for fair wages," Ms. Bustos said.

In North Carolina, where there are nine minor league baseball
teams including the Carolina Mudcats in Zebulon and the Durham
Bulls, a similar bill was introduced in May that would have
allowed minor league owners to pay players less than minimum wage
and not be subject to overtime rules.

Sen. Fletcher Hartsell, a Republican from Cabarrus County who
introduced the bill in the Senate, said the exemption had been
requested by minor league team owners but could also apply to
workers at amusement parks and other seasonal venues.

A lobbyist for minor league baseball told legislators at a
committee meeting in May that team owners had not requested the
minimum wage restrictions, but had sought a provision that would
have clarified overtime rules for salaried workers at stadiums.

The proposal, Senate Bill 363, was referred to a committee.

Meanwhile, the coming end of the minor league baseball season will
force many players to decide whether to stick it out another year.
Most of them won't fulfill their major league dreams; a Baseball
America study in 2013 showed that only one in six draft picks make
it to the majors for at least one day.

Mr. Senne was not among them.  Injuries forced him to retire in
early 2013 while he was playing for the Jupiter Hammerheads, a
Class A-Advanced team for the Marlins in the Florida State League.


MARIETTA MEMORIAL: Court Certifies Nurses Class in "Myers" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Algenon L. Marbley entered an order in the lawsuit styled
LYNNETT MYERS, et al. v. MARIETTA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et al., Case
No. 2:15-cv-02956-ALM-TPK (S.D. Ohio):

   * granting the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective
     action certification, expedited discovery, and issuance of
     notice under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The Court
     certifies this class:

     All of Defendants' current and former hourly employees who
     were responsible for directpatient care and were subject to
     Defendants' automatic meal deduction policy at any time
     during the three years prior to the granting of this motion
     to the present;

   * denying as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration
     of the Magistrate Judge's order denying the motion to
     expedite and granting the motion to compel discovery; and

   * denying as moot the Plaintiffs' motion to stay pending
     resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration.

Plaintiffs Lynnett Myers, Carol Butler, and Arva Lowther are
former nurses at Marietta Memorial Hospital, which is operated by
Memorial Health System.  Memorial Health System also operates
Defendants Selby General Hospital and Marietta Health Care, Inc.,
and all of these entities function as joint employers of Memorial
Health System's employees and operate as a single integrated
system.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' policy of automatically
deducting 30 minutes for a meal break for employees, who do direct
patient care violates the Fair Labor Standards Act because
employees are routinely prohibited from either taking an
uninterrupted meal break or canceling the automatic deduction.

Judge Marbley also directed the parties to confer as to the proper
form of the notice and opt-in consent form and submit to the Court
a proposed notice and consent form and plan for their distribution
within 14 days of the date of the Order, and in the alternative,
to notify the Court by that date of any disputes as to the
language or distribution of the notice and opt-in consent form.

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


MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE: Employees Sue Over Retirement Funds
------------------------------------------------------------
Jarrett Carter, writing for EducationDIVE, reports that
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, New York University and
Yale University are being sued by employees for allegedly
overcharging fees and maintaining expensive investments which
yielded low returns over years.

The suit alleges administrators did not seek the cheapest options
for plan administration or oversight, which added rising costs and
fewer returns for pension funding.

Potential conflicts of interest between the MIT board of trustees
and the school's financial record-keeping firm are also in
question.

While elite colleges and universities may have sizable endowments,
pension funds are not in the same state of health, which can lead
to difficult positions for institutional spending and personnel
management decisions.  The University of the Cumberlands is a
prime example of financial promises made to a former president to
reward years of good service, only to rescind in part thanks to a
struggling economy.

Inconsistent or unmonitored policies and procedures can lead to
negative outcomes for administrators, even when economic downturn
is a legitimate and predictable factor.  Faculty can publicly
censure administration, or file lawsuits to recoup financial
damages.  The remedy is full transparency and responsiveness to
faculty and staff feedback, clarity on how and why certain
administrative decisions are made, and explanation of how
decisions align with a mission to take care of these groups: the
University of the District of Columbia is an ideal example of this
kind of engagement, on the subject of raises for non-union staff.


MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE: Schlichter Bogard Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, a national law firm based in
St. Louis, on Aug. 9 filed separate class action lawsuits against
three universities on behalf of over 60,000 employees in their
defined contribution retirement plans.

The complaints, David B. Tracey, et al., v. Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, et al.; Dr. Alan Sacerdote, et al., v.
New York University, et al.; and Joseph Vellali, et al., v. Yale
University, et al., were filed in the U.S. District Courts of
Massachusetts, the Southern District of New York, and the District
of Connecticut, respectively.

"We contend that these universities, as fiduciaries, have breached
their duties under the law to protect the retirement assets of
their employees and retirees," Jerry Schlichter of Schlichter,
Bogard & Denton, the attorney for the plaintiffs stated.  "These
university employees deserve the same right to build meaningful
retirement assets as employees of for-profit companies," Mr.
Schlichter added.

Common to all three complaints are allegations that each of these
universities, as employee retirement plan sponsors, breached their
duties of loyalty and prudence under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) by causing plan participants to pay
millions of dollars in unreasonable and excessive fees for
recordkeeping, administrative, and investment services of the
plans.

The complaints further allege that the universities breached their
fiduciary duties by selecting and retaining numerous high-cost and
poor performing investment options compared to available
alternatives, which substantially reduced the retirement assets of
the employees and retirees.

In the cases of New York University and Yale University, both
403(b) type plans, the complaints allege employees paid excessive
recordkeeping fees in addition to selecting and imprudently
retaining funds which historically underperformed for years.

The complaints also state that in contrast to actions by prudent
fiduciaries of other similarly sized defined contribution plans,
these universities each used multiple recordkeepers, rather than a
single recordkeeper.  Consequently, by using multiple
recordkeepers, the universities caused plan participants to pay
duplicative, excessive, and unreasonable fees for plan
recordkeeping services.

In the case of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a 401(k)
plan, the complaint alleges that MIT's close relationship with
Fidelity Investments led to its selection as plan recordkeeper,
without any competitive bidding process in violation of the
university's duty to act in the exclusive interest of its
employees and retirees according to the complaint,
Abigail Johnson has been a member of the MIT Board of Trustees for
years and is also CEO of Fidelity, which her family controls.  It
also alleges that MIT placed over 150 Fidelity funds, including
high priced retail funds in the plan, in spite of the plan being a
$3.5 billion plan able to command lower fees. This has caused
participants to pay unreasonable administrative and investment
management expenses.

"The universities do not have high priced retail mutual funds in
their multi-billion dollar endowments, yet they have them in their
employees' retirement plans, resulting in the employees paying
excessive fees and diminishing their retirement savings," added
Mr. Schlichter.

Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, based in St. Louis, MO, pioneered
excessive fee 401(k) litigation on behalf of employees and
retirees and to seek remedies.  Since 2006, the firm has filed 20
such complaints and secured 9 settlements on behalf of employees.
In 2009, the firm won the only full trial of an 401(k) excessive
fee case against ABB.  The firm's Tibble v. Edison is the first
and only 401(k) excessive fee case to be argued in the Supreme
Court.  On May 18, 2015, the firm won a landmark unanimous 9-0
decision in which both the AARP and the Solicitor General wrote
supporting briefs for the employees.

Jerry Schlichter and his firm have been referred to by federal
judges as "preeminent "in the field of 401(k) fee litigation; as
demonstrating "extraordinary skill and determination"; as making
"a significant, national contribution," having "educated plan
administrators, the Department of Labor, the courts" about
fees and fiduciary obligations; and has been referred to by
federal judges as a "private attorney general," causing fees to
come down in the entire 401(k) industry.

              About Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, LLP

Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, LLP, of St. Louis is a national law
firm that represents individuals, including victims of financial
abuse and 401(k) plan investors, whose plans suffer from excessive
fees or imprudent investment options.  Its attorneys are dedicated
to helping financial abuse victims, and helping employees and
retirees secure the retirement benefits they deserve.

More information can be found at:

http://www.uselaws.comor call (800)-USE-LAWS (873-5297)


MCDONALD'S CORP: Dec. 5 Jury Trial Scheduled in Wage Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Iafolla, writing for Reuters, reports that a wage-and-hour
class action against McDonald's Corp that seeks to hold the fast
food giant liable for alleged wage law violations at five
California franchises is headed for a possible trial at the end of
the year.

In an order on Aug. 8, U.S. District Judge James Donato in San
Francisco scheduled a jury trial to begin on Dec. 5.


MDL 2437: Judge Directs Filing of Second Amended Class Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Michael M. Baylson directed the Court Clerk to file
the Indirect Purchasers' Second Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint, after granting the Proposed Intervenors' Motion to
Intervene as Additional Class Representatives in the case, IN RE:
DOMESTIC DRYWALL ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL No. 2437, No. 13-MD-
2437 (E.D. Pa.),

A copy of the Court's Order dated August 18, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/1HwkKRfrom Leagle.com.

IN RE: DOMESTIC DRYWALL ANTITRUST LITIGATION, IN RE:, represented
by H. LADDIE MONTAGUE, Jr. -- hlmontague@bm.net -- BERGER &
MONTAGUE PC.


MEDIA MIX 365: Faces Class Action Over Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that an Avalon man has filed a class-action lawsuit against a
Santa Ana telemarketer and its CEO after it repeatedly called his
number even though it is listed on the Do Not Call list.

Matthew Affolder filed a complaint on behalf of all others
similarly situated on Aug. 9 in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California against Media Mix 365 LLC, Nicholas
Long and Does 1-25 alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he received
several telemarketing calls to his cellular telephone from the
defendant in an attempt to sell solar panel installation.  The
plaintiff holds Media Mix 365 LLC, Long and Does 1-25 responsible
because the defendants allegedly used an automatic dialing system
in contacting plaintiff and kept calling after the plaintiff
requested it to stop.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks injunctive and
equitable relief, actual and statutory damages, all legal fees and
any other relief as the court deems just.  He is represented by
Zack Broslavsky of Broslavsky & Weinman LLP in Los Angeles and
Jeremy M. Glapion -- jmg@glapionlaw.com -- of The Glapion Law Firm
LLC in Wall, New Jersey.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case
number 8:16-cv-01470-DOC-KES


MICHAELS STORES: Certification of Class Sought in "Rowe" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled LAUREL ROWE, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MICHAELS STORES,
INC. and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 5:15-cv-01592-EJD
(N.D. Cal.), moves the Court for an order granting certification
of a class consisting of:

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

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

The Court will commence a hearing on February 9, 2017, at 9:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5CZ5wlh7

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MIDLAND CREDIT: Class Certification Sought in "Bentley" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Curtis Bentley moves the Court to certify the class described in
the amended complaint of the lawsuit captioned CURTIS BENTLEY,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., and MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, Case
No. 2:16-cv-01041-PP (E.D. Wisc.).  The Plaintiff also asks the
Court to both stay the Motion and to grant the Plaintiff (and the
Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing
schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed
with the Motion.

Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the
Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
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).

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, the
Plaintiff states.  The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is
obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests
of the putative class.

As the Motion 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 Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative
and further asks the Court to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as
class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AAx9a0Gb

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


MILLENNIUM TOWER: Homeowners File $500-Mil. Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Caleb Pershan, writing for sfist.com, reports that after news
broke that the 58-story, 419-residence Millennium Tower, completed
in 2009, had sunk 16 inches in height and tilted two inches
northwest, pissed and panicked homeowners were pretty sure to sue,
and you know what? They did just that, filing a class-action
lawsuit against both the developer of their shifting building and
the public entity developing the neighboring Transbay Transit
Center.

The Chronicle's Matier & Ross report that the charge is being led
by one resident, John Eng, who is working with four law firms on
behalf of the homeowners association.  If granted class-action
status, the suit would seek at least $500 million.

The aggrieved group is going by the name the Millennium Towers
Litigation Group, made up of the law offices of Blum Collins LLP,
Catalano & Catalano, Foreman & Brasso, and Mark M. Garay, Esq.

From their press release:

"The Millennium Towers in San Francisco is built on landfill.  It
is the heaviest concrete building built in this seismic zone and,
unlike other neighboring buildings, it is not anchored into the
bedrock below.  It has been reported that the building was
expected to settle evenly to the depth of approximately 6 inches
over its lifetime, but has now settled 12-16 inches and is leaning
15 inches at its top to the northwest.  We are informed that some
owners are reporting problems with uneven floors, difficulty
opening and closing doors, windows, and cabinets, and that some
interior wall cracks have been observed.  To date, none of the
potentially responsible parties have accepted any responsibility
for this problem nor have they offered any assurance that this
condition will not continue to deteriorate.
Developer Millennium Partners has been eager to shift the blame to
the Transbay Joint Powers Authority, the agency that began work on
the neighboring Transbay Transit Center in 2010."
"301 Mission exists in a location where major underground
construction work was subsequently performed by others, who were
obligated to monitor and protect existing structures, and to
mitigate any impacts of their work," Millennium Partners said in a
statement to the Business Times.

Not so, says the Transbay Joint Powers Authority.  "The residents'
claims against the TJPA are misplaced; as demonstrated by data
collected over more than seven years, full responsibility for the
tilting and excessive settlement of the building lies with
Millennium Partners, the developer of the Tower," read a TJPA
statement.  "Millennium Partners' poor design decision is the
cause of the tilt and excessive vertical settlement of the
Millennium Tower."  The Millennium Towers Litigation Group will go
after them both, and by targeting the TJPA, a public entity, will
involve the city and taxpayer dollars.

Stanford's Earthquake Engineering Center's Greg Deierlein, an
independent consultant, originally determined that the tower had
sunk far more than expected.  And, further, a geotechnical
engineering expert hired by the homeowners' association predicts
that the building might sink another 15 inches in the coming years
for a total of almost three feet.


MILWAUKEE, WI: Scott Walker Supporter Files Class Action v. DA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that legal
wrangling over a probe launched by Milwaukee County District
Attorney Mike Chisholm into Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's 2012
recall campaign continues as a Wisconsin-based free-market think
tank has filed a class action lawsuit against Mr. Chisholm,
employees of his office and senior staff of a now-defunct state
board.

The John K. MacIver Institute for Public Policy filed its proposed
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Wisconsin.  The named defendants include
Mr. Chisholm; Francis Schmitz, special prosecutor for the state
Government Accountability Board; Bruce Landgraf and David Robles,
both Milwaukee County assistant district attorneys; Kevin J.
Kennedy, director and general counsel for the GAB; Jonathan
Becker, administrator of the Ethics and Accountability Division of
the GAB; and Shane Falk, staff attorney for the GAB.

The GAB, charged with oversight of Wisconsin's campaign finance,
elections, ethics and lobbying laws, has since been dissolved.

In December, Gov. Walker signed 2015 Wisconsin Act 118, which did
away with the board effective June 30 and replaced it with two
separate commissions, with partisan appointees, to oversee the
administration of elections and ethics.  The change was prompted
by the board's involvement in Mr. Chisholm's secret, or "John
Doe," investigation.

MacIver, a nonprofit institute formed in 2008 and dedicated to
free markets and limited government, has been a backer of the
conservative Republican Walker and much of his policies.

In 2011, the institute and Americans for Prosperity bought more
than $500,000 worth of television ads in Wisconsin supporting the
governor's budget proposals, though they did not mention
Gov. Walker by name in the ads, according to a Journal Sentinel
report.

Now, MacIver claims Mr. Chisholm, his employees and some GAB
staffers illegally seized the institute's digital records during
the criminal probe that alleged "illegal coordination" of campaign
funding by Walker and 29 independent nonprofits, the institute
included.


MONSANTO COMPANY: Court Narrows Claims in Princeton Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Denise J. Casper denied in part and allowed in part the
defendants' motion to dismiss the case captioned TOWN OF
PRINCETON, Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, SOLUTIA INC., and
PHARMACIA CORPORATION, Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-cv-40096
(D. Mass.).

Town of Princeton filed the lawsuit against Monsanto Company,
Solutia Inc. and Pharmacia Corporation alleging breach of the
implied warranty of merchantability (defective design), breach of
the of the express warranty of merchantability (failure to warn),
negligence and violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection
Act based upon the defendants' conduct in manufacturing and
distributing a chemical called polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

Judge Casper allowed the defendants' motion to dismiss without
prejudice as to the Mass. Gen. L c. 93A, but denied the motion as
to the negligence and breach of warranty claims.

A full-text copy of Judge Casper's August 10, 2016 memorandum and
order is available at https://is.gd/xOj4dc from Leagle.com.

Town of Princeton, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan S. Gowdy --
bgowdy@appellate-firm.com -- Creed & Gowdy, P.A., Esther L.
Klisura -- eklisura@slenvironment.com -- SL Environmental Law
Group PC, pro hac vice, Kevin J. Madonna, Kennedy & Madonna, LLP,
pro hac vice, Kieran P. Ringgenberg --
kringgenberg@slenvironment.com -- SL Environmental Law Group PC,
pro hac vice & Richard W. Head -- rhead@slenvironment.com -- SL
Environmental Law Group PC, pro hac vice.

Pharmacia LLC, SOLUTIA INC, Monsanto Company, Defendants,
represented by Richard L. Campbell --
campbellrl@whiteandwilliams.com -- White and Williams LLP, Richard
P. Campbell -- rpcampbell@campbell-trial-lawyers.com -- Campbell,
Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC, Brandon L. Arber, White and
Williams LLP & Diana A. Chang -- changd@whiteandwilliams.com --
White and Williams LLP.


MULTI CABLE: Luviano Seeks Certification of Technicians Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Luviano asks the Court to certify a class of cable
installation technicians in the lawsuit entitled L. LUVIANO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
MULTI CABLE, INC., MOUSA GOLBAHAR, TIME WARNER CABLE INC., TIME
WARNER CABLE PACIFIC WEST LLC, TIME WARNER CABLE ENTERPRISES LLC,
and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-05592-BRO-FFM (C.D.
Cal.).

The proposed Class Members consist of faux "independent
contractors" who were issued biweekly piece rate payments from
Defendant MCI on account of fulfillment of TWC work orders in
California since the period of time commencing four years prior to
the filing of the Complaint until June 13, 2015.  The proposed
Subclass consists of all ITs, who are no longer working as such.

Mr. Luviano also asks the Court to appoint him as the Class
representative and to appoint the law firms of Blecher, Collins &
Pepperman, Harris & Ruble, and Forouzan Law as co-lead Class
counsel.

The Case arises out of the cable industry practice of allegedly
misclassifying cable installation technicians as faux "independent
contractors" in order to avoid paying overtime or offering other
employee benefits such as reimbursement of expenses, informational
wage statements, or rest and meal breaks.  Mr. Luviano brings the
lawsuit for alleged failure to pay overtime wages, among other
violations.

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

The Court will commence a hearing on November 14, 2016, at 1:30
p.m., to consider the Motion.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald R. Pepperman, Esq.
          BLECHER, COLLINS, & PEPPERMAN
          515 South Figueroa Street, 17th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 622-4222
          Facsimile: (213) 622-1656
          E-mail: dpepperman@blechercollins.com

               - and -

          Alan Harris, Esq.
          David Garrett, Esq.
          Christina Nordsten, Esq.
          HARRIS & RUBLE
          655 North Central Avenue, 17th Floor
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (323) 962-3777
          Facsimile: (323) 962-3004
          E-mail: law@harrisandruble.com
                  dgarrett@harrisandruble.com
                  cnordsten@harrisandruble.com

               - and -

          Daniel Forouzan, Esq.
          FOROUZAN LAW
          9454 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 550
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (888) 551-0163
          Facsimile: (888) 710-0039
          E-mail: Daniel@FznLaw.com


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Ex-Stanford Player Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Samano, writing for The Stanford Daily, reports that former
Stanford football player David Burns '76 has filed a class action
lawsuit seeking damages for the alleged disregard of the health
and safety of former Stanford football players.

The suit names the University, the National Collegiate Athletic
Association (NCAA) and the Pacific-12 Conference (Pac-12) as
defendants and covers Stanford football players active between
1959 and 2010.  Stewart Pollock of the law firm Edelson
Professional Corporation will be lead-counsel for the suit, which
joins 12 others filed by former college football players since
mid-May.  The suits allege that private universities, the NCAA and
regional athletic conferences knew or should have known of the
danger concussions and other traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) pose,
but neglected to either inform student-athletes or adopt adequate
concussion management protocols.

According to the lawsuit implicating Stanford, some concussed
players, such as Mr. Burns, were prematurely returned to games or
practices and now suffer from chronic injuries ranging from
impulse control to early onset Parkinson's disease.  Mr. Burns,
who was not available to comment, seeks redress for these
injuries, which he alleges Stanford knowingly failed to prevent.
"We talked to a client recently who recalled playing in games
where his ears were bleeding," said Chris Dore --
cdore@edelson.com -- a partner at Edelson.  "[Student-athletes]
are looking at these [athletic and educational] institutions to
protect them."

In a statement to CBS San Francisco, Stanford spokeswoman Lisa
Lapin maintained that the University prioritizes protecting
student-athletes.

"Stanford was surprised to see this lawsuit purporting to be a
class action on behalf of football players from 1959 to 2010 as
Stanford had not previously heard anything from the plaintiff or
his counsel about the allegations being made," the statement read.
"Stanford has always acted in the best interests of its student
athletes."

The complaint has been assigned to Judge Kandis Westmore of the
U.S. District Court of Northern California, San Francisco
Division.

Protecting Students

Edelson's string of lawsuits followed another settlement between
the NCAA and a class of former football players led by Adrian
Arrington, wide receiver for the University of Michigan from 2004-
07.  The settlement provided for medical monitoring such as
doctor's appointments but not monetary compensation for an injured
player, and it stipulated that future class actions against the
NCAA, such as Mr. Burns' complaint, must proceed on a college-by-
college basis.

"The [NCAA settlement] didn't account for anything that would
occur if the test showed that there was something wrong with you,"
Mr. Dore said.  "You'd have players who were already experiencing
injury, and the doctor's appointment would be useless to them
because they had already been to the doctor a thousand times."

Mr. Dore stressed that the neurological injuries Edelson's clients
face have ruined their abilities to hold jobs and maintain social
relationships.  The former students represented in Burns' suit, he
explained, did not know the long-term dangers of repeated head
injuries.  College students and their parents now have access to
information that was not in the public eye as recently as 10 years
ago, according to Dore.

"When people look at these players in a lot of these suits, they
are seeing them as men, middle-aged men," Mr. Dore said.  "People
forget that they were 18 to 22-year-olds who were more or less
under the guardianship of these schools and of these programs."
While football players implicitly agree to take on some risk by
participating in games, Osborne argued in one of the earliest law
articles on sports-related head injuries that trainers and team
physicians have a duty to protect athletes.

"Tremendous pressure may be placed on the athletic trainer to
return the athlete to play as soon as possible by the coaching
staff, administrators, other team members, alumnae and fans, and
the athlete," the article stated.  "The athletic trainer cannot be
influenced by the team's need for the player or even by the
athlete's desire to play."

According to Mr. Burns' complaint, the NCAA, Pac-12 and Stanford
"knew for decades of the harmful effects of TBI on student-
athletes, [but] ignored these facts and failed to institute any
meaningful method of warning or protecting the student-athletes."

The NCAA first mandated concussion protocols in 2010.  Due to
Burns' pending litigation, Stanford has not disclosed when the
Cardinal first adopted a concussion protocol.  However, former
head coach Jim Harbaugh's comments to The New York Times indicate
Stanford has had a concussion protocol since at least 2007.

Law experts weigh in

Experts unaffiliated with either Mr. Burns' or the defendants'
legal teams said the lawsuit may have a difficult time proving
that Stanford and others were negligent.

"Even though [Stanford] has a duty to protect [students], anyone
who plays any kind of sport knows that they could get hurt," said
Barbara Osborne, professor of sports medicine and law at the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC).  "Failing to
adopt a safety standard is not the same thing as active
concealment [of information]."

In Ms. Osborne's opinion, the NCAA and athletic conferences do not
have a duty to protect students, but rather a duty to not increase
risks to the health and safety of student-athletes.

Ms. Osborne believes that the actions and regulations of the NCAA
and the Pac-12 should be evaluated under the norms for football
during the time period covered in the suit, not current standards.

Though the suit alleges that "study after study published in
medical journals" warned of the dangers of concussions,
Ms. Osborne noted that there was no strong consensus in the sports
medicine community when Burns played for the Cardinal.  Medical
experts disagreed on the dangers of concussions and other TBIs in
football until relatively recently.
"If the standard is to be reasonably prudent, it looks like
committees [within the NCAA] had been doing what they were
expected to do, and did create policy when there was consensus,"
Ms. Osborne said.

Though research on head injuries dated back to the 1920s,
consensus on concussions specifically within football were not
reached until Kevin Guskiewicz, dean of the College of Arts and
Sciences at UNC and member of the NCAA's Concussion Safety
Protocol Committee, conducted a series of large-scale
epidemiological studies identifying the effects of multiple
concussions in the late 1990s.  Mr. Guskiewicz's research, which
earned him a MacArthur fellowship, helped shift the field of
sports medicine away from reliance on athletes' self-reporting
symptoms and towards more objective measures of athletes' health.

"Coaches and trainers can't make decisions on someone else's
safety if they are not getting honest information from the
person," Ms. Osborne said.

Mr. Burns' recent complaint does not specify whether subjective
self-reporting of symptoms was the norm when Mr. Burns played
football from 1972-74.

According to a survey that then-student Richard Eagleston '71 MA
'76 distributed to football players at Stanford and Santa Clara
University in the 1975 season, however, players reported only
slightly over half of the injuries they sustained, but were most
likely to report head injuries.  Most of the players surveyed
reported receiving encouragement from their coaches or trainers to
report injuries.

If evidence at trial demonstrates that Stanford football acted
within the accepted coaching standards at the time, Ms. Osborne
explained, there would be no breach of duty to players on
Stanford's part.

But Mr. Dore disagreed.  He clarified that, per the conditions of
NCAA's settlement with Arrington, the firm must sue individual
colleges even though the negligent behavior alleged in the
complaint was typical of most college football programs from 1959-
2010.

Mr. Burns' case is "a matter of [the defendant's] knowledge and
their ability to control these players, to control the policies
and limit the harm of [head injuries]," Mr. Dore said.

Deborah Hensler, Judge John W. Ford Professor of Dispute
Resolution at the Stanford Law School, who specializes in class
action litigation and procedure, suspects that the plaintiff's
definition of the class may cover too many people, but has
withheld definitive judgment on the issue until more facts
pertaining to the case are discovered.

"A court, at least at first blush, would think of it as being a
very large amorphous class and judges are frequently uncomfortable
allowing such class actions," Ms. Hensler said.
A recent settlement with the NFL, Ms. Hensler noted, featured a
narrower class of retired football players suffering from certain
neurological diseases, while Burns' suit limits the class solely
by time period.

However, Ms. Hensler agreed with Dore that Stanford could be held
responsible even if its practices were similar to peer
institutions'.

"If there is some period where the plaintiffs show that Stanford
and the other defendants knew and should have been doing other
things and weren't telling the players, then the plaintiffs would
still have a strong case in that regard," she said.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Attempts to Defeat Sunday Ticket Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for Hollywood Reporter, reports that the NFL
and DirecTV file court papers aimed at defeating a lawsuit over
Sunday Ticket.

Professional football this year will kick off with a bit of
defense as the NFL looks to sack a putative class action over one
of its multibillion-dollar TV rights deals.  The lawsuit,
currently being fought in California federal court, claims that
the league and satcaster DirecTV are violating antitrust laws in
the way that out-of-market game broadcasts are packaged and
distributed to commercial establishments like bars and
restaurants.  If successful, the lawsuit has the potential to
reshape televised football, which, given the immense popularity of
the product, might lead to wholesale changes across the
entertainment landscape.

In the litigation, the plaintiffs suggest an alternative reality -
- one where teams like the Los Angeles Rams and the Green Bay
Packers compete against each other in the market for NFL football
programming, which the plaintiffs say would "induce more
competitive pricing and content."  In this world, the 32 member
franchises might individually stream their games online, and
viewers would perhaps have the option of choosing gamecasts
announced by team legends, other fans, or maybe nobody.  Some
football enthusiasts, after all, might just prefer to hear the
ambient noise of the stadium.

According to a motion to dismiss filed on Aug. 8 by the NFL,
however, this is not possible, as the "clubs' pooling of rights is
necessary to distribute even a single football game."  This is
hardly the only justification given by the league to end the suit.

In antitrust law, there are generally two kinds of restraints that
undergo scrutiny -- vertical agreements between a seller and a
buyer and horizontal agreements between competing businesses.

The vertical agreement at issue in this case is the eight-year,
$12 billion Sunday Ticket licensing agreement between the NFL and
DirecTV.  The plaintiffs allege that the defendants "have colluded
to sell the out-of-market NFL Sunday afternoon games only through
DirecTV," at a supracompetitive price.  The largest establishments
-- like Las Vegas casinos -- are paying more than $120,000 a year
for Sunday Ticket.

In response, the NFL argues that bare allegations directed at an
exclusive distributorship aren't enough to carry an antitrust
claim.  To survive dismissal, the league says the plaintiffs must
bring a plausible claim that the exclusive agreement is intended
to or actually does harm competition.  The NFL says the plaintiffs
haven't carried the football past the first-down mark.

"Nothing in the Complaint suggests that it was unreasonable or
inappropriate for the NFL to conclude that Sunday Ticket would be
most attractively and effectively distributed by a single licensee
with ample, undiluted incentive to enhance and promote the
product," state the league's lawyers.

The real action in this case might turn on the court's
interpretation of the horizontal agreements between NFL teams to
collectively pool television rights.  That's thanks to the 2010
Supreme Court ruling American Needle v. National Football League,
which held that NFL teams are capable of conspiring when making
licensing deals.  The question now is whether the same sort of
scrutiny applies to television as it does to merchandising.

The NFL is claiming immunity from the antitrust challenge because
of the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961, while the plaintiffs
assert that this statute is expressly limited to "sponsored
telecasting," which they construe to mean broadcast television and
not cable or satellite.

U.S. District Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell will also be examining
whether the pooling of rights among teams is anticompetitive
compared with any alternative.  As noted above, the plaintiffs
envision what might happen if teams were free to produce or
license their own games -- but it's a "but-for world" that's under
the league's pass rush.

"Plaintiffs ignore the fact that the NFL would be well within its
statutory rights not to distribute any out-of-market NFL football
games," states the league's court brief.  "Indeed, before the
launch of Sunday Ticket, these out-of-market broadcasts were not
available to fans at all. Plaintiffs plead no factual support for
their conclusory (and counterfactual) assertion that individual
teams would or even could distribute these games."

The NFL attempts to bolster that last point with word that a
single NFL football game broadcast requires cooperation and
consent from "at least three entities -- the NFL and two
participating clubs," nodding to the intellectual property
involved (and obviously steering clear of the current trademark
troubles bedeviling the Washington Redskins).  As for a bundled
package, like multiple games maybe demanded by fantasy football
enthusiasts who patronize bars, the NFL says it "requires the
participation and consent of all 32 clubs and the NFL."

A footnote there expresses that the "necessarily joint nature of
the broadcast rights at issue here distinguishes this case from
American Needle."

Elsewhere in the brief, the NFL attacks the notion that "live
video presentations of regular season NFL games" is a plausible
relevant market for antitrust purposes.  The league says NFL games
compete for consumer attention with other sports and entertainment
options, plus the league argues that the availability of free
broadcasts of NFL games (on networks like Fox and CBS) represent a
point -- or seven -- against the idea of restricted supply.  For
similar reasons, the NFL also knocks "out-of-market" NFL games as
being a recognizable, defined market illegally being restrained.

The NFL is also looking to defeat a claim of monopolization,
saying the plaintiffs haven't adequately alleged a conspiracy
between the league and DirecTV.  The league is represented by
attorneys at Covington & Burling as well as Wilkinson Walsh +
Eskovitz.

As for DirecTV, a co-defendant in the case being represented by
Kirland & Ellis, the satellite distributor has brought its own
dismissal motion premised on the contention that the dispute
belongs in arbitration because of its agreements with customers.


NATURE'S WAY: Court Narrows Claims in "Hunter" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Judge William Q. Hayes granted in part and denied, in part, the
defendants' motion to dismiss the case captioned SHERRY HUNTER, on
behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general
public; MALIA LEVIN, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public, Plaintiffs, v. NATURE'S WAY
PRODUCTS, LLC; SCHWABE NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No.
16cv532-WQH-BLM (S.D. Cal.).  The judge also denied the
defendants' motion to strike allegations of the complaint.

In their complaint, Sherry Hunter and Malia Levin alleged that
"Defendants have manufactured, distributed, marketed, and sold
various Nature's Way brand coconut oil products on a nationwide,
and indeed international basis for at least the past several
years."  The plaintiffs alleged that "Through statements placed
directly on the labels of the Nature's Way coconut oil products,
defendants market and advertise the products as both inherently
healthy, and healthy alternatives to butter, margarine, and other
oils, even though the products' total and saturated fat content
render them both inherently unhealthy, and less healthy
alternatives."

The plaintiffs brought the following causes of action: (1)
violations of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), based on
allegations that the defendants' claims relating to the Nature's
Way coconut oil products are fraudulent, unlawful, and unfair; (2)
violations of the False Advertising Law, based on allegations that
the defendants' advertisements and labeling misled reasonable
consumers; (3) violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
based on allegations that the defendants falsely and deceptively
advertised Nature's Way coconut oil products; (4) breach of
Express Warranties; and (5) breach of Implied Warranty of
Merchantability.

Judge Hayes granted the motion to dismiss as to the plaintiffs'
claims for injunctive relief and the plaintiffs' claims under the
"unfair" prong of the UCL.  The defendants' motion was denied as
to all other claims.

A full-text copy of Judge Hayes' August 12, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/cfKNa3 from Leagle.com.

Sherry Hunter, Malia Levin, Plaintiffs, represented by Jack
Fitzgerald -- jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- The Law Office of Jack
Fitzgerald, PC, Melanie Rae Persinger --
melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- The Law Office of Jack
Fitzgerald, Paul K. Joseph, The Law Office of Paul K. Joseph, PC &
Trevor Flynn -- trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- Hillcrest
Professional Building.

Nature's Way Products, LLC, Schwabe North America, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Kevin W. Alexander --
kalexander@gordonrees.com -- Gordon and Rees, Emily Skrdla --
eskrdla@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP & Thomas R. Watson --
twatson@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees, LLP.


NCB MANAGEMENT: Class Certification Sought in "Olson" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Olson moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit titled DEBORAH OLSON, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. NCB MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-01105-CNC (E.D. Wisc.).  The
Plaintiff further asks that the Court both stay the Motion and
grant her (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting
automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting
material to be filed with the Motion.

Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the
Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, Ms. Olson asserts, citing
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).

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, Ms. Olson
says.  She argues that she is obligated to move for class
certification to protect the interests of the putative class.

As the Motion 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, Ms. Olson contends.

Ms. Olson also asks to be appointed as class representative and
further asks the Court to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as class
counsel.

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

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


NESTLE PURINA: Court Narrows Claims in "Kacocha" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted in part, and denied in part the
defendant's motion to dismiss the case captioned PAUL KACOCHA,
individually on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Case Plaintiff, v. NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY,
Defendant, No. 15-CV-5489 (KMK) (S.D.N.Y.).

Paul Kacocha brought the action under section 349 of the New York
General Business Law against Nestle Purina on behalf of himself
and a putative class of New York consumers who purchased certain
of Nestle Purina's dog treat products alleged to have been
deceptively marketed to create the impression that they were
predominantly made out of bacon.

Judge Karas granted Nestle Purina Petcare Company, Inc.'s motion
to dismiss with respect to the representations on Nestle Purina's
website, and otherwise, denied the motion.

A full-text copy of Judge Karas" August 12, 2016 opinion and order
is available at https://is.gd/ZN7fgw from Leagle.com.

Paul Kacocha, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Jeffrey Berg --
rberg@denleacarton.com -- Denlea & Carton LLP, Jeffrey I. Carton
-- jcarton@denleacarton.com -- Denlea & Carton LLP.

Nestle Purina Petcare Company, Defendant, represented by Henninger
Simons Bullock -- hbullock@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP,
Carmine R. Zarlenga -- czarlenga@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown
LLP, Keri Elizabeth Borders -- kborders@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer
Brown LLP & Rebecca Bari Johns -- rjohns@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer
Brown LLP.


NEW PRIME: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Wage Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Riverside employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik on Aug. 11 filed a class action lawsuit against New Prime,
Inc. alleging that the trucking company failed to lawfully
compensate their employees working as Truck Drivers for all their
time spent under the company's control.  The class action
Complaint against New Prime, Inc. is currently pending in the San
Bernardino County Superior Court, Case No. CIVDS1611884.

The class action Complaint alleges that New Prime failed to
institute a policy which provided full off-duty, thirty minute
uninterrupted meal breaks to Plaintiff and other California truck
drivers.  The Complaint claims that the company's alleged failure
to provide the legally required meal and rest breaks is evidenced
by their business records which contain no evidence of these
breaks.  As a result, truck drivers who drove for New Prime in
California allegedly forfeited meal and rest breaks without
additional compensation.

Additionally, the Class action lawsuit claims that the company's
truck drivers performed manual tasks of transporting goods for New
Prime and were allegedly paid on a piece-rate basis.  The
Complaint alleges that the truck drivers were not paid minimum
wages to which they were entitled to because of Defendant's
alleged failure to record all time worked.  Specifically, the
Complaint claims that the truck drivers should have been paid
minimum wages for their non-driving tasks, the time spent working
during pre-trip and post trip inspections and time spent allegedly
waiting for Defendant's loads to be ready for transport.  The
lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of back pay for the golden
State truck drivers whop worked for New Prime.

For more information about the class action lawsuit against
New Prime contact Attorney Nicholas De Blouw at (866) 771-7099.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, & Bhowmik is a labor law firm with law
offices located in San Diego, Riverside, Los Angeles, Sacramento,
San Francisco, and Chicago.  The firm represents employees on a
contingency basis for violations involving unpaid wages, overtime
pay, discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination and other
types of illegal workplace conduct.


NEW YORK: Court Narrows Claims in Suit Over Occupy Wall Street
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas P. Griesa granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motion for summary judgment in the case captioned
PHEOBE BERG, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NEW YORK CITY POLICE
COMMISSIONER RAYMOND KELLY, et al., Defendants, No. 12-cv-3391
(TPG) (S.D.N.Y.).

The putative class action arose out of an Occupy Wall Street
protest during President Barack Obama's November 2011 visit to New
York City.  The plaintiffs were protestors who were allegedly
deprived of their federal and state constitutional rights when New
York Police Department (NYPD) officers detained them in a
barricaded area for over an hour.  The defendants, NYPD officers
at the time of the protest, moved for summary judgment on all
claims.

Judge Griesa found that the defendants have met their burden on
the plaintiffs' state constitutional claims, but have failed to do
so on the plaintiffs' federal constitutional claims, except as to
defendants NYCP Commissioner Raymond Kelly and NYCPD Chief Joseph
Esposito.

A full-text copy of Judge Griesa's August 10, 2016 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/1MtaIG from Leagle.com.

Phoebe Berg, Toshiro Kida, John Rivera, Dayna Rozental, Jonathan
Jetter, Plaintiffs, represented by David Bruce Rankin, Rankin &
Taylor, PLLC, Jonathan C. Moore -- jmoore@blhny.com -- Beldock
Levine & Hoffman LLP & Joshua Samuel Moskovitz --
jmoskovitz@blhny.com -- Beldock Levine & Hoffman LLP.

NYCP Commissioner Raymond Kelly, Defendant, represented by Andrew
Joseph Lucas, NYC Law Department, Office of the Corporation
Counsel, Dara Lynn Weiss, City of New York Law Department & Joy
Tolulope Anakhu, New York City Law Department.

Chief of NYC P.D. Joseph Esposito, Defendant, represented by
Andrew Joseph Lucas, NYC Law Department, Office of the Corporation
Counsel & Joy Tolulope Anakhu, New York City Law Department.

James McNamara, Peter Loehle, Stephen Latalardo, Defendant,
represented by Andrew Joseph Lucas, NYC Law Department, Office of
the Corporation Counsel.


NEW YORK: Body Camera Program Still in Procurement Phase
--------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Formoso, writing for FOX 5 News, reports that it will be
at least another 6 months before you see police officers wearing
body cameras.  In 2013 the NYPD was ordered to start testing body
cameras in response to class action lawsuits over the departments
controversial stop, question and frisk policy.  In December 2014,
a pilot program was initiated in 5 test precincts.  However in
2016, widespread use body cameras are still not a reality.

The NYPD told Fox 5 News the body camera program is still in the
procurement phase.  It is taking longer than expected to purchase
them.  An independent monitor overseeing the NYPD said the process
is complex.  Mayor Bill de Blasio echoed that on Aug. 10.

Attorney Peter Zimroth, who was appointed monitor by a federal
judge, reportedly said the police department is working on
choosing a vendor, which would happen anytime between mid- to late
august.  And after that it could take 4 to 6 months before a
contract is officially registered.

Until then, the mayor said the NYPD is doing its part to improve
community relations.

You won't see officers wearing the body cameras until sometime
2017.  Once they are ready for use one thousand officers in 20
precincts will wear the devices.


NIANTIC INC: Faces Pokemon Go Privacy Class Action in Alberta
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Gibson, writing for CBC News, reports that a woman in central
Alberta is the main plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit filed by a
Calgary law firm on Aug. 10 against the company behind the popular
video game Pokemon Go.

Then a customer at the local store told her husband their property
was a Pokemon Go gym.

"I said to my husband, 'We are a what? We are a gym?' Why would we
be a gym? A gym should be a public place.  It shouldn't be a
home," Barbie Schaeffer said.

That's when it started, she explained.

"People looking through the windows, looking through the doors,
trying to come up over the fence.  On Saturday, someone threw a
drone into our yard to play the game."

Ms. Schaeffer says strangers on her property have brought
complaints from neighbors when her dogs bark.

"I can look at a 1 a.m. and I will see people outside playing and
the dogs are losing it. . . bylaw came to the door and they said,
'You have got complaints, your dogs are barking.' She is like,
'This is all so new, we don't even know what to tell you,'" she
said.

Ms. Schaeffer said all she wants is to be removed from the game.

"Get us off this map, get us off this game."

D'Arcy & Deacon LLP filed the suit "on behalf of property owners
in Canada who have been subject to an invasion of privacy"
resulting from the game.

Pokemon Go is played on a mobile app for iOS and Android phones.
It features creatures that players "catch" in the wild and train
to battle at gyms that are located at landmarks.

'Hordes of trespassing players'

The couple's property has been designated a Pokemon Gym, and
Niantic has so far ignored Schaeffer's request to remove it from
the game, lawyer Clint Docken said.

"Pokestops and Pokemon Gyms were established by Niantic with the
callous disregard of property owners, and without prior
consultation with property owners.  As a result, the Class
generally, and the Plaintiff specifically, have been inundated
with hordes of trespassing players intruding and invading their
privacy," the statement of claim says.

"The Plaintiff's property, for example, has been invaded by over
100 intruders since July 22, 2016 in an otherwise sleepy hamlet of
fewer than 200 residents."

The suit alleges Niantic is creating a nuisance, encouraging
trespassing and reaping an unjust enrichment, Mr. Docken said.
"We suspect there's a significant number of class members
experiencing similar problems," he told CBC News.

A class-action lawsuit has to be certified by a judge before it
can proceed.

Every summer, thousands of tourists stop in Torrington, Alta.,
which is an hour-and-a-half northeast of Calgary, to check out the
Gopher Hole Museum.

It features stuffed gophers arranged in 47 anthropomorphic poses,
from a hairdresser to a preacher to an RCMP officer.


NIKE RETAIL: Employees Class Certified in "Rodriguez" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Beth Labson Freeman granted the Plaintiff's motion to
certify class in the lawsuit styled ISAAC RODRIGUEZ v. NIKE RETAIL
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 5:14-cv-01508-BLF (N.D. Cal.).  The Court
certifies a class of:

     All current and former non-exempt retail store employees of
     Defendant who worked in California during the period from
     February 25, 2010 to the present.

Judge Freeman denied as moot Nike's motion to deny class
certification.

In his complaint, Mr. Rodriguez alleges that while working at one
of Nike's stores, he was required to be inspected when he left
work but was not compensated for the time he spent being inspected
or waiting to be inspected.

The Court certified Mr. Rodriguez as class representative and his
counsel of record as class counsel.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5bBgmjNV


NORTH CAROLINA: Spake, et al. Seek to Certify Inmates Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Jamie R. Spake, Brian K. Lewis, Individually
and on behalf of all similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. N.C.
Dept. of Public Safety/Division of Prison And All Named, the
Defednants, Case No. 1:15-CV-0284 (Aug. 17, 2016), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to certify a class of:

     "N.C. Inmates infected with HCV exceeding 150 men and
     women".

The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to enter an order:

     1. defining the class and all class claims, and
        incorporating all issue;

     2. appointing class counsel, and providing all class members
        and opportunity to join the class;

     3. providing adequate notice to all classes members;

     4. ordering Defendant to post in a common area of all N.C.
        prison and correction facilities, accessable to all
        inmates; and

     5. ordering Defendant to provide class counsel with all
        names and addresse's of all inmates whom have tested
        positive for HCV.

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

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


NOVANT HEALTH: Settles Class Action Over Retirement Plan Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ayla Ellison, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports that
Novant Health has entered a settlement agreement to resolve
allegations the Winston-Salem, N.C.-based system charged excessive
fees for its defined-contribution retirement plan.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina in March 2014.  Among the plaintiffs in
the case are six current and former Novant employees.

The lawsuit alleges Novant breached its fiduciary duties by
causing the retirement plan participants to pay millions of
dollars in excessive record-keeping and administrative services
fees to third-party service providers.  The suit alleges a
brokerage company that provided the plan with limited marketing
and enrollment services was paid excessive fees up to $9.6 million
in the form of commissions, and an administrative and
recordkeeping provider was paid excessive compensation of $8.6
million.

Novant agreed to pay $32 million to resolve the allegations.
According to a memorandum filed by plaintiffs' attorneys, the
settlement provides for current plan participants to receive their
distributions directly into their accounts tax deferred and gives
former plan participants the right to direct their distribution
into a tax-deferred vehicle, such as an IRA.  The benefit of tax
deferral for 20 years is an additional 18.6 percent; therefore,
the actual value of the monetary portion of the settlement is
nearly $38 million, according to plaintiffs' attorneys.

The settlement also requires Novant to provide members of the
affected class a state-of-the-art retirement plan with fiduciary
best practices assured for four years after final approval of the
settlement.  Plaintiffs' attorneys claim the value of the fee
reductions and cost savings afforded to class members due to the
settlement is $69 million.

The settlement was preliminarily approved by the court in May.  A
fairness hearing regarding the settlement is set for Sept. 23.


ONSITE HEALTHCARE: Class Certification Sought in Able Home Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Able Home Health, LLC, asks the Court to enter an order
determining that the action captioned ABLE HOME HEALTH, LLC, on
behalf of plaintiff and the class members defined herein v. ONSITE
HEALTHCARE, INC., S.C., and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-08219
(N.D. Ill.), may proceed as a class action against the Defendants.
The Plaintiff defines the classes as:

     For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone
     Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, plaintiff
     seeks to represent a class consisting of (a) all persons (b)
     who, on or after a date four years prior to the filing of
     this action (28 U.S.C. Section1658), (c) were sent faxes by
     or on behalf of defendant Onsite Healthcare, Inc., S.C.,
     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 All Home Medical Supply Co.,
     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 three years prior to the filing of this action,
     (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant Onsite
     Healthcare, Inc., S.C., promoting its goods or services
     for sale (d) which did not contain a compliant opt out
     notice.

The Plaintiff further asks that it be appointed 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=2Ba8tciB

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Heather A. 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


PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Motion for Leave to File Proof of Claim Okayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barry M. Klayman and Mark E. Felger, writing for Delaware Business
Court Insider, report that in In re Pacific Sunwear of California,
Case No. 16-10882 (LSS) (Bankr. D. Del. June 22, 2016), U.S.
Bankruptcy Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein of the District of
Delaware granted a motion for leave to file a class proof of
claim.  In so doing, she rejected an argument by the debtors that
class claims are impermissible in bankruptcy cases.


PAYNE & KELLER: Nullity Suit Barred by Peremption, Court Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LEONARD BRACKEN v. PAYNE & KELLER CO., INC,
WORKMAN COMPENSATION TRIBUNAL, DISTRICT [5], BATON ROUGE,
LOUISIANA, No. 2015 CA 1760 (La. Ct. App.), the Court of Appeals
of Louisiana, First Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part
the June 30, 2015 judgment of the Nineteenth Judicial District
Court (19th JDC), and rendered judgment finding the plaintiff's
nullity action to be barred by peremption.  The appellate court
also further denied the relief requested in the answers to the
appeal.

The appellate court concluded that the 19th JDC properly sustained
the declinatory exceptions raising the objection of lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, and affirmed the June 30, 2015
judgment of the 19th JDC, insofar as it sustained the exceptions
raising the objection of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and
dismissed Leonard Bracken's suit.  The appellate court vacated
that part of the judgment that sustained the remaining exceptions
and rendered judgment finding the matter perempted.  The appellate
court declined to grant damages for frivolous appeal as requested
in the answers to the appeal.

A full-text copy of the appellate court's August 10, 2016 judgment
is available at https://is.gd/f61WuO from Leagle.com.

Leonard Bracken claimed that at the time he agreed to a global
settlement of his tort suit based on being exposed to mustard gas
at a Georgia Gulf Corporation facility in Plaquemine, Louisiana in
1996, he was unaware of the chemicals to which he was exposed or
the injuries or potential injuries such exposure might cause.
Bracken alleged that he did not realize that the settlement
encompassed any workers' compensation claims he might have and
that he was wrongly advised and deliberately misled by his former
counsel, Lambert & Nelson PLC, and his former employer, Payne &
Keller Company, Inc., in regards to the filing and/or settlement
of any workers' compensation claims.  Hence, Bracken sought to
invalidate the October 27, 1999 order of a workers' compensation
judge that approved the settlement and dismissal of any workers'
compensation claims Bracken had or may have related to the 1996
chemical exposure.

To that end, on February 2, 2015, Bracken filed a "Petition to
Declare Workman Compensation Judgment Absolutely Null, Worker
Compensation Court Violated La. R.S. 23:1272, Mandatory
Requirements" in the 19th JDC in East Baton Rouge Parish.

Kirk L. Landry -- klandry@keoghcox.com -- Virginia J. McLin --
jmclin@keoghcox.com -- Baton Rouge, LA, Counsel for
Defendant/Appellee Payne & Keller Company, Inc.

Hugh P. Lambert -- hlambert@thelambertfirm.com -- Cayce C.
Peterson -- cpeterson@thelambertfirm.com -- Jeremy Z. Soso --
jsoso@thelambertfirm.com -- New Orleans, LA, Counsel for
Defendant/Appellee The Lambert Firm, PLC.

Luis A. Leitzelar -- lleitzelar@joneswalker.com -- Michele
Whitesell Crosby -- mcrosby@joneswalker.com -- Baton Rouge, LA.
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Axiall Corporation.

Gary A. Bezet, Barrye Panepinto Miyagi --
barrye.miyagi@keanmiller.com -- Alexandra E. Rossi, Baton Rouge,
LA, Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Georgia-Pacific LLC.

James D. "Buddy" Caldwell, Attorney General, Meridith J. Trahant,
Ashley Deshotels, Karl Leslie Scott, Assistant Attorney Generals,
Baton Rouge, LA, Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Office of Workers'
Compensation Administration.


PIZZATI ENTERPRISES: Nieto Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled WENDY NIETO, on behalf of
herself and other persons similarly situated v. PIZZATI
ENTERPRISES, INC., PIZZATI LABOR SERVICES, INC., MIRIAM PIZZATI,
and MARIA MURILLO, Case No. 2:16-cv-05352-NJB-JCW (E.D. La.),
moves for conditional class certification, judicial notice, and
for disclosure of the names and addresses of potential "opt-in"
plaintiffs.

The Action arises from a "generally applicable rule, policy, or
practice" pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BC8ugqHT

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
          Emily A. Westermeier, Esq.
          THE COSTALES LAW OFFICE
          3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 534-5005
          E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com
                  emily.costaleslawoffice@gmail.com

               - and -

          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          WILLIAM BEAUMONT LAW
          3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 483-8008
          E-mail: whbeaumont@gmail.com


POLICE BENEVOLENT: Slager's Attorney Urges Officers to Join Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Tyson, writing for ABC News 4, reports that attorneys for
former North Charleston police officer Michael Slager are asking
tens of thousands of officers across nine southern states to join
a class action lawsuit against the Southern States Police
Benevolent Association.

The lawsuit comes as activity increased in Mr. Slager's lawsuit
against the PBA over the last month.

The PBA dropped Mr. Slager from coverage after the former officer
shot and killed Walter Scott during a traffic stop in April 2015,
alleging he lied to state police investigators and PBA officials
in the days after the shooting.

Members of the PBA pay monthly dues to the insurance company with
the promise that the officers will have legal representation paid
for by the PBA if it's ever needed.  Further, "the PBA would place
no cap and no limit on the amount of money that it would spend in
defense of a member for attorney's fees and costs," the lawsuit
reads.

But the suit filed alleges the PBA is not licensed as an insurer
in any of the nine states it currently offers the Legal Defense
Benefit Plan.

The suit was filed by Charleston County Sheriff's Deputy Donald
Stanley, who is named in a federal lawsuit filed by
Akiliou Smith.  According to Smith, late on the night of Dec. 7,
2015, there was a burglary call made to 911 from a Johns Island
home. When deputies arrived, they searched the area, spotted
Smith, and kicked in his door after he went inside, he says in the
suit.

Mr. Smith alleges no one with the sheriff's office identified
themselves before kicking in his door.

The class action suit filed does not say whether Stanley's
membership in the PBA was revoked after he and another officer
were named in the lawsuit.

The PBA responded on Aug. 10, saying they would not comment on the
specifics of the class action suit but would continue to stand
behind its thousands of members across the Southeast.

"Thousands of officers throughout the Southeast -- including
myself -- have had attorneys assigned through PBA to defend them,
and SSPBA has paid out millions of dollars of legal fees on behalf
of those members," said SSPBA senior vice president and South
Carolina PBA trustee Dave Soderberg.

PBA president Chris Skinner said in the statement that they look
forward to defending the organization and providing service to
officers.

Slager federal court hearing rescheduled twice

Mr. Slager was slated to appear in federal court for his civil
rights case on Aug. 10, but the hearing had been rescheduled for
Aug. 12.  The hearing was set to begin at 11:30 a.m.


PORTLAND SPECIALTY: Workers File Wage Theft Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Don McIntosh, writing for nwLaborPress.org, reports that six
months after the lopsided defeat of a union campaign at Portland
Specialty Baking, a group of workers there have filed a lawsuit
accusing the company of violating Oregon wage and hour and sick
leave laws.

Working with the non-profit Northwest Workers' Justice Project,
attorneys Corinna Spencer-Scheurich, Michael Dale, and Phil
Goldsmith filed the suit Aug. 8 in Multnomah County Circuit Court
on behalf of seven workers at Portland Specialty Baking. The
company operates an industrial bakery in Gresham, where about 175
workers -- overwhelmingly immigrants and refugees -- make
pretzels, cakes, donuts, bagels, and muffins for Starbucks, Jamba
Juice, Walmart, Costco and Winco for wages of around $10 an hour.

According to the lawsuit, the company has systematically failed to
pay workers the proper overtime wages.  The suit says Portland
Specialty Baking is violating an Oregon law which says that
workers in manufacturing establishments must be paid overtime for
hours worked more than 10 in a day, and that they may not work
more than 13 hours a day.

In part, the case hinges on a legal question: whether Oregon
manufacturing employers must pay time-and-a-half for both hours
worked beyond 10 in a day and hours worked beyond 40 in a week.  A
"frequently asked questions" web page published by the Oregon
Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) says employers must pay one
or the other, whichever is greater, but not both.  But attorney
Spencer-Scheurich, deputy director of the Northwest Workers'
Justice Project, says the agency is providing erroneous advice.

The lawsuit also accuses Portland Specialty Baking of illegally
discouraging workers from using sick leave they're entitled to
under an Oregon law that took effect Jan. 1.  A points-based
attendance policy at the company assigns disciplinary points
and/or written warnings when employees use their legally protected
sick leave, the suit alleges.

Plaintiffs are asking the court to bar further violations and
order Portland Specialty Baking to pay the unpaid wages, civil
penalties equal to 30 days wages, and attorneys fees.  For the
seven named plaintiffs, the unpaid wage claims total $3,300 and
penalties total $17,808, according to the suit.  But plaintiffs
are also asking the court to certify the suit as a class action on
behalf of all current and former employees of Portland Specialty
Baking -- several hundred workers in all.

The lawsuit comes after Portland Specialty Baking workers voted
123 to 38 vote not to join Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers,
& Grain Millers (BCTGM) Local 114.  Union organizers said they had
over 60 percent support when they requested the union election on
Jan. 11, but after a consultant-led anti-union campaign, just 23
percent of the workers voted for the union in the Feb. 4 election.

In charges filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
afterward, Local 114 accused the company of numerous violations of
federal labor law leading up to the election, including:
threatening to discharge workers and close the plant if the union
won, transferring and re-assigning workers to interfere with union
activities, removing union literature from the break room while
allowing antiunion literature, and promising improvements if
workers rejected the union, such as more desirable work
assignments, a fixed 40-hour week, higher hourly wages, and more
language interpreters.

Portland Specialty Baking settled all the charges on July 18 with
a promise not to do those things in the future, to post a notice
to that effect, and to return a worker to his former job and
remove disciplinary notices from another worker's personnel file.

But on Aug. 4, Local 114 filed new NLRB charges, accusing Portland
Specialty Baking of wrongfully terminating two union supporters on
June 19 and July 21.


PUNA GEOTHERMAL: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Gas Release
----------------------------------------------------------
Tom Callis, writing for Hawaii Tribune-Herald, reports that a
class action lawsuit was filed against Puna Geothermal Venture
over its gas release two years ago during Tropical Storm Iselle.

Six plaintiffs -- George Douvris, Stephanie Douvris, Michael Hale,
Cheryl Carocci, Hillary Wilt and Christina Bryan -- filed the
lawsuit on Aug. 5 in Hilo Circuit Court on behalf of themselves
and other lower Puna residents impacted by the release, that
included venting of hydrogen sulfide, a toxic gas.

They are represented by Honolulu attorney Patrick Kyle Smith, who
successfully sued DuPont Pioneer for the spread of red dust from
test fields on Kauai, and Hilo attorneys Charles Heaukulani and
Gary Zamber.  Multiple attempts to reach them for comment were
unsuccessful.

An estimated 67 pounds of hydrogen sulfide was vented Aug. 7,
2014, as Iselle began battering the Big Island.  The plant was
disconnected from the grid because of fallen trees, prompting it
to shutdown and release steam.

Fallen trees and other storm hazards also prevented nearby
residents from leaving their homes as the venting occurred.

The plaintiffs argue PGV was negligent in keeping the 38-megawatt
power plant operating as the storm made landfall.

The lawsuit says "PGV's conduct has caused injury both to the land
and health of Plaintiffs," who seek exemplary or punitive damages.

The lawsuit says the class consists of hundreds of lower Puna
residents.

Some nearby residents said they smelled a strong rotten egg odor,
often associated with hydrogen sulfide, and experienced scratchy
throats, rashes and headaches following the release. Hale told the
Tribune-Herald in August 2014 that he fell unconscious.

The power outage also left air monitoring stations nearby offline,
making it difficult to determine the risk.

PGV said handheld monitors used by its employees detected hydrogen
sulfide readings as high as 39 parts per billion at the plant and
25 ppb along its property fence line.

Its air permit limits fence line readings to 25 ppb on an average
hourly basis.

A state Department of Health official said those readings would be
within safety limits.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration limits workplace
exposure to 10,000 ppb, according to PGV.

In June, the Windward Planning Commission approved spending
$362,719 on a plume study to model dispersion of hydrogen sulfide
from venting at PGV.  The funding comes from Hawaii County's
geothermal asset fund.

Meanwhile, a study to determine whether there are health impacts
from geothermal power production has yet to be launched, two years
after the county issued a request for proposals.

Clarysse Nunokawa, executive assistant to Mayor Billy Kenoi, said
proposals are still being evaluated.

A PGV spokesman didn't return a request for comment by deadline.


RESIDENTIAL CREDIT: Court Narrows Claims in "Sekula" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JOHN C. SEKULA and JACQUELINE SEKULA,
Plaintiffs, v. RESIDENTIAL CREDIT SOLUTIONS, INC. and AMERICAN
WESTERN HOME INSURANCE, Defendants, Case No. 6:15-cv-2104-Orl-
31KRS (M.D. Fla.), Judge Gregory A. Presnell granted in part and
denied, in part, the motions to dismiss filed by the defendants,
Residential Credit Solutions, Inc. and American Western Home
Insurance.

On December 15, 2015, John Sekula and Jacqueline Sekula filed a
complaint against Residential Credit and American Western,
asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, violations of the
Truth in Lending Act (TILA), and tortious interference with
business relations.  The Sekulas contended that the force-placed
insurance on their mortgaged property was vastly overpriced
because, inter alia, the amount of coverage exceeded the
replacement value of the house, the insurance was back-dated to
cover an earlier period when no losses had occurred, and because
the premium amount included unearned kick-backs to be paid by the
insurer -- Defendant American Western -- to Residential Credit.

On April 18, 2015, the court dismissed the unjust enrichment,
TILA, and tortious interference claims without prejudice, but
allowed the Sekulas to proceed as to the two breach claims.  In
their amended complaint, in addition to the claims for breach of
contract (Count I) and breach of the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing (Count II), which are asserted against Residential
Credit, the Sekulas assert a new claim for tortious interference
with business relations against both defendants (Count III).

Judge Presnell dismissed Count III without prejudice.  The
defendants' motions to dismiss were denied in all other respects.

A full-text copy of Judge Presnell's August 15, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/oijnjA from Leagle.com.

John C. Sekula, Jacqueline Sekula, Plaintiffs, represented by
Cristina M. Pierson, Kelley Uustal, PLC, Jordan Matthew Lewis,
Jordan Lewis, P.A. & John Joseph Uustal, Kelley Uustal, PLC.

Residential Credit Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Christopher Boeck -- cboeck@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord, LLP,
Elizabeth Joy Campbell -- ecampbell@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord,
LLP & Robert T. Mowrey -- rmowrey@lockelord.com -- Lock Lord LLP.

American Western Home Insurance, Defendant, represented by Michael
S. Vitale -- mvitale@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler, LLP, Mark
A. Johnson -- mjohnson@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler, LLP,
Robert J. Tucker -- rtucker@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler, LLP
& Rodger Eckelberry -- reckelberry@bakerlaw.com -- Baker &
Hostetler, LLP.


ROBERT HALF: Attorneys Can Collect Percentage-Based Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that the California
Supreme Court on Aug. 11 ruled unanimously that state law permits
class action attorneys to collect fees based on a percentage of
the money they recover in litigation.
The justices soundly rejected arguments that doing so violates the
court's holding in the 1977 case Serrano v. Priest.  But Justice
Goodwin Liu, in a concurring opinion, also suggested some measures
be taken to prevent clashes between the interests of class members
and their attorneys when it comes to fees.  Below are excerpts
from the decision written by Justice Kathryn Werdegar and Justice
Liu's concurring opinion in Lafitte v. Robert Half International.

On the main holding:

The objecting class member contends the trial court's award of an
attorney fee calculated as a percentage of the settlement amount
violates a holding of this court in Serrano v. Priest (1977), to
the effect that every fee award must be calculated on the basis of
time spent by the attorney or attorneys on the case.  We disagree.
Our discussion in Serrano III of how a reasonable attorney fee is
calculated was made in connection with an award under the "private
attorney general" doctrine.  We clarify today that when an
attorney fee is awarded out of a common fund preserved or
recovered by means of litigation . . . the award is not per se
unreasonable merely because it is calculated as a percentage of
the common fund.

On the history of attorney fees and the "lodestar" vs
percentage-based approach:

[In 1985] the Chief Judge of the Third Circuit convened a "task
force" of judges, academics and attorneys from around the country
to address "perceived deficiencies and abuses" that had arisen in
the application of the Lindy lodestar method.  The task force
noted the main complaints that had been lodged against the
lodestar method of determining an appropriate fee award. Prominent
among these were that the emphasis on the number of hours worked
creates a disincentive for the early settlement of cases and
encourages lawyers to expend excessive hours; that the need for
documentation and examination of detailed billing records had
greatly increased the time and effort devoted to fee matters; and
that the lodestar-multiplier method was neither as objective nor
as precise as it appears facially because, for example, many
plaintiffs' attorneys usually work on a contingency fee basis,
making the assignment of a customary billing rate for lodestar
purposes problematic.

On what the court held in Serrano v. Priest in 1977, referred to
as Serrano III:

In Serrano III, we reviewed an award of fees to attorneys who had
obtained a judgment, affirmed in our Serrano II decision, that
required reform of California's public school financing system to
bring it into constitutional compliance.  The trial court had made
the award on a private attorney general theory, rejecting reliance
on the common fund and substantial benefit theories. This court
first addressed the common fund theory, under which "when a number
of persons are entitled in common to a specific fund, and an
action brought by a plaintiff or plaintiffs for the benefit of all
results in the creation or preservation of that fund, such
plaintiff or plaintiffs may be awarded attorney fees out of the
fund."  We agreed with the trial court that this equitable theory
was inapplicable to the case because the plaintiffs had not, by
their successful litigation efforts, "created or preserved any
'fund' of money to which they should be allowed recourse for their
fees."

On the state of play today:

We join the overwhelming majority of federal and state courts in
holding that when class action litigation establishes a monetary
fund for the benefit of the class members, and the trial court in
its equitable powers awards class counsel a fee out of that fund,
the court may determine the amount of a reasonable fee by choosing
an appropriate percentage of the fund created.

Justice Liu, in concurrence, on setting attorney fee structures
early in litigation:

First and foremost, although disputes over attorneys fees often
arise in the context of a proposed settlement as in this case,
courts and litigants need not and generally should not wait until
the end of litigation to set the terms of attorney compensation.
Whenever possible, the parties should negotiate, and the court
should review and conditionally approve, the terms of attorney
compensation at the start of litigation.  The parties and the
court may revisit the arrangement when the litigation concludes,
and the court may make adjustments if unusual or unforeseen
circumstances render the initial terms clearly unreasonable or
unfair. . . This approach has doctrinal and practical virtues.
Doctrinally, a court's authority to award attorneys fees from a
common fund stems from its equitable power to prevent unjust
enrichment. . . Moreover, ex ante fee arrangements do not present
the conflict of interest that inherently arises when attorneys
seek fees from a common fund comprising their clients' recovery.


SCHLUMBERGER TECH: Levy Seeks Cert. of Technical Specialist Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Conrad Levy asks the Court to conditionally certify the action
styled CONRAD LEVY, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SCHLUMBERGER TECH CORP, Case No. 6:16-cv-
00043-DDD-PJH (W.D. La.), as a collective action for purposes of
notice and discovery.

In his complaint, Mr. Levy alleges that Schlumberger Tech Corp.
failed to pay its Technical Specialists in the Completions
department overtime wages required under federal law.  He argues
that this pay practice flagrantly violates the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Mr. Levy also asks the Court to order that judicial notice be sent
to all Putative Class Members, to approve a notice and consent
form, to order the mailing and e-mailing of notice, along with a
reminder notice, to permit Class Counsel to contact by telephone
those Putative Class Members, to order STC to post the Notice and
Consent forms in STC's jobsites/offices for the entire opt-in
period, to order STC to produce to Class Counsel the contact
information for each Putative Class Member and to authorize a
60-day notice period for Putative Class Members to join the Case.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=53ymYDaB

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
                  mparmet@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          Kenneth W. DeJean, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH W. DEJEAN
          417 W. University Ave. (70506)
          Post Office Box 4325
          Lafayette, LA 70502
          Telephone: (337) 235-5294
          Facsimile: (337) 235-1095
          E-mail: kwdejean@kwdejean.com


SERENITY TRANSPORTATION: Group of Drivers File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Maslin Nir, writing for The New York Times, reports that a
class-action suit unfolding in California has opened a window onto
this often lightly regulated industry: Charons of the highway, who
shuttle corpses from one place to another.  While in some places,
like New York, such work must be carried out under the auspices of
licensed funeral directors, in others, like
New Jersey and Pennsylvania, private contractors without any
special permits may pick up bodies.  These Uber-like services
require little more than a driver's license, a strong stomach and
a willingness to be ready to go at a moment's notice.

In California, a group of drivers has filed suit against their
employer, saying they received little training and were forced to
remain on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, using vans they
were required to provide and retrofit with a gurney.  The drivers
said they even had to provide their own body bags.

"This lawsuit is important, but litigation is often a temporary
fix," Peter Rukin, a lawyer representing the workers, said.  "I
would ultimately like to see industry-specific state regulation
ensuring that workers who perform removals for county coroners'
offices and the private funeral industry receive appropriate labor
and health and safety protections."

Curtis Johnson, 63, was a butcher before he became a body
transporter in 2012 for Serenity Transportation, a company based
in California that employs over 70 drivers, and is a defendant in
the lawsuit.  California is among the states that do not require
drivers to be specially certified to transport human remains.

Shifts for drivers often begin with a text message of a location.
"It's like a firefighter, you jump up, throw your clothes on and
you go," said Mr. Johnson, who says he received rudimentary
training on manipulating a body, but no other instruction such as
counseling for the difficult situations that are endemic to the
job.  "Sometimes people get angry at you," he said.  "You're
taking their loved one away.  They are very stoic, they are very
together, and as soon as you start to move that body, they fall
apart."

Jeff Hubins, a lawyer defending Serenity, said that the drivers
were correctly classified as independent contractors and therefore
properly compensated.


SIMILASAN: Court Tosses Homeopathic Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
California federal court rejected a settlement in a class action
brought over the marketing of homeopathic products, saying the
proposed deal would have given class attorneys more than half a
million dollars while class members would have been left with
nothing.

Judge Cynthia Bashant, for the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, rejected the settlement in Allen
v. Similasan.  The underlying lawsuit alleges that Similasan, with
an office in Colorado, falsely marketed its homeopathic products -
- ear drops, eye drops and cough remedies -- as "naturally
effective and safe" and violated Food and Drug Administration
regulations, among other claims.

The rejected settlement purported to require Similasan to make
label changes and maintain a website concerning homeopathic
"dilution principles."  No unnamed class members would have
received any compensation under the rejected agreement.

"The Court recognizes that this Settlement is the culmination of a
hard-fought battle over four years resulting in extensive attorney
hours and costs.  The Court further recognizes that Plaintiffs
were facing a Motion for Class Decertification and a Motion for
Summary Judgment, and that Plaintiffs were aware of a recent spate
of defense verdicts on similar claims relating to homeopathic
products," Judge Bashant wrote in the 10-page order.  "The Court
understands that this case was settled on the eve of trial after
parties and counsel fully understood the strengths and weaknesses
of their case.  And the Court concedes that the extensive
experience of Plaintiffs' counsel militates in favor of approving
the Settlement.

"However, when assessing the Settlement Agreement as a whole, the
Court has several concerns."

As pointed out by the attorneys general of Arizona, Arkansas,
Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, Texas and Wyoming in a July
28 brief filed with the federal court, urging the court to reject
the settlement, only the named plaintiffs and their attorneys
would get any money out of the deal.

"The named Plaintiffs will receive $2,500, well more than they
spent on the offending products," Judge Bashant wrote.
"Additionally, the proposed injunctive relief may only benefit a
small number of the class members and instead seems to be more
tailored to future purchasers."

The judge noted that the court already has dismissed injunctive
relief claims on behalf of the named plaintiffs, since it was
"highly unlikely" they would buy the offending products in the
future, given their allegations that the products were not and
could not ever be effective.

"Ultimately, however, these factors are not what the Court finds
dispositive," Judge Bashant wrote.  "Attorneys may, after all
receive fees and costs for obtaining injunctive relief using a
lodestar method even if there is no financial recovery for the
class.

"Although the Court has not thoroughly scrutinized the attorneys'
fees request in this case, the overall amount does not appear
unreasonable given the amount of time and effort put into the
litigation thus far."

The judge said she recognized that one of the goals of the
litigation was to force Similasan to change its labels and join
other homeopathic drug manufacturers who had voluntarily agreed to
include an FDA disclaimer on their labels.

But Judge Bashant said what "tipped the balance" for the court and
ultimately forced her to conclude the settlement is not fair are
the broad release provisions in the settlement agreement.

"When the broad release provisions in this Settlement Agreement
are coupled with a large broadening of the class description so
that now a nationwide class of users is releasing its claims
instead of a California-only class, it appears that this
Settlement is crafted to provide protection to Similasan and not
to benefit the unnamed Plaintiffs," she wrote.

"As explained in the Opposition filed by the Attorneys General,
'all class members are giving up all of their non-personal injury
monetary claims against Defendant without receiving any
compensation different from the public at large.'"

The court's concerns about the release provision are compounded,
Judge Bashant said, by the limited notice provided to the class
members in this case.

"Counsel provides no evidence of how many class members who had
actually purchased a Similasan product are likely to have received
notice," the judge wrote.  "The Court sincerely doubts that the
vast majority of these class members know they are giving up
rights by remaining in the class."

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a non-profit public policy
organization, led the objection battle over the settlement.

CEI objected to the settlement on behalf of a class member on July
1, taking issue with the $545,00 payday for class attorneys and no
compensation for class members.

"Only the defendant and the class attorneys would have benefited
under the proposed settlement," Ted Frank, director of CEI's
Center for Class Action Fairness, said in a statement.  "That's
why we objected, and it's why eight state AGs supported our
objection."

The federal court agreed with CEI's objection that unnamed class
members "would be better off opting out" of the rejected
settlement because they would receive exactly the same alleged
benefit either way.

The court denied both the settlement and the motion for attorneys'
fees.

Unless they appeal, the parties will resume preparation for trial
in the underlying case.

"The parties might settle again," Mr. Frank said, "but hopefully
they will not again bargain away the rights of absent class
members."


SLM STAFFING: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in "White" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James S. Moody, Jr., denied without prejudice the
Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify a collective action
and facilitate notice to potential members in the lawsuit
captioned TERRANCE WHITE, on his own behalf and others similarly
situated v. SLM STAFFING LLC and SENIOR LIVING PROPERTIES, III,
LLC, Case No. 8:16-cv-02057-JSM-TBM (M.D. Fla.).

Judge Moody, however, ruled that Terrance White may proceed with
the Action.  Judge Moody also ruled that those who filed Notices
of Consent to Join are dismissed from the Action.

Plaintiff Terrence White has sued, on his own behalf and on behalf
of other similarly situated individuals, for failing to comply
with the minimum and overtime wage requirements of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.  To date, six other individuals have filed notices
with the Court of their consent to join the lawsuit.  Mr. White
asked the Court to conditionally certify a class defined as:

     Current and former hourly-paid laborers who work(ed) at
     Defendant[s'] Bartow facility between July 2013 and the
     present; who worked hours for which they were not
     compensated, in some cases working more than forty (40)
     hours per week, without lawful and proper and complete
     overtime compensation.

The Defendants operate an assisted-living facility in Bartow,
Florida.  According to allegations in his complaint, White was an
employee at the Bartow facility in the three years before July
2016.

The Defendants argue that conditional certification should be
denied.  They argue that Mr. White has failed to demonstrate that
there are similarly situated employees, who wish to opt in.
Mindful that the conditional-certification standard is a low one,
Judge Moody opined, the Court nonetheless agrees with the
Defendants.  Hence, the Court denied the Motion, and the opt-ins
are dismissed from the lawsuit.

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


ST FRANCIS MEDICAL: Summary Judgment in "Rabun" Suit Reversed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IRMA RABUN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ST. FRANCIS
MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Defendant-Appellee, No. 50,849-CA (La. Ct.
App.), the Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Second Circuit reversed
the trial court's ruling which granted summary judgment in favor
of St. Francis Medical Center and dismissed the plaintiff's
claims.

Irma Rabun filed a class action petition for damages, breach of
contract, declaratory relief, and for injunctive relief, against
St. Francis.  Rabun, who had sought medical attention at St.
Francis after she was injured in a motor vehicle accident, claimed
that St. Francis was required to submit all claims for medical
bills to United Healthcare Insurance Company for the contracted
discounted rate for insureds.  According to Rabun, St. Francis'
decision to attach a lien against Rabun's personal injury proceeds
was an attempt to collect more money from Rabun in violation of
the Health Care Consumer Billing Disclosure Protection Act ("the
Balance Billing Act" or "BBA").  St. Francis filed a motion for
summary judgment seeking dismissal of Rabun's claims.  The trial
court ruled in favor of St. Francis.

The appellate court found that St. Francis' attempt at
circumventing the BBA by imposing a medical lien for an amount
that exceeds the contracted rate, lends itself to a dispute as to
the amount actually owed to St. Francis, and creates a genuine
issue of material fact.  Consequently, the appellate court held
that the grant of summary judgment on this issue was improper.

A full-text copy of the appellate court's August 10, 2016 judgment
is available at https://is.gd/AjGhAk from Leagle.com.

HOFFOSS DEVALL, LLC, J Lee Hoffoss, Jr., Claude P. Devall, Jr.,
Donald Wayne McKnight, Bobby Lynn Holmes.

Scott R. Bickford, Lawrence J. Centola, III, KEVIN DAVID ALEXANDER
MARTZELL & BICKFORD.

THE LABORDE LAW FIRM, Derrick G. Earles, LAW OFFICES OF KIRBY D.
KELLY, Kirby Dale Kelly, Harold Dean Lucius, Jr., Counsel for
Appellant.

BREAZEALE, SACHSE & WILSON, LLP, David Robert Kelly --
david.kelly@bswllp.com -- Thomas Richard Temple, Jr. --
thomas.temple@bswllp.com -- Christopher David Billings --
chris.billings@bswllp.com -- Joseph J. Cefalu, III --
joseph.cefalu@bswllp.com -- Counsel for Appellee.


ST. LOUIS, MO: Faces Class Action Over "Debtors' Prisons" System
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Kutsch, writing for The Guardian, reports that a class-action
civil rights lawsuit filed on Aug. 9 alleges that more than a
dozen St Louis-area municipalities are engaged in the
discriminatory and unconstitutional practice of jailing people for
unpaid debts in order to raise state revenue, a situation the suit
says amounts to a system of modern-day "debtors' prisons" that
primarily affects poor residents of color.

The suit alleges a widespread system of local government abuse
that targets primarily black communities, where poor people are
routinely imprisoned because they cannot escape from the burden of
fees generally associated with petty offenses.

"Defendants have created or revived de facto debtors' prisons,
using them as a tool to cow poor people into financing municipal
government," the suit states.  "Such flagrant abuse is not
consistent with the values this country holds dear, with the rule
of law, or with the constitutional guarantee of due process."

The suit was launched on the second anniversary of the police
killing of the unarmed black teenager Michael Brown, whose 2014
death sparked major protests in Ferguson, Missouri, and beyond,
and reignited a national debate about the bias against minorities
prevalent in the US justice system.

That case led to increased scrutiny of St Louis County, a
jurisdiction made up of a maze of 90 constituent municipalities
-- including Ferguson -- 81 of which are responsible for their own
police and court systems.

In the wake of Mr. Brown's death, the justice department in 2014
launched a federal investigation into Ferguson's criminal justice
system, culminating in a damning assessment in March 2015, which
decried an overly punitive approach to policing that largely
affects residents of color.

The report also singled out the legal system for its reliance on
generating revenue from mostly poor citizens as one of the key
impediments to serious reform. "Ferguson's law enforcement
practices are shaped by the city's focus on revenue rather than by
public safety needs," the justice department report stated.

The Aug. 9 suit describes how this revenue-focused policing model
has continued apace in St Louis County's neighboring
municipalities.

All of the plaintiffs in the case were jailed for failure to
provide a cash payment related to a fee or fine, the suit says.

In 2015, the municipalities listed in the suit issued an average
of 1.7 arrest warrants per household, and one arrest warrant for
every adult, mostly for "minor municipal ordinance violations,
like traffic tickets".

The suit points to a "direct correlation between the revenue that
a particular municipality raises through fines and fees and the
population of black and impoverished residents living in that
municipality".

The justice department has decried the practice of using unpaid
fees as a means of imprisoning indigent defendants, and not only
in its Ferguson report.

In March, it sent a letter to court administrators and police
officials in all 50 states, warning local court systems and police
departments against the unlawful use of fees and fines and
trapping poor defendants in an escalating cycle from which they
may not escape.

Without directly threatening federal action, the letter also noted
that local court systems that receive federal money risked
violating the Civil Right Acts of 1964 if "they unnecessarily
impose disparate harm on the basis of race or national origin".

"The consequences of the criminalization of poverty are not only
harmful -- they are far-reaching," said attorney general
Loretta Lynch at the time.  "They not only affect an individual's
ability to support their family, but also contribute to an erosion
of our faith in government."

The suit follows a similar one launched last year against the
municipalities of Ferguson and Jennings by ArchCity Defenders and
two other civil rights groups.

In July, the small city of Jennings, Missouri, ended up settling
that lawsuit, agreeing to pay some $4.7m to approximately 2,000
residents, the majority of them poor and black.

"In terms of a class-wide settlement agreement, this is the
largest on a case like this," said Michael-John Voss, cofounder of
ArchCity Defenders, the St Louis not-for-profit group representing
the plaintiffs.

Mr. Voss said his organization was hoping to build on that result.

"I think it sets a precedent for other towns in this region that
they're on notice," Mr. Voss said.

The new legal action was brought by ArchCity Defenders and Arnold
& Porter, a national law firm, on behalf of 12 plaintiffs against
13 municipalities adjacent to Ferguson, Missouri, in St Louis
County.

A separate lawsuit filed on Aug. 9, which was also initiated by
ArchCity Defenders along with the St Louis-based Dowd & Dowd law
firm, challenges how law enforcement handled charges against
protesters.

That legal action, also filed in federal court in Missouri, is
asking for $20 million in compensation and an acknowledgment that
the city of Ferguson engaged in the malicious prosecution of four
individuals who they say peacefully protested at a vigil just two
days after Michael Brown's 2014 death.

The city subsequently spent thousands of dollars prosecuting the
cases, according to the suit, even after the justice department's
2015 report.

In March of this year, a month after a justice department lawsuit
against the city to force its hand on criminal justice reforms,
Ferguson agreed to settle with the federal government under a
reform agreement called a "Consent Decree".

But the second suit released on Aug. 9 asserts that that agreement
came with a carve-out that it would not affect some cases that had
already been under consideration.

In its March 2015 report, the justice department described how the
"failure to comply" ordnance of Ferguson -- which allowed the city
to arrest many protesters after the shooting death of
Mr. Brown during protests even if they were they were peaceful --
was often applied in an unconstitutional and racially
discriminatory manner.

But the lawsuit argues that while the Consent Decree required
Ferguson to address the "use of arrest in retaliation for exercise
of protected speech, it did not require Ferguson to dismiss
existing charges against those, like Plaintiffs, who had been
arrested on frivolous and retaliatory 'failure to comply'
charges".

Jasmine Woods, the lead plaintiff in that lawsuit, was acquitted
of all charges in April 2016 along with her three co-plaintiffs.

"I felt like someone should be held accountable," Ms. Woods said
of the lawsuit.

"I really felt like I had a strong voice then," she added,
referring to the night two years ago when she was arrested for
attending the vigil in Ferguson.  "I feel like they've kind of
damaged that voice because I don't feel like I have the freedom to
go out like I did that day."

Since her arrest, Ms. Woods described how difficult it has been to
get jobs, and the adverse toll the day has had on her family, her
livelihood, and even her passion for criminal justice, the topic
of her undergraduate degree at nearby Harris Stowe State
University.

She said it felt like the authorities "put a bad aura on my name".

"We see this as a larger problem in the United States and there is
just now becoming some discussion about when are we going to hold
the key players in this system that abuse people accountable,"
said Mr. Voss of Ms. Woods' case.  "And I think that our lawsuit
is a step in that argument."


STAAR SURGICAL: Certification of Class Sought in "Todd" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled EDWARD TODD, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. STAAR SURGICAL
COMPANY, BARRY G. CALDWELL, and JOHN SANTOS, Case No. 2:14-cv-
05263-MWF-GJS (C.D. Cal.), moves the Court for an order certifying
this class:

     all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired STAAR
     Surgical Company common stock between November 1, 2013 and
     June 30, 2014, inclusive.

Excluded from the Class are anyone named as a defendant in this
litigation, the present and former officers and directors of STAAR
and any subsidiary thereof, members of their immediate families
and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and
any entity in which defendants have or had a controlling interest.

Mr. Todd also seeks an order appointing him as class
representative and appointing Pomerantz LLP as Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on December 12, 2016, 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OnYcc6zk

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc I. Gross, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          Michael J. Wernke, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          elephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: migross@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  mjwernke@pomlaw.com

               - and -

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


STARBUCKS CORP: Status Hearing in "Pincus" Suit Set for Oct. 28
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Thomas M. Durkin ordered that the stay in the lawsuit
titled Stacy Pincus v. Starbucks, Corp., Case No. 1:16-cv-04705
(N.D. Ill.), is lifted.

The Plaintiff's motion for leave to substitute party is granted
and, hence, the Clerk is directed to substitute Steven Galanis as
the named plaintiff in the action and remove Plaintiff Stacy
Pincus.  The Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended
complaint instanter.

The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is entered and
continued generally.  Judge Durkin ordered that the Defendant's
motion to dismiss is to be filed by August 25, 2016.  The
Plaintiff's response is due by September 22, and the Defendant's
reply brief is to be filed by October 6.

A status hearing is set for October 28, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5bSJzNIl


STARBUCKS: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Ice on Cold Beverages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Melley, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
federal judge has thrown cold water on a lawsuit that claimed
Starbucks defrauded customers by adding ice to its cold beverages.

Judge Percy Anderson tossed out the potential class-action lawsuit
because a reasonable customer would know that a portion of iced
coffee or tea would include ice and they'd be able to see it
through the clear plastic cups the beverages are served in.  In
fact, he said, even a child would get it.

"As young children learn, they can increase the amount of beverage
they receive if they order 'no ice,'" Judge Anderson said in a
ruling issued on Aug. 19 in U.S. District Court.  "If children
have figured out that including ice in a cold beverage decreases
the amount of liquid they will receive, the court has no
difficulty concluding that a reasonable consumer would not be
deceived into thinking . . . some portion of the drink will be ice
rather than whatever liquid beverage the consumer ordered."

Alexander Forouzesh sued Starbucks Corp. in May for fraud, breach
of warranty and false advertising, among other claims.

The Los Angeles man said the chain was cheating customers out of
iced coffee and tea by filling cups as much as halfway with ice.

Mr. Forouzesh said on Aug. 24 that he plans to appeal and was
insulted by the judge's remarks about children.

"Any child can figure out that they're being deceived by
Starbucks, as well," he said.  "It's not right.  The whole point
is that we're being deceived."

A Starbucks spokeswoman said the company was pleased with the
decision and the judge's remarks.

A similar case is still percolating in Chicago's federal court.
The coffee company was due to file its defense in that case on
Aug. 25.


SYNTHES: Settles Sales Consultants' Class Action for $5 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Perriello, writing for Mass Device, reports that outside
sales reps for Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Synthes, who accused
the company of failing to cover business expenses and illegal wage
deductions, won a $5 million settlement in their class action
lawsuit.

Lead plaintiff Troy Lindell was an outside sales rep for Synthes
from 1999 until 2011 in Fresno County, Calif., according to his
December 2011 complaint.  Although Synthes pledged to reimburse
him for the 200 miles a week he spent on the road and for the
office supplies and equipment he needed to do the job, the company
allegedly failed to live up to that promise, according to the
complaint.

Synthes also allegedly cut Mr. Lindell's wages for failing to
provide completed purchase orders or for providing purchase orders
with slight errors, he claimed in the lawsuit.

"His wages were reduced by 50% of the cost of the item sold to the
medical facility, even though the item had many times already been
implanted in a patient," according to the complaint, which also
accused Synthes of failing to provide Mr. Lindell with a copy of
his personnel file despite 2 requests.

After extensive discovery and mediation, the parties agreed in
June to settle the case, signing an agreement August 5 that would
see each member of lawsuit's 2 classes receive an average payment
of more than $14,000, according to court documents.

The plaintiff's lawyers plan to ask Judge Barbara McAuliffe of the
U.S. District Court to award 30% of the settlement fund, or $1.5
million; the lawyers will also ask for $200,000 to cover
mediation, deposition and expert witness expenses, according to
the documents.  Mr. Lindell can apply for a $10,000 "service
award."

"If Mr. Lindell applies for and receives a service award, he shall
provide Synthes a complete and general release of all known and
unknown claims," according to the settlement agreement, which also
provides for $50,000 to cover penalties under the Private
Attorneys General Act, with 75% or $37,500 going to the Labor
Workforce Development Agency.

The remaining $3.2 million will be split among the 314 members of
the 2 classes in the suit.  Judge McAuliffe must still approve the
settlement, according to the documents.


TENNESSEE: Court Narrows Defendants in "Shabazz" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned OMOWALE A. SHABAZZ, Plaintiff, v. DERRICK
SCHOFIELD, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:13-cv-00091 (M.D.
Tenn.), Judge E. Clifton Knowles granted in part and denied, in
part, the state defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Omowale A. Shabazz, a pro se prisoner, sued approximately 39
defendants in three different prisons, as well as administrators
of the Tennessee Department of Correction, and two corporate
contract healthcare providers.  Shabazz had two categories of
claims against the state defendants: (1) his claims based on the
state defendants' failure to treat his hepatitis C; and (2) his
other claims, which primarily relate to the state defendants'
excessive use of force against him and then retaliating against
the plaintiff for filing this lawsuit."

Judge Knowles recommended that the motion be granted with regard
to the following defendants, finding that there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact, and that they are entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law: Wanda Chafin, Sue Clark, Georgia
Crowell, Sherry Freeman, Julie Holtkamp, Derrick Schofield, Jerry
Lester, David Sexton, Jim Thrasher, Dan Walker, Rita Edwards,
Laura Pierceall, David Jenkins, Harold Angel, Todd Wiggins, Tony
Howerton, Connie Church, Jerry Gentry, and Rebecca Gouge.

Judge Knowles denied the motion with regard to the defendants
Angela Combs, James Lundy, Clifford Tressler, Charles Short, Chris
Davis, Misty Gregg, Ruby Anderson, Connie Church, Jerry Gentry and
Rebecca Gouge.

The judge also denied the motion with regard to the defendants'
arguments regarding the statute of limitations, mootness, Eighth
Amendment failure to treat the plaintiff's Hepatitis C, excessive
force claims arising on September 26, 2012, claims of failure to
intervene, and claims of retaliation.

Finally, Judge Knowles dismissed defendant Paige Reburn, who is
deceased.

A full-text copy of Judge Knowles' August 8, 2016 report and
recommendation is available at https://is.gd/fKbded from
Leagle.com.

Omowale Ashanti Shabazz, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter C.
Branstetter -- hbranstetter@srvhlaw.com -- Sherrard Roe Voight &
Harbison & Michael G. Abelow -- mabelow@srvhlaw.com -- Sherrard
Roe Voight & Harbison.

Derrick Schofield, Jim Thrasher, TDOC Assistant to the
Commissioner in his individual and official capacity, Warden Tony
Howerton, Jerry Lester, David Jenkins, Laura A. Pierceal, David
Sexton, Todd Wiggins, Sherry Freeman, Harold Angel, Clifford
Tressler, James Lundy, Misty Gregg, Charles Short, Wanda Chafin,
Dan Walker, Sue Clark, Georgia Crowell, Julie Holtkamp, Jerry
Gentry, Connie Church, Ruby Anderson, Paige Reburn, Rebecca Gouge,
Rita Edwards, Chris A. Davis, Angela Combs, Defendants,
represented by Jennifer L. Brenner, Tennessee Attorney General's
Office.

Ronald Higgs, Clement Bernard, Defendants, represented by Gail
Vaughn Ashworth -- gail@wisemanashworth.com -- Wiseman Ashworth
Law Group PLC.

Corizon, Defendant, represented by Gail Vaughn Ashworth, Wiseman
Ashworth Law Group PLC & John C. McCauley, Wiseman Ashworth Law
Group PLC.


TENNESSEE VALLEY: 6th Cir. Rules on Suit Over COLA Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge John M. Rogers of the United States Court of
Appeals, affirmed the judgment of the district court and remanded
the case JERRY DUNCAN, et al. Plaintiffs, v. CHARLES T. EVANS;
DAVID MCBRIDE; RONALD E. FARLEY; LARRY J. SIMPSON; ROBERT B.
BONDS; STEVE HINCH, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LEONARD J. MUZYN, et
al., Defendants, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY RETIREMENT SYSTEM;
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, Defendants-Appellees, No. 15-6019 (6th
Cir.)

Congress created the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), a federal
agency that is organized and operated as a corporation.  Several
years later, the TVA established the Tennessee Valley Authority
Retirement System (TVARS) for the purpose of managing the
retirement plans of TVA employees, who become members of the
retirement system upon accepting employment. The TVA created the
TVARS by promulgating Rules and Regulations, which established how
the retirement system would be administered and what benefits
would be payable to plan participants.

Under the Rules, the retirement income of the participants comes
from four sources. First, eligible beneficiaries receive a monthly
pension benefit in an amount linked to their average compensation
and years of service. Second, beneficiaries receive a monthly
supplemental benefit that is related to the costs of medical
insurance. Third, beneficiaries have the option of contributing to
a fixed-rate fund or variable-rate fund, both of which are managed
by the TVARS and fourth, beneficiaries may receive cost-of-living
adjustments or COLA, payments that increase pension and
supplemental benefits based on yearly changes in the consumer
price index.

Plaintiffs are among the 36,000 current and former TVA employees
who participated in the retirement system. Two-thirds of the
participants are retired.

In the late 2000s, the liabilities of the TVARS grew to exceed its
assets by $3 billion. In June 2009, the TVARS made its annual
contribution request to the TVA for the following year, asking for
$300 million to keep the system afloat. The TVA countered with a
proposal to give the TVARS $1 billion, a lump sum that would be
conditioned on a TVARS promise not to request additional funds
until 2014. In the TVA's counterproposal, the agency also
suggested that the TVARS reduce its liabilities by lowering COLAs
for the years 2010-2013, increasing the COLA-eligibility age for
TVA employees, and reducing the annual interest rate on the fixed-
rate fund.

On August 16, 2009, a special TVARS board meeting was called for
the following day and by a 4-3 vote, the board approved amendments
to the Rules that were consistent with the TVA's counterproposal.
The changes to the Rules increased the COLA-eligibility age from
55 to 60 for participants retiring in 2010 or after, and decreased
the interest rate on the fixed fund from 7.25% to 6%. The
amendments also eliminated COLAs for 2010 and 2012, and capped
them at 3% and 2.5% for 2011 and 2013. The amendments had their
intended effect.

Plaintiffs' amended complaint name only TVA and the TVARS as
defendants. Plaintiffs asserted that the board's actions violated
several provisions of the Rules. In addition to the claims, the
plaintiffs charged the board with violating the procedural and
substantive protections of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Finally, the plaintiffs asserted a Takings Clause claim based on
the 2009 amendments, maintaining that the board's actions deprived
plan participants of protected property interests.

After discovery, the TVA moved for summary judgment, arguing that
the board's actions were valid under the Rules. The TVA conceded
that the arbitrary and capricious standard of review applies here
regardless of whether TVARS is an agency within the meaning of the
APA, and did not argue that the plaintiffs' Rules-violation
arguments were not reviewable. The plaintiffs also filed a partial
motion for summary judgment on the question of liability for each
claim.

Although the TVARS agreed with the TVA that the APA does not apply
to the TVARS and that there was no merit to the plaintiffs'
arguments concerning notice, the interest rate, and the Excess
COLA Account, the TVARS asked the district court to grant the
plaintiffs summary judgment on the issue of whether COLAs are
vested.

At summary judgment, then, neither agency had contested the
reviewability of the plaintiffs' arguments that the board had
violated Rule 13 and other provisions.  The district court
nonetheless held that those claims labeled by the plaintiffs as
non-statutory claims were not judicially reviewable. According to
the district court, the Rules-violation arguments could not be
asserted under the APA either, because the TVARS did not fall
within the APA's definition of agency. As for the Takings Clause
claim, the district court held that the claim was without merit
because the Rules did not create a property right in a particular
amount of COLAs. The district court also rejected an estoppel
claim, a claim that the plaintiffs do not press on appeal. The
district court reasoned in conclusion that the purported non-
reviewability of the board's actions was attributable to the
unique, quasi-governmental nature of the retirement system.

On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that their Rules-violation
arguments are reviewable, that the board violated Rule 13 by
reducing vested COLAs, and that they were deprived of COLAs in
violation of the Takings Clause. The TVARS agrees as to the
reviewability of its own actions. As for the TVA, the agency
argues primarily that the 2009 amendments did not violate the
Takings Clause.

Judge Rogers affirms the district court's judgment with respect to
the claim that COLAs are vested benefits and remanded the case for
further proceedings.

Judge Rogers said the Rules do not vest COLAs. Although the
district court did not rule on this merits question, the court's
judgment may be affirmed in part on this alternative basis. On
remand, the district court must address any remaining arguments
for a Rules violation that are not abandoned.

Judge Rogers also said because COLAs are not vested, the TVARS did
not unmistakably intend to prevent itself from reducing COLAs
below the CPI rate. The 2009 amendments, then, did not deprive the
plaintiffs of a protected property right.

A copy of Judge Rogers's opinion dated August 12, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/vG2Qosfrom Leagle.com.

Michael J. Wall -- mikew@BSJFirm.com -- at BRANSTETTER, STRANCH &
JENNINGS, PLLC, for Appellants

James S. Christie, Jr. -- jengland@bradley.com -- at BRADLEY ARANT
BOULT CUMMINGS LLP, for Appellee Tennessee Valley Authority
Retirement System

Michael J. Wall-- mikew@BSJFirm.com -- James G. Stranch, III --
jims@BSJFirm.com -- R. Jan Jennings -- jan@BSJFirm.com -- Joe P.
Leniski, Jr. -- joeyl@BSJFirm.com -- Michael G. Stewart --
mikes@BSJFirm.com -- at BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC, for
Appellants

James S. Christie, Jr. -- jengland@bradley.com -- Edmund S. Sauer
-- tmyers@bradley.com -- at BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP, for
Appellee Tennessee Valley Authority Retirement System

Edward C. Meade, Edwin W. Small, and Frances Regina Koho at
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, for Appellee Tennessee Valley
Authority

The United States Court of Appeals panel consists of Circuit
Judges John M. Rogers, Jeffrey S. Sutton and Eugene E. Siler, Jr.


TGI FRIDAY'S: Court to Consider Drink Price Class Action Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
J.P. Sullivan, writing for NJ.com, reports that New Jersey's
highest court could soon weigh in on whether state law requires
restaurants to list drink prices on their menus.

The state Supreme Court recently agreed to consider the class
action status of two cases accusing chain restaurant locations in
New Jersey of violating consumer protection laws by not listing
beer, cocktail and soft drink prices.

In one case, a patron at a Mount Laurel TGI Friday's location,
Debra Dugan, claimed she was charged $2 for a beer at the
restaurant's bar before she was seated and $3.59 for a second beer
at her table.

In the other, Ernest Bozzi claimed he was charged two different
prices for beers at a Carrabba's Italian Grill without any notice
of a happy hour.

The lawsuits claim such behavior violates two New Jersey laws, the
Consumer Fraud Act and the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty,
and Notice Act.

In court papers, TGI Friday's has asserted it is "customary
practice" in the restaurant industry not to list drink prices.

Mixed appellate court decisions regarding whether the cases could
move forward as class action lawsuits prompted the high court to
take up the matter.

It's not the first time chain restaurants' alcohol policies have
drawn scrutiny in the Garden State.  In 2013, the state Division
of Alcoholic Beverage Control cracked down on restaurants across
New Jersey that were allegedly poured cheap liquor in the place of
top-shelf brands -- an investigation dubbed "Operation Swill."

The company that owned eight TGI Friday's restaurants accused in
that case later paid half a million dollars to the state in a
settlement.


TIME WARNER: Judge Dismisses Groshek Privacy Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Carpenter, writing for Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, reports
that a Milwaukee-based federal judge has dismissed the largest
lawsuit filed by Cory Groshek, the Green Bay man dubbed a
"professional plaintiff" after he threatened to sue more than 40
companies.

U.S. District Judge Pamela Pepper ruled that Mr. Groshek doesn't
have legal standing to sue Time Warner Cable for potential
violations of a federal privacy law.  Mr. Groshek, 33, filed a
class-action lawsuit against Time Warner Cable in February 2015,
but only after the company refused to give him a six-figure
settlement.

The lawsuit was Mr. Groshek's most ambitious attempt to extract
legal settlements and judgments for violations of the federal Fair
Credit Reporting Act.  The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel detailed Mr.
Groshek's tactics in a June article.

Beginning in February 2014, Mr. Groshek applied to at least 562
jobs, hoping to trigger a background check during the hiring
process.  If companies failed to make a "clear and conspicuous"
disclosure of their intent to perform a background check, as
required by the law, Mr. Groshek would threaten to file class-
action lawsuits.  In all, he threatened to sue at least 46
companies, including 15 headquartered in Wisconsin.

In each case, Mr. Groshek would make the company an offer: Pay him
a personal settlement, and he wouldn't take them to court. The
tactic worked, as Mr. Groshek said in a deposition that he made at
least $230,000 from about 20 companies in less than two years.

Mr. Groshek threatened Time Warner Cable with a lawsuit, declaring
in an email that he could win "upwards of $5-10 million" at trial.
But the company refused to give in -- a move that paid off.

Pepper said a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision required
Mr. Groshek to show he suffered a "concrete," and not an
"abstract," injury.  Mr. Groshek argued the concrete injury was
the violation of his privacy, but Judge Pepper ruled that wasn't
enough.

"(Groshek) has not alleged that the defendant used the consumer
report against him in any way," Judge Pepper wrote in her
decision, issued on Aug. 9.

Mr. Groshek's lawyers did not return a call and emails seeking
comment.  A lawyer for Time Warner Cable declined to comment.

In her ruling, Pepper also unsealed parts of Mr. Groshek's
deposition in the case, which provides additional details on his
legal strategy.

In the deposition, Mr. Groshek admits he started filling out
hundreds of job applications in February 2014 -- once he learned
about the Fair Credit Reporting Act -- and consulting with lawyers
about potential legal action.  When asked by Time Warner Cable's
lawyers if he's running his operation like a business, Mr. Groshek
replied, "I would say 'yes,' according to how I believe businesses
are run."

Mr. Groshek said he's been hired by several companies in recent
years, but often quits within days or weeks.

In one case, involving a Green Bay-area marketing company,
Mr. Groshek was on the job for four hours before he resigned and
threatened to sue.  In another, he quit after a single eight-hour
work day at DirectBuy of Northern Wisconsin, ultimately opting not
to sue because the company didn't request a background check. Mr.
Groshek worked for Time Warner Cable for four months, quit in
January 2015, then fired off the email threatening a lawsuit two
days later.

Mr. Groshek sought to keep the deposition under seal. His lawyers
have been critical of Time Warner Cable for putting information
gleaned from the deposition in public court documents, which the
Journal Sentinel cited in the June article.  The story resulted in
"substantial negative publicity" for Mr. Groshek, his lawyers
wrote in a July court filing.

"This is exactly the strategy that (Time Warner Cable) has taken
throughout this litigation -- to vilify Mr. Groshek and portray
itself as a victim, despite its clear violation of the FCRA,"
Mr. Groshek's lawyers wrote.

Mr. Groshek has two pending Fair Credit Reporting Act lawsuits in
the federal court's western Wisconsin district.  In one case, he
has reached a preliminary settlement with a Madison-based student
loan nonprofit, with Groshek getting $7,200 and nearly 900
prospective employees getting $300 each. In the other case, a
North Carolina-based hospitality company has moved to dismiss the
lawsuit.


TORONTO-DOMINION: Appeals Court Authorizes HELOC Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Leo Almazora, writing for Wealth Professional, reports that the
Court of Appeal of Quebec has authorized a class action against
the Toronto-Dominion (TD) Bank.

The class action accuses TD Bank of breaching a contract with
class members in the autumn of 2009.  The company unilaterally
changed the way it calculated the interest rate owed by borrowers
on their Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC) accounts with a
variable annual interest rate.

Ms. Marilena Massella has been named by the Court of Appeal as the
representative of all Quebec residents who signed an agreement for
a HELOC with TD or one of its subsidiaries, and received a fall
2009 notice from TD giving rise to an increase in the percentage
of interest that is added to or subtracted from the TD prime rate
in order to determine the variable interest rate on their HELOC.

The class action aims to obtain compensatory damages resulting
from TD's allegedly illegal rate increase, along with punitive
damages.

Class members who do not wish to be bound by any settlement
reached or decision made to resolve the class action may opt out
of the suit, but must do so on or before October 4.

The full notice of authorization is available on the website of
class counsel, Trudel Johnston & Lesperance.


TRINITY HEALTH: To Settle Pension Fund Class Actions for $75 Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hazel Bradford, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that
Trinity Health Corp. will contribute $75 million to nine different
pension funds as part of a settlement agreement in two class-
action lawsuits challenging its church-plan status. The agreement
also calls for Trinity to administer the plans under ERISA
guidelines for the next 15 years.

The settlement papers were filed Aug. 1 in U.S. District Court in
Beltsville, Md., and Judge Peter Messitte scheduled preliminary
approval for Aug.17, according to court documents.

The settlement consolidates two class-action lawsuits, Lann et al.
vs. Trinity Health Corp. et al., filed in Maryland in July 2014,
and Chavies et al. vs. Catholic Health East et al., filed in
Pennsylvania in March 2013. Catholic Health East merged into
Trinity Health Corp. in July 2014.

The Catholic Health East lawsuit claimed that the pension plans
were underfunded by $439 million; the Trinity lawsuit alleged
underfunding of more than $600 million.

In the settlement, the defendants deny all allegations of
wrongdoing and maintain their argument that Trinity qualifies for
the church-plan exemption.  Trinity has contributed an average of
$175 million or more to the pension plans in recent years, and
"the plans have been well funded historically," according to the
settlement.

Trinity Health said in an e-mailed statement: "In order to avoid
the expense of long-term litigation and keep our focus on our
mission of caring for our patients and communities, Trinity Health
has agreed to terms under which pending lawsuits against Catholic
Health East and Trinity Health are being settled . . . We remain
fully committed to ensuring our colleagues receive the retirement
benefits they have earned.  The settlements are subject to court
approval."

Trinity will contribute $25 million to the plans annually for
three years, and make $550 lump-sum payments to 219 employees for
alleged losses related to lump-sum distributions.

Another 7,371 former plan participants will share a $1.3 million
payment to settle allegations of ERISA violations over vesting
requirements, with any unused balances going back to the pension
plans.

For the next 15 years, Trinity will guarantee sufficient funds to
pay accrued benefits without any decreases, including in the event
of a merger.  Trinity reserved the right to terminate and/or
annuitize some or all of the benefits, as long as there are
sufficient funds.

In a memorandum, the plaintiffs' lawyers with law firms Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll and Keller Rohrback said the settlement
"will enhance the retirement security of the members of the
settlement class -- in essence mimicking some of ERISA's key
provisions for the next 15 years."

Cohen Milstein is investigating several other health-care
facilities for possible church-plan violations, including
Adventist Health System, Bon Secours, Mercy Health, Baptist
Memorial Health Care and Christus Health, according to the law
firm's website.


TRS RECOVERY: Lakkard Seeks Class Certification in Wisconsin Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Lakkard moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit styled BARBARA LAKKARD, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. TRS RECOVERY
SERVICES, INC., and TELECHECK SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-
01103-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.).  The Plaintiff further asks that the Court
both stay the Motion and to grant her (and the Defendants) relief
from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and
requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the
Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, Ms. Lakkard asserts, citing
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).

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, Ms.
Lakkard asserts.  She contends that she is obligated to move for
class certification to protect the interests of the putative
class.

As the Motion 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, Ms. Lakkard contends.

Ms. Lakkard also asks to be appointed as class representative and
further asks the Court to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as class
counsel.

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

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


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Cullinane Appeals D. Mass. Ruling to 1st Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Rachel Cullinane, Ross McDonagh, Jacqueline Nunez and
Elizabeth Schaul filed an appeal from a court ruling in their
lawsuit styled Cullinane, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case
No. 1:14-cv-14750-DPW, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts, Boston.

The appellate case is titled Cullinane, et al. v. Uber
Technologies, Inc., Case No. 16-2023, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the First Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 25,
2016, District Judge Douglas P. Woodlock allowed the Defendant's
motion seeking to compel arbitration of the parties' dispute
pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, and dismissed the case.
A full-text copy of Judge Woodlock's July 8, 2016 memorandum and
order is available at https://is.gd/sfJRSg from Leagle.com.

The Plaintiffs in the putative class action are a group of users
of the ride-sharing phone application designed and managed by the
Defendant Uber Technologies.  They alleged that Uber overcharged
them for travel to and from Boston Logan Airport and East Boston
by imposing fictitious fees hidden in charges for legitimate local
tolls.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          John J. Roddy, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Ryan, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          99 High St., Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 439-6730
          Facsimile: (617) 951-3954
          E-mail: jroddy@baileyglasser.com
                  eryan@baileyglasser.com

The Defendant-Appellee is represented by:

          Emma D. Hall, Esq.
          S. Elaine McChesney, Esq.
          Lawrence T. Stanley, Jr., Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1 Federal St.
          Boston, MA 02110-1726
          Telephone: (617) 951-8194
          Facsimile: (617) 951-8736
          E-mail: emma.hall@morganlewis.com
                  elaine.mcchesney@morganlewis.com
                  lawrence.stanley@morganlewis.com


UNITED SERVICES: Attorneys Appeal Reprimands in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Friedman, writing for Arkansas Business, reports that twelve
plaintiffs' attorneys on Aug. 8 filed notice that they will appeal
Chief U.S. District Court Judge P.K. Holmes III's finding that
they abused the court system in their manipulation of a
controversial class-action case.

The attorneys include five who were reprimanded, including the
husband of a state Supreme Court justice, because Judge Holmes
found that they acted in bad faith in their handling of the class-
action case.

The other seven plaintiffs' attorneys who have joined in the
appeal were found to have abused the judicial process, but Holmes
did not sanction them because he said their misconduct did not
didn't rise to the level of bad faith.

Three defense lawyers were similarly found to have abused the
system but without bad faith.  They had not filed a notice of
appeal as of Aug. 9.

The notice filed by the 12 plaintiffs' attorneys indicates that
they will ask the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis
whether their conduct abused the federal court system and whether
the court had inherent power to sanction them for it.  They will
ask the appeals court whether Holmes abused his discretion in
reprimanding the five attorneys, according to the filing by New
York attorney Gregory P. Joseph of Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC.

The attorneys who were reprimanded were John Goodson of Texarkana,
husband of state Supreme Court Justice Courtney Goodson and a
member of the University of Arkansas System board of trustees; Mr.
Goodson's 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 at Crowley Norman.

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 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.

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.'"

The plaintiffs' attorneys who were found to have abused the system
but without bad faith were 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.  All
seven have joined in the notice of appeal.

Defense attorneys found to have abused the system but without bad
faith were Lyn P. Pruitt, a member at Mitchell Williams Selig
Gates & Woodyard of Little Rock, and Wystan Ackerman and Stephen
Edward Goldman, partners in Robinson & Cole LLP of Hartford,
Connecticut.

Judge Holmes had previously found similar misconduct by
plaintiffs' attorney Stephens C. Engstrom of Little Rock, but he
reversed that finding.


URBAN SETTLEMENT: 10th Cir. Reinstates "George" RICO Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RICHARD GEORGE; STEVEN LEAVITT; SANDRA
LEAVITT; DARRELL DALTON, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. URBAN SETTLEMENT SERVICES, d/b/a Urban
Lending Solutions; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendants-Appellees,
No. 14-1427 (10th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals, Tenth
Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of the putative
class action filed by Richard George, Steven Leavitt, Sadra
Leavitt, and Darrell Dalton against Urban Settlement Services,
d/b/a Urban Lending Solutions and Bank of America, N.A. (BOA).

The plaintiffs asserted a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against BOA and Urban.  They also
brought a promissory estoppel claim against BOA.  Both claims
arose from the defendants' allegedly fraudulent administration of
the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP).

The district court granted the defendants' Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6) motions to dismiss both claims, denied the plaintiffs'
request for leave to amend their first amended complaint, and
dismissed the case.

On appeal, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the plaintiffs' first
amended complaint states a facially plausible RICO claim against
BOA and Urban and a facially plausible promissory estoppel claim
against BOA.  The appellate court's reversal mooted the
plaintiffs' challenge to the district court's denial of their
request to further amend the complaint.

A full-text copy of the Tenth Circuit's August 15, 2016 decision
is available at https://is.gd/kXxTk6 from Leagle.com.

Kevin K. Green -- keving@hbsslaw.com -- (Steve W. Berman --
steve@hbsslaw.com -- on the briefs), Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro,
LLP, Seattle, Washington, for Darrell Dalton , Richard George ,
and Sandra Leavitt , and Steven Leavitt , Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Keith Levenberg -- klevenberg@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter
LLP, Washington, D.C. (James W. McGarry -- jmcgarry@goodwinlaw.com
-- Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, Massachusetts, Peter Korneffel --
peter.korneffel@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave, LLP, Denver,
Colorado, with him on the brief), for Bank of America, N.A.,
Defendant-Appellee.

Martin C. Bryce -- bryce@ballardspahr.com -- Ballard Spahr, LLP,
Philidelphia, Pennsylvania (Sarah B. Wallace --
wallaces@ballardspahr.com -- Ballard Spahr, LLP, Denver, Colorado,
with him on the brief), for Urban Settlement Services, Defendant-
Appellee.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Must Compensate Australian Car Owners, Lawyers Say
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Luke Costin, writing for The Australian Associated Press, reports
that Volkswagen should stop treating Australia as a backwater and
offer compensation to car owners caught up in the global emissions
fraud, say lawyers of a class action against the German auto
maker.

VW and its Italian subsidiary were fined by the Italian
competition watchdog on Aug. 8 for selling cars with software that
manipulated pollution controls.

In handing down the EUR5 million ($A7.24 million) fine -- the
maximum allowed under Italian law -- the Italian Competition
Authority said it was likely customers bought the vehicles because
they believed they offered lower emissions.

Maurice Blackburn class action lawyer Jason Geisker says that
decision is further proof VW has duped Australian motorists and
needs to offer them proper compensation.

"It's time they offered a proper compensatory fix for affected
Australians and stopped treating us as a backwater."

Maurice Blackburn and rival firm Bannister Law have both begun
class action against VW on behalf of 100,000 owners.

VW Australia admitted in October that more than 100,000 diesel
cars, including the popular Golf and Polo models, were sold
between 2008 and 2014 with software that manipulated pollution
controls.

In March, VWAustralia began recalling thousands of affected cars
to apply a software fix.

It says diesel vehicles with the update run cleaner than the
Australian regulation emissions limit.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: More Than 70 Federal Lawsuits Pending in U.S.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Kelly, writing for CNNMoney, writing for since its launch
in 2009, Uber has been juggling a nonstop barrage of lawsuits from
governments, drivers, passengers and competitors.  Some have been
settled out of court while others have dragged on indeterminably.

In the U.S., there are more than 70 pending federal suits against
the company and many more in state courts.  There are also battles
taking places in governments and courts around the world. Even
with an estimated value of more than $60 billion, those billable
hours have to be taking a toll as Uber expands to more than 400
cities around the world.

It's of the biggest battles Uber has been fighting since it
launched.  The company says full- and part-time drivers who ferry
passengers around are not employees, but contractors -- and that
factors into a large number of ongoing lawsuits.

In case you can't keep track of all of Uber's challenges -- and
you're not alone -- here's a closer look at some of the most
significant and controversial lawsuits the company currently faces
in the U.S.

In one of the biggest ongoing class action lawsuits, drivers have
accused Uber of misclassifying them as contractors when they're
actually treated as employees.

Lawyers for California and Massachusetts drivers in the case
reached a tentative $100 million settlement earlier this year that
would not change drivers' statuses, but would add certain
protections and allow them to solicit tips.  The settlement has
not been approved and a number of drivers' groups are unhappy with
the deal.  Only drivers in Massachusetts and California would be
eligible for the payout, but drivers across the U.S. would gain
new termination protections.

The New York Taxi Workers Alliance, a union representing 5,000
Uber drivers, filed a suit in federal court against Uber on behalf
of 10 drivers for misclassification.  That proposed class action
suit claims drivers are employees and therefor eligible for
minimum wage, overtime and expense reimbursement.

In Austin, Texas, multiple drivers are suing Uber and Lyft for
back pay and benefits after the companies abruptly stopped service
in the city.  When the ride-sharing companies lost a vote that
would have required stricter background checks, they ceased
service in the city a day later.  Drivers claim they should have
received more notice and are asking for back pay and benefits.

Insisting drivers are contractors and not employees can also limit
Uber's liability when individual drivers do something illegal.
However, that hasn't stopped riders from naming Uber in numerous
state and federal lawsuits.

Uber has reached a preliminary settlement with the National
Federation of the Blind, which sued the company for discriminating
against passengers with service animals.  There were reports of
drivers refusing to pick up passengers and one incident where a
driver locked a service animal in the trunk.  As part of the class
action settlement, Uber will require drivers to take service
animals and suspend drivers who refuse.

An Uber passenger has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Uber and
its CEO Travis Kalanick for price fixing.  Conservationist Spencer
Meyer claims Uber colluded with drivers to raise prices, and is
seeking class action status.

The case got dramatic in July when the judge criticized Uber and
Mr. Kalanick of playing dirty by hiring investigators to look into
Meyer.  The judge accused the investigative firm of "fraudulent
and arguably criminal conduct" and forbade Uber from using the
resulting information in court.

There have been multiple complaints against Uber drivers over
assault, rape, and car accidents.  Many of the cases ultimately
circle back to issues with Uber's background check policies, and
whether or not Uber is responsible for the actions of contractors.

Two women are suing the company for fraud and punitive damages
after being sexually assaulted by drivers in unrelated incidents.
In May, a judge denied Uber's claim that it couldn't be held
responsible for the drivers' behavior because they were
contractors, which could have larger implications for similar
lawsuits.

Another woman filed a lawsuit against Uber in July, claiming the
company was negligent in her 2014 rape by a driver.  The woman
drank from a complimentary bottle of water during her Uber ride
and woke up the next day naked in her room.  The driver was
convicted of criminal sexual battery, but the victim is suing Uber
for punitive damages.

In July, the company settled a wrongful death lawsuit.  A six-
year-old girl died after being hit by an on-duty Uber driver in
San Francisco in 2013. The terms of the settlement were not made
public.

In its mad rush to expand to as many cities as possible, Uber has
frequently ignored existing regulations until called out by local
governments.  The resulting battles have taken the form of
lawsuits, but also local votes, fines, and lobbying and
negotiating with officials.

The biggest issue for Uber in cities is background checks.  Uber
doesn't require fingerprint checks like taxis.  It screens
potential drivers using their name and social security number.
Critics claim this can miss some known criminals, but Uber says
it's just as thorough.  Fingerprinting would exclude potential
drivers who were charged but not convicted of crimes, and it would
also slow the on-boarding process for new drivers.

In Austin, a city council member who supports Uber has filed a
suit to overturn the ballot measure requiring fingerprint checks.

Uber settled a lawsuit in San Francisco and Los Angeles for up to
$25 million over its claims that it had the "gold standard" of
background checks, though it did not have to make any changes to
its actual background check process.  It settled two earlier class
action suits for $28.5 million over the same language and its
"misleading" Safe Ride Fee.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: 9th Circuit May Reverse Arbitration Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca M. McCloskey, Esq., of Jackson Lewis P.C., in an article
for The National Law Review, reports that on April 21, 2016, Uber
tried to buy its peace from two class actions in a $100 million
settlement with 385,000 putative class members. See O'Connor v.
Uber Technologies Inc., 3:13-cv-03826 (N.D. Cal.); Yucesoy v. Uber
Technologies Inc., 3:15-cv-00262 (N.D. Cal.).  However, as of July
14, 2016, the class actions still remain open pending court
approval of the settlement.

In the long meantime, dozens of class members have filed
objections and motions to intervene.  Plaintiffs' counsel cut her
fee request by $10 million, and she is opposing a motion to
disqualify her as class counsel.

Also in the meantime, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals intimated
that it may reverse the district court's prior decision to
invalidate the plaintiffs' arbitration agreements -- which could
undermine the class certification by ejecting some Uber drivers
from district court to arbitration.

It is clearly critical to get a hard-won settlement agreement
approved quickly.  Here are some takeaways from Uber's experience:

Many of the Uber drivers' objections are based on complaints that
the ultimate legal issue in the case -- whether Uber drivers are
employees or independent contractors -- remains unresolved in the
settlement.  However, that is an insufficient basis to object
because there is no requirement that a settlement resolve the
ultimate legal issue (in fact, most settlements do not), only that
the settlement be "fair, reasonable, and adequate." See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(e)(2).  In one Uber case in state court in California,
the judge requested that any objections be filtered through the
claims administrator before being forwarded to the court, because
some concerns do not, "rise to the level of an objection." See
Kramer v. Uber Technologies Inc., No. BC589891 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
L.A., July 6, 2016).  Parties to class settlements may want to
consider requesting a similar pre-objection gatekeeper to avoid
the bandwagon, pile-on effect that appears to have occurred in
this closely watched, high profile class action settlement.

In this case, one objection came from named plaintiff
Douglas O'Connor, who claims that he was not adequately informed
about the deal before it was made public.  Whether or not his
claims have merit, parties should ensure that a named plaintiff is
actively involved in negotiations and on board with the settlement
to avoid an appearance of unfairness, because an objection from a
named plaintiff may carry more weight.

Finally, parties should assign at least some value to all of the
claims that are being resolved in a settlement, even if the value
is low, and explain why.  Judge Chen's June 30, 2016 Order
delaying approval to obtain additional information about the
proposed settlement criticizes some claims' zero value for
settlement distribution, especially absent any justification. See
O'Connor v. Uber Technologies Inc., 3:13-cv-03826 (N.D. Cal.);
Yucesoy v. Uber Technologies Inc., 3:15-cv-00262 (N.D. Cal.).

Much can be learned from the experiences of skilled class action
attorneys' navigating the twists and turns of a complicated and
massive class settlement.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Rejects $84MM Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge has
rejected an $84 million settlement that aimed to resolve major
class actions against Uber Technologies Inc. in California and
Massachusetts.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of
California in an order Aug. 18 concluded that the settlement --
which covers roughly 400,000 drivers -- "as a whole is not fair,
adequate, and reasonable" and denied a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement deal.

The decision is a blow to Shannon Liss-Riordan, the lawyer who
brought the class actions on behalf of Uber drivers and later came
under attack from a slew of other lawyers in the plaintiffs bar
for reaching a deal they criticized as selling drivers short. Ms.
Liss-Riordan could not immediately be reached for comment.

Uber spokesman Matt Kallman said in a statement: "The settlement,
mutually agreed by both sides, was fair and reasonable.  We're
disappointed in this decision and are taking a look at our
options."

Judge Chen, in his order, said that the monetary value of the
settlement -- while large -- reflects only about 10 percent of the
$854 million estimated value of the class actions.  He wrote that
this "substantial discount" is illustrated by the case of an Uber
driver who was awarded $3,878 in unreimbursed expenses by the
California Labor Commissioner, but who would get at most $455
under the settlement.

The judge also said the settlement's "non-monetary relief is not
as valuable as the parties suggest, limiting their worth in
considering the amount being offered in settlement."

He particularly attacked a part of the deal removing restrictions
on Uber drivers asking for tips -- noting that Uber has refused to
include an in-app tipping function -- and the fact that a new
appeal process the company agreed to create would not allow review
of deactivations for low star ratings.

Moreover, Judge Chen expressed strong misgivings about a part of
the settlement agreement that would strike his own orders making
Uber's most recent version of its arbitration agreement with
drivers unenforceable until the company issued a new opt-out
notice.  Uber did not do so.

He noted that this would force drivers into arbitration to
litigate any claims -- even those not related to the issue of
driver classification at the center of this litigation.

"To retroactively revoke the protection that this court imposed to
protect the rights of drivers without affording drivers a right to
now opt-out would be to put a driver in a worse position than if
the court had not issued the Rule 23(d) Orders at all," Chen
wrote.


UNITED STATES: County's Suit over Federal Reimbursements Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Robert H. Hodges, Jr. of the Court of
Federal Claims granted defendant's motion to dismiss in the case
KANE COUNTY, UTAH, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant, No. 14-1204 C (Fed. Cl.)

Congress created the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Act of 1976 (PILT),
and its later enactment of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. PILT
was created to compensate local governments such as counties for
the loss of tax revenue stemming from their inability to tax
federal lands located within their jurisdictions.

The Taxpayer Relief Act became effective in 2013, providing that
the Executive Branch could sequester or reduce congressional
appropriations for direct or discretionary spending programs
notwithstanding any other provision of law. The Act listed a
number of programs that were exempt from the automatic sequester
provision, including veterans benefits, retirement and disability
accounts, and Social Security. PILT was not listed among the
exempt programs.

Kane County filed a class action on December 16, 2014, against the
United States of America, contending that the PILT Act created an
obligation binding on the United States Government to pay PILT
funds to qualified counties irrespective of sequestration. The
class would comprise all counties in the United States whose PILT
funds were reduced because of the 2013 federal budget sequester.
Kane County filed a motion for summary judgment and a motion to
certify the class.

Defendant United States held that the sequestration legislation
mandated a spending reduction for all non-exempt programs. As PILT
funds were not exempted by the Taxpayer Relief Act, the defendant
argued that no obligation could have been created in Kane's favor,
or in favor of any other county in the putative class. Defendant
asserts that the issue of whether the Government had an obligation
to Kane County is irrelevant because the sequestration legislation
mandated spending reductions for all non-exempt programs, and PILT
payments are non-exempt.  The motions were transferred to the
present court along with defendant's cross-motion to dismiss.

Judge Hodges granted defendant's motion to dismiss, denied
plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and denied the motion for
class certification as moot.

Judge Hodges said following sequestration, counties across the
nation were faced with reductions in reimbursements for their
services to federal government entities, even though their
payments had been established by Congress and guaranteed later by
strengthening amendments. These local governments, of course, must
include plaintiff Kane County.

A copy of Senior District Judge Hodges's opinion and order dated
August 12, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/hHB2K0from
Leagle.com.

KANE COUNTY, UTAH, Plaintiff, represented by Alan I. Saltman --
aisaltman@smithcurrie.com -- at Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP

USA, Defendant, represented by Mark Edward Porada, U.S. Department
of Justice - Civil Division


UNITED STATES: Cherokee Indians Tribe to Receive Settlement Funds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Mckie, writing for The One Feather, reports that this fall,
the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians will join hundreds of
federally-recognized tribes across the country in receiving funds
from a $940 million settlement in a class action lawsuit known as
the Ramah Navajo Chapter Settlement.  The settlement, which became
final on April 25, ended a more than 25-year dispute over contract
support costs for tribal agencies.

According to information from Lloyd B. Miller, Co-Class counsel
based in Anchorage, Alaska, Class Members (tribes involved in the
settlement) could start seeing checks as soon September. In all,
there are 699 tribes and tribal organizations that are involved in
the settlement.

The suit was first filed by the Ramah Navajo Chapter, a sub-unit
of the Navajo Nation, in 1990.  The Oglala Sioux Tribe of South
Dakota and the Pueblo of Zuni joined the suit as class
representatives at a later date followed by other tribes
throughout the years.

After legal fees and other estimated costs, the total amount for
distribution is $854,600,000.  In January, estimated amounts for
each Class Member were released by the Class Counsel.  The Eastern
Band of Cherokee Indians is estimated to receive $1,177,741, and
the Cherokee Boys Club Inc. is estimated to receive $207,505.

"The Cherokee Boys Club prides itself on over 80 years of
dedicated service to the members of the Eastern Band of Cherokee
Indians and the Cherokee community," said Cory M. Blankenship,
Cherokee Boys Club Board president.  "In partnership with the
tribal government, the Club has provided essential services in the
spirit of self-determination.  As a recipient of federal funding
for such services, the Club applauds the efforts of those who
worked tirelessly on the Ramah Settlement.  This action is a
significant win for Indian Country and our Tribe, and undoubtedly
a step in the right direction in fulfilling the trust obligations
of the federal government to Indian tribes across the country as
we seek to provide essential services to our members."

Information from the Class Counsel states, "The Ramah litigation
is a class action lawsuit against the BIA over unpaid contract
support costs.  Two earlier settlements in the case generally
dealt with unpaid contract support costs between the years 1989
and 1993.  A third settlement in 2008 made adjustments to the
system for negotiating indirect cost rates.  Earlier settlements
left unresolved claims for unpaid contract support costs from 1994
to the present.

"Since 1994, Congress has capped the maximum appropriation the BIA
could spend on contract support cost payments.  As a result, the
BIA long asserted that it could not be held liable for any
resulting underpayments.  In 2012, the United States Supreme Court
held that capped 'not to exceed' agency appropriations in and
after 1994 did not relieve the government of its contract
obligation to pay full contract support costs to Indian Self-
Determination Act contractors."

Kevin Washburn, Acting Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs,
said in a comment last fall, "From the tribes' perspective,
underfunding of contract costs is another broken promise.  There
is no longer any question that we agreed to pay these amounts and
we are liable."


UNITED STATES: Loses Bid to Dismiss CMA's Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Inside Health Policy reports that a federal district court judge
rejected the government's move to dismiss the Center for Medicare
Advocacy's lawsuit over denials at the first two levels of
appeals, and the judge certified the case as a national, class-
action suit, which an attorney with the Center for Medicare
Advocacy says means that advocates can dig further into the
pattern behind the appeals denials.


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Class Cert. Bid in Cops' Suit Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Josephine L. Staton denied the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification in the lawsuit captioned Federated
University Police Officers' Association, et al. v. The Regents of
the University of California, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-00137-JLS-
RNB (C.D. Cal.).

In their Motion, Plaintiffs seek certification of this class:

     All persons employed by the University of California Police
     Departments whose conversations were audio recorded by the
     audio/video recording devices installed both within and
     outside of the University of California Irvine Police
     Department Building located at 410 East Peltason Drive,
     Irvine, CA on or after September 1, 2013.

After considering the parties' briefing, hearing oral argument,
and taking the matter under submission, the Court concludes that
Plaintiffs cannot satisfy either the requirements of Rule 23(a) or
23(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiffs Federated University Police Officers' Association and
Andrew Lopez filed the Motion.  Defendants The Regents of the
University of California, Police Chief Paul Henisey, and Assistant
Police Chief Jeffrey Hutchison opposed the Motion.

The Plaintiffs' second amended complaint states that the dispute
arises out of the alleged surreptitious and non-consensual audio
and video recording of confidential communications involving the
Plaintiffs and similarly situated class members by the Defendants.
The SAC states these causes of action: (1) violations of The
Wiretap Act, (2) a Section 1983 claim for violations of the Fourth
Amendment and federal statutes, (3) violations of the California
Invasion of Privacy Act, and (4) for invasion of privacy under the
California Constitution.

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


UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Among Sued Over Retirement Plan Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tara Siegel Bernardaug, writing for The New York Times, reports
that more leading universities have been sued on claims that their
retirement plans charged employees excessive fees, following a
series of similar suits filed earlier.

In the latest round, complaints were filed in various federal
courts on behalf of employees at Duke, Johns Hopkins, the
University of Pennsylvania and Vanderbilt.  The earlier lawsuits
were filed against the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
New York University and Yale on Aug. 9.  All of the complaints
seek class-action status.

Jerome J. Schlichter, a lawyer well known for his pioneering
litigation in the world of 401(k) retirement plans, is
representing the plaintiffs.  But with these suits, the spotlight
has shifted to a more obscure corner of the retirement savings
market, 403(b) plans, which are similar to 401(k) plans but are
typically offered by public schools and nonprofit institutions
like universities and hospitals.

All of the suits, including the latest four, share similar
overarching themes: The universities all used more than one
provider, known as a record keeper, to operate their plans and
perform the administrative services to keep them running.  Had
they consolidated to one provider, the plaintiffs claim, they
could have used their bargaining power to negotiate much lower
fees.  Instead, the suits allege, the plans overpaid millions of
dollars each year.

The complaints also argue that the plans sponsored by the
universities offered far too many investment options -- many of
which were too expensive -- when cheaper alternatives were
available.  It also argued that the long lists of investments
served only to confuse investors.

For instance, Duke, which had $4.7 billion in assets held by
nearly 38,000 participants at the end of 2014, used four providers
(TIAA, Vanguard, Fidelity and Valic), offering 400 investment
choices.

In response to the suit, Michael J. Schoenfeld, Duke's vice
president for public affairs and government relations, said the
university offered a range of options to give employees more
flexibility.  Those investments, he added, "are reviewed and
carefully managed in accord with federal law to provide low costs
and good outcomes."

Vanderbilt, which had $3.4 billion in assets and nearly 42,000
participants at the end of 2014, used the same four providers,
offering 340 investment options, until April 2015. At that time,
it consolidated to Fidelity and shrank its plan menu to a core set
of 14 investment options, according to the suit, which argues that
the changes should have come many years earlier.  In addition, the
complaint claims that the university continues to pay too much for
record keeping.

The suit also notes that Vanderbilt admitted that its older plan
structure had caused employees to pay unreasonable record-keeping
and investment fees.

Beth Fortune, Vanderbilt's vice chancellor for public affairs,
said that the university had not yet been served with the
complaint and needed more time to respond.

Johns Hopkins, with $4.3 billion in assets, offered more than 440
funds from its plan's five record keepers.  In January, it reduced
the number to three; the complaint argues that the changes did not
go far enough.

A spokeswoman said the university offers its employees "a generous
and carefully managed benefits program, including for retirement,"
and is in the process of reviewing the lawsuit.

A spokeswoman for the University of Pennsylvania, with $3.8
billion in assets at year-end 2014, said it employed a rigorous
process to review all investment options, and ensured they were
administered with the highest degree of care and prudence; she
said the university planned to defend itself vigorously.


VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Exorbitant Retirement Plan Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Tamburin, writing for The Tennessean, reports that a national
law firm on Aug. 10 filed a class-action lawsuit against
Vanderbilt University, saying the university mismanaged employee
retirement plans and allowed plan managers to charge exorbitant
fees.

The suit, Loren L. Cassell et al. v. Vanderbilt University et al.,
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee by the St. Louis-based firm Schlichter, Bogard & Denton.
The same firm filed similar lawsuits on behalf of employees
against Massachusetts Institute of Technology, New York
University, Yale University, Duke University and the University of
Pennsylvania.

"We allege that Vanderbilt University has breached its fiduciary
duties under the law," Jerry Schlichter, the attorney for the
plaintiffs, said in a statement.  "Employees and retirees at
universities are entitled to protection from unreasonably high
fees and unsuitable retirement plan offerings."

A spokeswoman for Vanderbilt said the university's attorneys had
not received the filing by Aug. 10 and declined to comment.

The 89-page complaint alleges that employees participating in
Vanderbilt's 403(b) plan -- which is similar to a 401(k) -- paid
millions of dollars for administrative and investment services, in
part because it worked with multiple firms to provide
administrative services for the retirement plan prior to
April 2015.  Vanderbilt transitioned to a single firm, Fidelity
Investments, in April 2015 after an internal review by a
retirement plan oversight committee.

The complaint also alleges that Vanderbilt selected costly,
low-performing investment options and failed to review them before
2015.  University literature touting the 2015 transition to a
"streamlined" plan said monitoring fund performance was a "top
priority" that the oversight committee would take on.

The suit asks for Vanderbilt to restore money employees lost due
to "excessive" fees and retirement plan mismanagement.

The law firm handling the suit has become a dominant voice in the
debate over fees for retirement plans.

Schlichter, Bogard & Denton has filed more than 20 similar
complaints and gotten nine settlements for employees, according to
a statement.  In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled on the firm's
Tibble v. Edison case, saying in a unanimous decision that workers
could sue when their retirement plans offered investments with
excessive fees or when employers failed to adequately monitor
investment fund performance.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Protective Order Issued on 2.0 Liter Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2672 CRB
(JSC), (N.D. Calif.), District Judge Charles R. Breyer entered a
protective order to maintain the confidentiality of any personal
identifying information (PII) contained in the Public Comments in
resolving certain claims related to the Defendants' certain 2.0
liter diesel vehicles.

The case involves the United States' proposed settlement with the
Defendants, where in light of the public comment process, the
United States has received many comments from members of the
public and affected vehicle owners and lessees ("Public Comments")
that bear on the terms of the United States/California, Federal
Trade Commission (FTC) and Plaintiffs' Steering Committee (PSC)
proposed settlements.

Based on the circumstance, the Court ordered that no person having
access to the Public Comments shall make public disclosure of any
information contained in the Public Comments without its order or
agreement among the Parties. The Court added that nothing shall
restrict the United States in its authorized use of the
information contained in the Public Comments subject to the Order,
including making any Public Comments available to the general
public and to the Court in a subsequent motion relating to the
United States'/California's proposed settlement. Any person found
to be in violation of the Order is subject to the imposition of
sanctions.

A copy of the Court's Order dated August 17, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/aJlzHpfrom Leagle.com.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Defendants, represented
by Amie Adelia Vague -- avague@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot
Franklin & White, Casey Erin Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J. Baker, III -- cbaker@wcsr.com --
Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker -
chtuckler@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker &
Gable, Dana Woodrum Lang -- dlang@wcsr.com -- Womble Carlyle
Sandridge and Rice, David M. Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com -
- Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, LLC, Elizabeth L. Deeley --
elizabeth.deeley@kirkland.com
-- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Harlan Irby Prater, IV --
hprater@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin & White LLC, Henry
Buist Smythe, Jr. -- HSmythe@wcsr.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge
and Rice, Howard Feller -- hfeller@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuireWoods LLP, Hugh J. Bode -- hbode@reminger.com -- Reminger &
Reminger Co LPA, J. Randolph Bibb, Jr. -- rbibb@lewisthomason.com
-- Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., James K. Toohey -
- tooheyj@jbltd.com -- Johns & Bell LTD, Jeffrey L. Chase --
JChase@herzfeld-rubin.com -- Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rufin LLC,
Jennifer Marino Thibodaux -- jthibodaux@gibbonslaw.com -- Gibbons
PC, John W. Cowden -- cowden@bscr-law.com -- Baker, Sterchi,
Cowden & Ric, LLC-KCMO, John W. Cowden, Baker Sterchi Cowden and
Rice LLC, John L. Hone
-- jhone@lhlegal.com -- Lipshultz and Hone Chtd, John H. Tucker,
Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Kerry R. Lewis --
klewis@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable,
Kurt E. Lindquist II, -- klindquist@wcsr.com --  Womble Carlyle
Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, LARRY M. ROTH -- lroth@rumberger.com --
Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, PA, Michael D. Begey --
mbegey@rumberger.com -- Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, PA, Michael R.
McDonald -- mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com -- Gibbons PC, Natalie Marie
Lefkowitz -- NLefkowitz@herzfeld-rubin.com -- Chase Kurshan
Herzfeld & Rubin LLC, Ronald G. DeWald, Lipshultz and Hone Chtd,
Russ Ferguson, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice LLP, Ryan Nelson
Clark -- rclark@lewisthomason.com -- Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg
& Waldrop, P.C., Sara Anne Ford -- sford@lightfootlaw.com --
LIGHTFOOT FRANKLIN & WHITE LLC, Seth Abram Schaeffer --
sschaeffer@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Thomas R. Valen -
- tvalen@gibbonslaw.com -- Gibbons PC, William L. Boesch, Sugarman
Rogers Barshak & Cohen, Allison Rachel McLaughlin, Wheeler Trigg
O'Donnell LLP, Andrew Brian Clubok -- andrew.clubok@kirkland.com -
- Kirkland & Ellis, pro hac vice, Andrew R. Levin, Esq. --
levin@srbc.com -- Sugarman Rogers Barshak & Cohen, PC, Andrew G.
Schultz -- aschultz@rodey.com -- RODEY, DICKASON, SLOAN, AKIN &
ROBB, P. A., Anne Katherine Guillory -- anne.guillory@dinsmore.com
-- Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, April L. Watson -- awatson@sessions-
law.com -- Sessions, Fishman & Nathan, Blake Adam Gansborg --
gansborg@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP, Brian C.
Langs -- langsb@jbltd.com -- Johnson & Bell LTD, C. Vernon
Hartline, Jr. -- vhartline@hdbdlaw.com -- Hartline Dacus Barger
Dreyer LLP, pro hac vice, Caroline M. Tinsley -- tinsley@bscr-
law.com -- BAKER AND STERCHI, LLC, Charles William McIntyre, Jr. -
- cmcintyre@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Christine
Kingston -- christine.kingston@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins
Riley & Scarborough LLP, Christopher Edward Tribe --
ctrible@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP Gateway Plaza, Dan R.
Larsen -- larsen.dan@dorsey.com -- Dorsey and Whitney LLP, Darrell
L. Barger -- dbarger@hdbdlaw.com -- Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer
LLP, David L. Ayers -- dayers@watkinseager.com -- Watkins and
Eager PLLC, David A. Barry, Esq. -- barry@srbc.com -- Sugarman
Rogers Barshak & Cohen, David N. May, Bradshaw Fowler Proctor &
Fairgrove, David T. Schaefer, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Edward W.
Hearn -- hearne@jbltd.com -- JOHNSON & BELL, PC, Elizabeth Righton
Johnson, Balch & Bingham LLP-Atl, Eric R. Burris --
eburris@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Gail Ponder
Gaines, Barber Law Firm PLLC, Garrett L. Boehm, Jr.
-- boehmg@jbltd.com -- Johnson & Bell LTD, George Robert Painter
IV -- painterg@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, pro hac
vice, Harlan I. Prater, IV -- hprater@lightfootlaw.com --
Lightfoot, Franklin & White, Hugh Brown McNatt, McNatt, Greene &
Peterson, James L. Hollis, Balch & Bingham, Jeffrey L. Chase,
Herzfeld & Rubin PC, Jimmy B. Wilkins -- jwilkins@watkinseager.com
-- WATKINS & EAGER, Jo E. Peifer -- jpeifer@lavin-law.com --
Lavin, O'Neil, Ricci, Cedrone & DiSipio, John David Ayers --
jayers@watkinseager.com -- WATKINS & EAGER, PLLC, John Alan Knox -
- jknox@williamskastner.com -- Williams Kastner & Gibbs, John
Garrett McCarthy -- mccarthyj@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and
Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan M. Hoffman --
jhoffman@mblglaw.com -- MB Law Group, LLP, Joy Goldberg Braun --
jbraun@sessions-law.com -- Sessions, Fishman, Nathan & Israel,
Kenneth Abrams -- kabrams@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LLP,
Kevin P. Polansky -- kevin.polansky@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson
Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, Laura Kabler Oswell --
oswelll@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, M. David Possick
-- possickmd@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, pro hac
vice, Mark A. Weissman -- MWeissman@herzfeld-rubin.com -- Herzfeld
& Rubin, P.C., pro hac vice, Mary E. Bolkcom, Hanson Bolkcom Law
Group, Ltd., Melissa Fletcher Allaman --
melissa.allaman@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson, Mullins, Riley &
Scarborough, LLP, Meredith J. McKee -- mmckee@wcsr.com -- Womble
Carlyle Sandridge & RIice, PLLC, Meredith J. McKee, Womble Carlyle
Sandridge & Rice, Michael Thad Allen -- mallen@daypitney.com --
Day Pitney LLP, Michael B. Gallub -- MGallub@herzfeld-rubin.com --
Herzfeld and Rubin, pro hac vice, Michael E. Hale --
mhale@barberlawfirm.com -- Barber Law Firm PLLC, Michael L.
O'Donnell -- odonnell@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell,
LLP, Michael H. Steinberg -- steinbergm@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan &
Cromwell, LLP, Michael A. Yoshida, MB Law Group, LLP, Mickey W.
Greene, Hanson Bolkcom Law Group, Ltd., Miranda Hanley, Smith
Welch Webb & White, LLC, Ningur Akoglu -- NAkoglu@herzfeld-
rubin.com -- Herzfeld & Rubin PC, Patricia Rodriguez Britton --
patricia.britton@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley
Scarborough LLP, Patrick Demetrios Grindlay, Paul E. D. Darsow,
Hanson Bolkcom Law Group, Ltd., Paul D. Williams --
pdwilliams@daypitney.com -- Day Pitney LLP, Richard White Crews,
Jr. -- rcrews@hdbdlaw.com -- Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP,
Righton Johnson, Robert J. Giuffra, Jr. -- giuffrar@sullcrom.com -
- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, Ryan A. Morrison --
ryan.morrison@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Sarah Motley
Stone -- sstone@wcsr.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC,
Sharon L. Nelles -- nelless@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell
LLP, pro hac vice, Shawn P. George -- sroberts@mcguirewoods.com --
George & Lorensen, Stanley Abbott Roberts, McGuireWoods LLP,
Stuart A. Drake -- stuart.drake@kirkland.com -- Kirkland and Ellis
LLP, pro hac vice, Suhana S. Han -- hans@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan
and Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, Thomas R. Ferguson, III --
rferguson@wcsr.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC,
Thomas W. Purcell, MB Law Group LLP & William B. Monahan --
monahanw@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Fleshman Can't Intervene, Court Says
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2672 CRB
(JSC), N.D. Calif., District Judge Charles R. Breyer denied Ronald
Clark Fleshman Jr.'s request to intervene against the settlement
of claims related to the Defendants' 2.0 liter diesel vehicles,
which deal was preliminarily approved by the Court.

The case involves Volkswagen which sold consumers nearly 500,000
Volkswagen- and Audi-branded turbocharged direct injection ("TDI")
diesel engine vehicles that were secretly installed with a defeat
device-software designed to cheat federal and state emissions
regulations and test procedures. Fleshman belongs to one of
hundreds of members of putative class actions against Volkswagen.

The Court ruled that Fleshman failed to show in his arguments that
the Consumer Class Action and the Settlement practically impair
his interests and failed to meet the requirements of intervention
as a matter of right, based on his belief of the "prior exclusive
jurisdiction" doctrine. The Court ruled that the doctrine is not
applicable in the case. The prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine
applies when the parallel state and federal actions are in rem or
quasi in rem, however, both the multidistrict litigation (MDL) and
the Virginia action, which Fleshman purports to represent, are in
personam. Moreover, the MDL Consolidated Consumer Class Action
precedes Fleshman's Virginia action, which further negates the
doctrine, therefore, warrants a dismissal of his claim.

The Court then noted that, in any event, Fleshman does not need to
intervene to object to the Settlement. If he does not opt out of
the Settlement, the Court will consider his objections provided he
submits them by September 16, 2016 as is required of all other
class members.

A copy of the Court's Decision dated August 17, 2016 is available
at http://goo.gl/f1UpCvfrom Leagle.com.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Defendants, represented
by Amie Adelia Vague -- avague@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot
Franklin & White, Casey Erin Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J. Baker, III - cbaker@wcsr.com --
Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker -
chtuckler@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker &
Gable, Dana Woodrum Lang -- dlang@wcsr.com -- Womble Carlyle
Sandridge and Rice, David M. Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com -
- Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, LLC, Elizabeth L. Deeley --
elizabeth.deeley@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Harlan Irby
Prater, IV -- hprater@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin &
White LLC, Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. -- HSmythe@wcsr.com -- Womble
Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller --
hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Hugh J. Bode --
hbode@reminger.com -- Reminger & Reminger Co LPA, J. Randolph
Bibb, Jr. -- rbibb@lewisthomason.com -- Lewis, Thomason, King,
Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., James K. Toohey -- tooheyj@jbltd.com --
Johns & Bell LTD, Jeffrey L. Chase -- JChase@herzfeld-rubin.com --
Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rufin LLC, Jennifer Marino Thibodaux --
jthibodaux@gibbonslaw.com -- Gibbons PC, John W. Cowden --
cowden@bscr-law.com -- Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Ric, LLC-KCMO,
John W. Cowden, Baker Sterchi Cowden and Rice LLC, John L. Hone --
jhone@lhlegal.com -- Lipshultz and Hone Chtd, John H. Tucker,
Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Kerry R. Lewis -
klewis@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable,
Kurt E. Lindquist II, -- klindquist@wcsr.com --  Womble Carlyle
Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, LARRY M. ROTH -- lroth@rumberger.com --
Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, PA, Michael D. Begey --
mbegey@rumberger.com -- Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, PA, Michael R.
McDonald -- mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com -- Gibbons PC, Natalie Marie
Lefkowitz -- NLefkowitz@herzfeld-rubin.com -- Chase Kurshan
Herzfeld & Rubin LLC, Ronald G. DeWald, Lipshultz and Hone Chtd,
Russ Ferguson, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice LLP, Ryan Nelson
Clark -- rclark@lewisthomason.com -- Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg
& Waldrop, P.C., Sara Anne Ford -- sford@lightfootlaw.com --
LIGHTFOOT FRANKLIN & WHITE LLC, Seth Abram Schaeffer --
sschaeffer@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Thomas R. Valen -
- tvalen@gibbonslaw.com -- Gibbons PC, William L. Boesch, Sugarman
Rogers Barshak & Cohen, Allison Rachel McLaughlin, Wheeler Trigg
O'Donnell LLP, Andrew Brian Clubok -- andrew.clubok@kirkland.com -
- Kirkland & Ellis, pro hac vice, Andrew R. Levin, Esq. --
levin@srbc.com -- Sugarman Rogers Barshak & Cohen, PC, Andrew G.
Schultz -- aschultz@rodey.com -- RODEY, DICKASON, SLOAN, AKIN &
ROBB, P. A., Anne Katherine Guillory -- anne.guillory@dinsmore.com
-- Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, April L. Watson -- awatson@sessions-
law.com -- Sessions, Fishman & Nathan, Blake Adam Gansborg --
gansborg@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP, Brian C.
Langs -- langsb@jbltd.com -- Johnson & Bell LTD, C. Vernon
Hartline, Jr. -- vhartline@hdbdlaw.com -- Hartline Dacus Barger
Dreyer LLP, pro hac vice, Caroline M. Tinsley -- tinsley@bscr-
law.com -- BAKER AND STERCHI, LLC, Charles William McIntyre, Jr. -
- cmcintyre@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Christine
Kingston -- christine.kingston@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins
Riley & Scarborough LLP, Christopher Edward Tribe --
ctrible@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP Gateway Plaza, Dan R.
Larsen -- larsen.dan@dorsey.com -- Dorsey and Whitney LLP, Darrell
L. Barger -- dbarger@hdbdlaw.com -- Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer
LLP, David L. Ayers -- dayers@watkinseager.com -- Watkins and
Eager PLLC, David A. Barry, Esq. -- barry@srbc.com -- Sugarman
Rogers Barshak & Cohen, David N. May, Bradshaw Fowler Proctor &
Fairgrove, David T. Schaefer, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Edward W.
Hearn -- hearne@jbltd.com -- JOHNSON & BELL, PC, Elizabeth Righton
Johnson, Balch & Bingham LLP-Atl, Eric R. Burris --
eburris@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Gail Ponder
Gaines, Barber Law Firm PLLC, Garrett L. Boehm, Jr. --
boehmg@jbltd.com -- Johnson & Bell LTD, George Robert Painter IV -
- painterg@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, pro hac
vice, Harlan I. Prater, IV -- hprater@lightfootlaw.com --
Lightfoot, Franklin & White, Hugh Brown McNatt, McNatt, Greene &
Peterson, James L. Hollis, Balch & Bingham, Jeffrey L. Chase,
Herzfeld & Rubin PC, Jimmy B. Wilkins -- jwilkins@watkinseager.com
-- WATKINS & EAGER, Jo E. Peifer -- jpeifer@lavin-law.com --
Lavin, O'Neil, Ricci, Cedrone & DiSipio, John David Ayers --
jayers@watkinseager.com -- WATKINS & EAGER, PLLC, John Alan Knox -
- jknox@williamskastner.com -- Williams Kastner & Gibbs, John
Garrett McCarthy -- mccarthyj@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and
Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan M. Hoffman --
jhoffman@mblglaw.com -- MB Law Group, LLP, Joy Goldberg Braun --
jbraun@sessions-law.com -- Sessions, Fishman, Nathan & Israel,
Kenneth Abrams -- kabrams@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LLP,
Kevin P. Polansky -- kevin.polansky@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson
Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, Laura Kabler Oswell --
oswelll@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, M. David Possick
-- possickmd@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, pro hac
vice, Mark A. Weissman -- MWeissman@herzfeld-rubin.com -- Herzfeld
& Rubin, P.C., pro hac vice, Mary E. Bolkcom, Hanson Bolkcom Law
Group, Ltd., Melissa Fletcher Allaman --
melissa.allaman@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson, Mullins, Riley &
Scarborough, LLP, Meredith J. McKee -- mmckee@wcsr.com -- Womble
Carlyle Sandridge & RIice, PLLC, Meredith J. McKee, Womble Carlyle
Sandridge & Rice, Michael Thad Allen -- mallen@daypitney.com --
Day Pitney LLP, Michael B. Gallub -- MGallub@herzfeld-rubin.com --
Herzfeld and Rubin, pro hac vice, Michael E. Hale --
mhale@barberlawfirm.com -- Barber Law Firm PLLC, Michael L.
O'Donnell -- odonnell@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell,
LLP, Michael H. Steinberg -- steinbergm@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan &
Cromwell, LLP, Michael A. Yoshida, MB Law Group, LLP, Mickey W.
Greene, Hanson Bolkcom Law Group, Ltd., Miranda Hanley, Smith
Welch Webb & White, LLC, Ningur Akoglu -- NAkoglu@herzfeld-
rubin.com -- Herzfeld & Rubin PC, Patricia Rodriguez Britton --
patricia.britton@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley
Scarborough LLP, Patrick Demetrios Grindlay, Paul E. D. Darsow,
Hanson Bolkcom Law Group, Ltd., Paul D. Williams --
pdwilliams@daypitney.com -- Day Pitney LLP, Richard White Crews,
Jr. -- rcrews@hdbdlaw.com -- Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP,
Righton Johnson, Robert J. Giuffra, Jr. -- giuffrar@sullcrom.com -
- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, Ryan A. Morrison --
ryan.morrison@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Sarah Motley
Stone -- sstone@wcsr.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC,
Sharon L. Nelles -- nelless@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell
LLP, pro hac vice, Shawn P. George -- sroberts@mcguirewoods.com --
George & Lorensen, Stanley Abbott Roberts, McGuireWoods LLP,
Stuart A. Drake -- stuart.drake@kirkland.com -- Kirkland and Ellis
LLP, pro hac vice, Suhana S. Han -- hans@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan
and Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, Thomas R. Ferguson, III --
rferguson@wcsr.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC,
Thomas W. Purcell, MB Law Group LLP & William B. Monahan --
monahanw@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Plaintiffs Lawyers' Fees Not to Exceed $324 Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that lead plaintiffs
lawyers who crafted a $14.7 billion settlement with Volkswagen
A.G. over its emissions scandal have told a federal judge that
they won't ask for more than $324 million.

In an Aug. 11 filing, the lawyers said they hadn't yet reached a
deal on fees with Volkswagen but noted it would be "far below" the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's benchmark of 25
percent, which could give them more than $3.5 billion.

"But this is not an ordinary case, this is not an ordinary
settlement, and this will not be an ordinary fee request," wrote
lead counsel Elizabeth Cabraser, a partner at Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein.

The fee estimate, for 22 law firms appointed to the plaintiffs
steering committee, also includes no more than $8.5 million in
costs.  Plaintiffs lawyers acknowledged that settlement
negotiations were a "team effort" given the role that government
regulators played.

But their estimate is much more than the $200 million fees
requested -- and later awarded -- to the 31 firms that led a 2013
settlement of consumers of Toyota Motor Corp. who sued over
sudden-acceleration defects.

In an emailed statement, Ms. Cabraser called the Volkswagen deal a
"landmark settlement."

"This was achieved with the leadership of attorneys at more than
20 law firms who worked thousands of hours litigating the case and
negotiating one of the largest class action settlements in U.S.
history," she wrote. "Any prospective legal fees -- which are
subject to the approval of the court -- are in addition to the
$14.7 billion Volkswagen has already agreed to pay under the terms
of its settlement agreements, and will not be deducted from any
class member's recovery amount."

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, who preliminarily approved the
Volkswagen settlement last month, has scheduled a final approval
hearing for Oct. 18.

Under the settlement, reached on June 28, Volkswagen agreed to
provide $10 billion in buybacks, lease terminations, repairs and
cash payments to owners and lessees of about 475,000 two-liter
diesel vehicles that now have a "defeat device" installed to cheat
emissions tests.  Another $2.7 billion will go toward a mitigation
trust that would fund environmental remediation projects, while $2
billion would be earmarked for investments in zero-emissions
technology.

But the fee request promises to be a challenge ahead. In
settlement papers, plaintiffs lawyers had indicated they wouldn't
even start negotiating fees until Aug. 12 if no deal had been
reached for 85,000 owners and lessees of three-liter diesel
vehicles. The fee negotiations also could end up in litigation.
The settlement included the provision: "Volkswagen reserves all
rights to object to an award of attorney's fees and/or costs
beyond what it believes to be reasonable."

Regarding the Aug. 10 filing, Volkswagen spokeswoman Jeannine
Ginivan said in an emailed statement:  "Volkswagen is prepared to
pay attorneys' fees that reasonably reflect the work the
plaintiffs' steering committee has undertaken in connection with
the 2.0L TDI settlement program.  Ultimately, it will be for the
court to decide what is reasonable."

The settlement excludes potentially $18 billion in Clean Water Act
penalties, criminal penalties, shareholder cases, lawsuits in
foreign countries and claims by owners.

Class members have until Sept. 16 to object to the settlement.
Earlier this month, at least 11 advocacy groups lodged complaints
with the U.S. Department of Justice over aspects of the deal
pertaining to zero-emissions technology investments and
environmental mitigation.


WALGREENS BOOTS: 7th Circuit Tosses Shareholder Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that
calling the lawsuit an example of a "racket" aimed at merging
companies, a federal appeals panel in Chicago has tossed out a
settlement intended to end a shareholder class action brought over
the Walgreens Boots Alliance merger, saying the lawsuit and
related settlement did nothing more than contribute a quick
$370,000 payment to the plaintiffs' lawyers.

On Aug. 10, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court
of Appeals overturned a federal district judge's decision to
approve the settlement between Walgreens and a group of
shareholders, led by named plaintiff investor John Hays and
represented by several law firms, including Pomerantz LLP, of
Chicago and New York; DiTomasso Lubin P.C., of Oakbrook Terrace;
Friedman Oster PLLC, of New York; Law Office of Alfred G. Yates
Jr. P.C., of Pittsburgh; and Levi & Korsinsky LLP, of New York.

"The only concrete interest suggested by this litigation is an
interest in attorneys' fees, which of course accrue solely to
class counsel and not to any class members," wrote Judge Richard
Posner, who authored the panel's unanimous opinion.

Seventh Circuit Judge Diane S. Sykes and U.S. District Judge Staci
M. Yandle concurred in the opinion.

The litigation landed before the Seventh Circuit after U.S.
District Judge Joan B. Gottschall approved the settlement in
November 2015, over several objections to the deal from other
Walgreens shareholder.

Mr. Hays had first filed suit in late 2014, asserting Walgreens
had not disclosed enough information to help its shareholders case
knowledgeable votes on the proposed merger of Walgreens with
European retail pharmacy operator Alliance Boots.

Among other subjects, Mr. Hays and his co-plaintiffs said they had
sought more information concerning: the company's handling of a
defamation lawsuit brought in the fall of 2014 by Walgreen's
former chief financial officer Wade Miquelon; the ascent of
billionaire investor Stefano Pessina to the position of CEO of the
new combined company; and the role played by certain "activist"
investors, identified in court documents as the JANA Partners LLC
hedge fund, in spurring and consummating the merger, and in the
process, acquiring allegedly outsized representation on the
company's board, relative to the proportion of the shares held by
the hedge fund investors.

In the proposed settlement to end the litigation, Walgreens agreed
to make certain disclosures, ostensibly to satisfy the concerns
spelled out in Hays' complaint.  And the drug store chain agreed
to pay $370,000 to the lawyers representing Hays and the other
plaintiffs.

However, the settlement was challenged by the Competitive
Enterprise Institute, which represented John Berlau, a Walgreens
stockholder who had objected to the settlement.  The Washington,
D.C.-based CEI describes itself as a "nonprofit public policy
organization dedicated to advancing the principles of limited
government, free enterprise and individual liberty."  Among other
ventures, the CEI operates the Center for Class Action Fairness,
which has filed objections to numerous class action settlements
its leaders believe unfairly benefit plaintiffs' lawyers who may
earn large fees, compared to purportedly nominal awards for class
members.

Mr. Berlau is also listed as a "senior fellow" at the CEI.

Appealing Judge Gottschall's decision to approve the settlement,
CEI argued the disclosures provided by Walgreens under the
settlement were "trivial" and did not meet the legal standard
needed to justify the accompanying payment to the plaintiffs'
lawyers.

They pointed to the standard spelled out in a decision in Delaware
in the litigation surrounding the merger of online real estate
sites Trulia and Zillow, in which the court there said it would
start to demand informational disclosures be "plainly material" to
the demands of the shareholders who had filed suit.

CEI lawyer Ted Frank argued, in light of this standard, "nominal
disclosures" should merit "nominal fees."

The Seventh Circuit judges echoed CEI's position, saying they
believed Walgreens' additional disclosures under the settlement
added little to nothing to shareholders' knowledge of the Boots
merger, and wasn't worth the $370,000 payment.

"The value of the disclosures in this case appears to have been
nil," Judge Posner wrote.  "The $370,000 paid class counsel --
pennies to Walgreens, amounting to 0.039 cents per share at the
time of the merger-bought nothing of value for the shareholders,
though it spared the new company having to defend itself against a
meritless suit to void the shareholder vote."

The CEI in its arguments had said the Walgreens shareholder suit
was just the latest example of a problem plaguing corporate
mergers in courthouses across the country, with lawyers attempting
to extract a quick payday in exchange for minimal to no benefit
for the class of plaintiffs they claim to represent.

Judge Posner largely agreed, saying the disclosures fell well
short of being "plainly material," as called for in the Trulia
decision.

"The type of class action illustrated by this case -- the class
action that yields fees for class counsel and nothing for the
class -- is no better than a racket," the judge said.  "It must
end.  No class action settlement that yields zero benefits for the
class should be approved, and a class action that seeks only
worthless benefits for the class should be dismissed out of hand."

The panel also remanded the case to Gottschall, instructing her to
"give serious consideration" to dismissing the lawsuit entirely or
ordering the plaintiffs' lawyers be replaced, as the current
counsel for the plaintiffs, "if one may judge from their
performance in this litigation, can't be trusted to represent the
interests of the class."

In response to the Seventh Circuit decision, CEI's Ted Frank, in a
prepared statement, said the ruling was "a tremendous victory for
shareholders and against rent-seeking."

"We hope other courts follow Delaware and the Seventh Circuit in
taking steps to shut down this racket," Mr. Frank said.


WARREN RESOURCES: Files Securities Fraud Class Action in Colorado
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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


WIDENER UNIVERSITY: Law Grads Lose Bid to Overturn Class Denial
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for Law.com, reports that a group of
Widener University School of Law graduates who claimed their alma
mater posted misleading employment data lost a federal appeals bid
on Aug. 10 that sought to overturn a denial of class
certification.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that class
certification was correctly rejected in a 2012 suit against the
law school, which has locations in Wilmington, Delaware, and
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.  Denying an interlocutory appeal by the
plaintiffs, the appeals court said the suit failed to establish
that common questions predominate over individual ones.

The suit originally filed by eight named plaintiffs is one of more
than a dozen brought against law schools nationwide in 2011 and
2012 over allegedly inflated placement statistics.  In March, a
state court jury in California found in favor of Thomas Jefferson
University School of Law after a trial in a similar case.

The suit argues that Widener's advertised postgraduate employment
rates of up to 93 percent between 2005 and 2011 failed to
distinguish between jobs requiring a law degree and nonlegal jobs.
The plaintiffs claim they paid higher tuition rates than the
school would be able to charge if accurate employment statistics
were published.

The appeals court withheld class certification after rejecting the
plaintiffs' classwide theory of damages.  The plaintiffs sought to
rely on economics expert Donald Martin, who said he would estimate
the extent to which Widener's misleading statistics inflated the
tuition, providing a classwide estimate of each class member's
damages.  He planned to do so by performing a regression analysis
of published tuition and employment statistics for 64 private law
schools.

Judge Michael Chagares, joined by Judges Cheryl Anne Krause and
Maryann Trump Barry, wrote that Martin's approach held some merit,
since law schools operate in a largely fixed-price market.
However, the price-inflation theory proposed by Martin had been
held insufficient for meeting the ascertainable loss and causal
relationship elements of the New Jersey and Delaware consumer
fraud claims pleaded in the complaint, the court said.

The plaintiffs argued on appeal that U.S. District Judge William
Walls of New Jersey wrongly attributed significance to the fact
that some Widener graduates do obtain full-time, legal employment,
meaning that they suffer little, if any, damage to their career
prospects.  The appeals court agreed with the plaintiffs that
students' individualized career outcomes are not at issue in the
case, but said the error was harmless.

The plaintiffs also argued on appeal that Walls erred by equating
their theory of liability with the noncognizable, "fraud on the
market" theory.  The appeals court said "fraud on the market" is
not the proper label for the plaintiffs' theory, but the theory
"belongs to the 'price-inflation' species that, like the fraud-on-
the-market theory, has been rejected by the New Jersey and
Delaware courts outside the federal securities fraud context."
Therefore, the plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that class issues
will predominate over individual ones because "the only class-wide
evidence of damages that they offer supports a non-cognizable
theory," the appeals court said.

Widener charges $43,650 per year in tuition to Juris Doctor
candidates.  The named plaintiffs in the suit include one who
works as a bartender because he had difficulty finding a legal
job, as well as another who was unemployed, as well as two
practicing attorneys, a government worker and a consultant.

David Stone -- DStone@stonemagnalaw.com -- of Stone & Magnanini in
Berkeley Heights, New Jersey, who represented the plaintiffs, said
in a statement that the appeals court appeared to agree with his
assertion that the district court made an erroneous analysis on
several points, but substituted its own analysis to affirm the
ruling.  He said he will study the decision and examine his
options, which include proceeding without a class.

In a statement, Widener said it is "pleased that the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals upheld the District Court ruling in this case.
Widener University has maintained all along that our law schools
are and have been in compliance with the standards established by
the American Bar Association and the National Association of Law
Placement in reporting employment rates for our graduates."

Thomas Quinn -- thomas.quinn@wilsonelser.com -- of Wilson Elser
Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker in Florham Park, New Jersey, who argued
for Widener, was on vacation and could not be reached.  Other
attorneys on Widener's team did not return calls, and the law
school did not respond to a request for comment about the ruling.


YALE UNIVERSITY: Employees Sue Over High Retirement Fund Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Stannard, writing for New Haven Register, reports that a
federal class-action lawsuit has been brought against Yale
University, charging that its Retirement Account Plan's fees and
expenses are too high, given the bargaining power of Yale's plan,
which has $3.6 billion in assets.

St. Louis-based attorney Jerome Schlichter brought the suit
against Yale on Aug. 9.  The New York Times reported he also filed
suit against the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and New
York University. His firm, Schlichter, Bogard and Denton, has
specialized in suing corporations, including similar lawsuits
claiming their retirement accounts charge excessive fees.

Yale spokeswoman Karen Peart said in an email, "The University has
not officially been served with the complaint.  We are cautious
and careful in administering our plans and we will defend
ourselves vigorously."

The Yale retirement plan is a 403(b) defined-contribution plan,
similar to 401(k) plans but offered by educational and nonprofit
institutions.  Defined-contribution plans are those in which the
employee and employer set aside money in a personal account that
can then be drawn on in retirement, unlike a defined-benefit plan,
in which the pension is based on years of service and has no
maximum payout.

According to the suit, filed in U.S. District Court in
Connecticut, "As fiduciaries to the Plan, Defendants are obligated
to act for the exclusive benefit of participants and beneficiaries
and to ensure that the Plan's expenses are reasonable and the
Plan's investments are prudent.  Because the marketplace for
retirement plan services is established and competitive, and
because the Plan has over $3 billion in assets, the Plan has
tremendous bargaining power to demand low-cost administrative and
investment management services."

However, rather than using the Yale plan's size to its advantage,
"Defendants caused the Plan to pay unreasonable and excessive fees
for recordkeeping, administrative, and investment services," the
complaint states.  "Further, Defendants also selected and retained
investment options for the Plan that historically and consistently
underperformed their benchmarks and charged excessive investment
management fees."

Yale's retirement plan is considered a "jumbo plan," according to
the lawsuit, and is in the top 1 percent of all plans in size,
with 16,487 participants as of June 30, 2014.

The six named plaintiffs are all employees of Yale University and
live in south-central Connecticut.  In addition to the university,
Michael Peel, Yale's vice president of human resources and
administration, is named as a defendant.

According to the complaint, Yale provides more than 115 mutual
funds or other investment products from TIAA-CREF and the Vanguard
Group.  In a phone interview with the Register,
Mr. Schlichter said "the vast number of funds is confusing to
people."  He said many funds are identical except for the fees
they charge, with some funds in a retail class that are not
usually offered by large institutions.

"In some cases, they're paying three or four times what an
institutional investor would pay," Mr. Schlichter said.

According to the lawsuit, "As a result, Plan participants lost
millions of dollars of their retirement assets and the earnings
those assets would have made."  A table included in the complaint
shows fees as high as 750 percent higher for retail funds than for
identical institutional funds.

Mr. Schlichter said Yale should have limited its offerings to
lower-cost institutional funds and not offered retail funds.

"Yale is well-known for its management of its endowment," he said.
"They don't have retail mutual funds in the endowment." Yale's
endowment, the second-largest among universities after Harvard's,
stood at $26.5 billion as of June 30, 2015.

Mr. Schlichter said another high cost came as the result of hiring
multiple record-keepers. "Last year, after having multiple record-
keepers for the plan, they consolidated to a single record-
keeper," he said.

According to the lawsuit, "the multi-recordkeeper platform is
inefficient.  It does not allow sponsors to leverage total plan
assets and receive appropriate pricing based on aggregate assets."

The suit claims an appropriate cost for record-keeping is between
$500,000 and $575,000 annually (about $35 per participant), but
the Yale plan paid between $3.8 million and $4.3 million ($200 to
$300 per year per investor) from 2010 to 2014.  That was 470
percent higher than a reasonable fee, according to the complaint.

"The impact of excessive fees on employees' and retirees'
retirement assets is dramatic," the lawsuit states.  "The U.S.
Department of Labor has noted that a 1% higher level of fees over
a 35-year period makes a 28% difference in retirement assets at
the end of a participant's career."

The suit also claims that Yale invested in underperforming mutual
funds.  For example, one of the retirement plan's largest holdings
at more than $700 million, the CREF Stock Account, "has, for
years, historically underperformed and continues to underperform
its benchmark and lower-cost actively and passively managed
investments that were available to the Plan."


ZAFGEN INC: Judge Tosses Drug Trial Fraud Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
John T. Aquino, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that Zafgen
Inc. dodged class action allegations that it didn't disclose
adverse events in a clinical trial of its obesity drug beloranib
when a federal district court dismissed the case Aug. 9, calling
the litigation "pleading fraud by hindsight" (Brennan v. Zafgen,
Inc. , 2016 BL 257594, D. Mass., Civil Action No. 15-13618-FDS,
8/9/16 ).

Shareholders in Boston-based Zafgen alleged in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts that public statements
prior to the report of a death during a beloranib clinical trial
had mentioned two "serious thrombotic events" during the trial. In
announcing the patient's death in October 2015 (9 LSLR 1161,
10/16/15), Zafgen then referenced four prior adverse events (AEs),
and the report of the death and this pattern of AEs caused
Zafgen's stock to fall 50 percent the next day, the plaintiffs
said.

The court concluded that the plaintiffs' complaint didn't
adequately allege that at the time of disclosure, Zafgen or its
executives knew or were reckless by not knowing that their failure
to provide additional information was misleading.

On July 19, Zafgen announced that it is refocusing its resources
on the development of a differentiated second-generation MetAP2
inhibitor, ZGN-1061, for treating severe and complicated obesity,
saying that ZGN-1061's opportunities are "more robust" for the
company than those of beloranib.  The Food and Drug Administration
has placed beloranib on a "clinical hold," suspending the study (9
LSLR 24, 12/11/15).

Alleged Defendants Knew of Risk

According to court records, before Zafgen became a public company
in June 2014, it conducted a phase II trial of beloranib from
August 2012 to May 2013.  In the prospectus for its 2014 initial
public offering, Zafgen disclosed that two "serious thrombotic
events" occurred during that trial.  Zafgen repeated that
disclosure multiple times from June 19, 2014, through Oct. 16,
2015, while a second clinical trial was in progress, and said that
serious AEs "that are not characterized by clinical investigators
as possibly related to beloranib or that occur in small numbers
may not be disclosed to the public" until the FDA approval
process.

During a conference call with analysts on the day it announced the
patient's death, Zafgen disclosed, for the first time, that two
"superficial" thrombotic AEs had occurred during the trial, in
addition to the two previously disclosed "serious" AEs. Zafgen's
stock price fell, and the litigation followed five days later.

The complaint against the company and its executives alleged that
Zafgen's disclosures contained materially false misrepresentations
and omissions.  It also alleged that the defendants made those
false disclosures with scienter, that is, with an intent to
defraud or a high degree of recklessness.  The complaint alleged
that, when the defendants made the statements, they knew or
recklessly disregarded "that there was a significant risk of
thrombotic adverse events in future clinical trials of Beloranib."

Events Look Different in Hindsight

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4.  They contended that the complaint
didn't set forth plausible allegations that Zafgen's disclosures
contain actionable misrepresentations or omissions and to allege
specific facts that give rise to a strong inference of scienter.

In an opinion authored by Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV, the court
cited the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit's ruling in
New Jersey Carpenters Pension & Annuity Funds v. Biogen IDEC, Inc.
2008 BL 164704, 537 F.3d 35, 45 (1st Cir. 2008). That ruling found
that a complaint is insufficient under the PSLRA if it doesn't
contain particularized factual allegations raising a strong
inference that at the time of disclosure defendants knew or were
reckless by not knowing that their failure to provide additional
information was misleading.

Judge Saylor also cited the First Circuit's ruling in Shaw v.
Digital Equip. Corp., 82 F.3d 1194, 1223 (1st Cir. 1996), that a
plaintiff may not simply rely on a "fraud by hindsight" theory of
scienter.

"Even assuming that the complaint plausibly alleges a material
misrepresentation or omission, its allegations as a whole fail to
clear the PSLRA's relatively high hurdle of pleading a strong
inference of scienter," Judge Saylor wrote.  "In hindsight, the
superficial thrombotic AEs that occurred during the clinical trial
perhaps took on added significance more than two years later when
a patient died during the Phase III trial."

The complaint didn't point to a single confidential-source
allegation, internal e-mail or any other direct evidence that
would suggest the company's chief executive officer knew or was
reckless in not knowing that there was a significant risk of
thrombotic adverse events in future clinical trials of beloranib,
Saylor wrote.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the complaint.

The plaintiffs were represented by Block & Leviton LLP, Boston;
Hurwitz, Richard & Sencabaugh LLP, Boston; the Rosen Law Firm,
Jenkintown, Pa., and Rob Levine & Associates, Providence, R.I.
Zafgen and the individual defendants were represented by Goodwin
Procter LLP, Boston.


* Class Action Possible Tool to Solve Administrative Backlog
------------------------------------------------------------
Brandi Lupo, writing for RegBlog, reports that the U.S.
administrative state is suffering a backlog crisis.  Veterans,
coal miners, and injured employees often wait years for the
government to review their claims.  Some regulation researchers
have called for increased funding and more administrative law
judges to clear the backlog.  Yet until agencies see a budgetary
windfall, they might be able to borrow from the court system an
increasingly used litigation tool: the class action.

A committee of the Administrative Conference of the United States
(ACUS), a federal agency dedicated to improving governmental
processes, thinks that class actions and other aggregation devices
constitute a creative solution to the backlog problem that is
worth considering.

Last summer, ACUS commissioned a project examining whether and how
class actions and other aggregation techniques might clear
administrative backlogs while still ensuring just outcomes.  The
project's lead consultants, Michael Sant'Ambrogio, a professor at
Michigan State University College of Law, and Adam Zimmerman, a
professor at Loyola Law School, recently released a final report
identifying when aggregation might be appropriate and what
challenges it presents.

The most well-known aggregation tool is the class action.  A class
action is a lawsuit where one or more individuals litigate as
representatives of a larger class of people.  If the class wins,
those who did not directly participate in the lawsuit still can be
bound to the decision.  Courts can also "informally aggregate"
related cases by consolidating them under one judge's
jurisdiction.  All forms of aggregation are supposed to save
resources by streamlining the fact-gathering process and setting
the parameters of liability.

Civil litigation in the courts follows fairly formal procedures.
For example, class actions are governed by Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.  All classes must meet a series of
rigorous requirements before the case can move forward.

Other forms of aggregation are also subject to federal statute and
multidistrict judicial panels.  While lawyers may seek out
jurisdictions with the most favorable local rules, federal rules
still dictate when consolidation may be appropriate.

In contrast with the federal courts, administrative agencies
federal law have only minimal procedural requirements for
aggregation.  Individual agencies "enjoy broad discretion to craft
procedures they deem 'necessary and appropriate' to adjudicate the
cases and claims that come before them," according to
Sant'Ambrogio and Zimmerman.  Even more, administrative agencies
are not subject to the Rules Enabling Act, which prohibits
traditional federal courts from prescribing procedural rules that
"abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right." Absent a
statutory prohibition or other signal from Congress, each
administrative agency may use the "best procedural format" for its
decision.

Some agencies are already experimenting with aggregate
adjudication.  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC),
the agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing federal
employment anti-discrimination laws, has established class actions
procedures modeled after Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  EEOC class actions empower administrative law judges
to "apply decisions to groups of claimants working for the same
employer" and find patterns of discrimination that might
"otherwise might escape detection in an individual proceeding."

At the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP),
special judges hold "omnibus proceedings" in which a single set of
adjudicators hear all claims arising from "the same general
scientific question of causation."  Consolidating cases under a
single adjudicator in this way allows for the question of whether
a vaccine causes a particular malady to be answered quickly and
definitively, and then applied uniformly across cases.

Still, neither of these programs has escaped concern.  Some EEOC
judges have apparently expressed worry about the due process
rights of absent class members and the adequacy of counsel.  At
the NVICP, some of the individuals who have sought claims have
alleged that certain judges are biased, and that difficult
scientific questions should not be solved in an "obscure vaccine
court."

To address questions of due process and legitimacy, Sant'Ambrogio
and Zimmerman offer a series of recommendations for agencies that
might be contemplating aggregation procedures.

One recommendation stresses the importance of defining when claims
are sufficiently similar to be handled through an aggregated
proceeding.  Currently, parties and agencies alike have no
mechanism for identifying common claims and issues. Sant'Ambrogio
and Zimmerman argue that by relying on the parties to identify
related claims, agencies can gain a better sense of the "nature
and identity of filed claims."  Even more, agencies could build
issue-coding techniques into their current docket databases.
Claimants could then filter through cases raising similar legal
questions and ask for an expedited case handling.

Because similar cases can be aggregated in a number of ways,
Sant'Ambrogio and Zimmerman also recommend that agencies develop
protocols for determining when each form of aggregation is best.
Formal aggregation procedures make most sense, they say, when
claims are "very 'common'" and the relief sought does not differ
much from claimant to claimant.  Yet as "claim values and interest
diverge," agencies have more than one option to protect parties'
due process rights.  Agencies could consider providing individuals
with the ability to opt out of a proceeding. Alternatively,
informal aggregation affords claimants more individualized
attention.  Agencies should consider the facts of each case, the
legal questions at issue, and the remedies sought, argue
Sant'Ambrogio and Zimmerman.

Since aggregate adjudication affects large groups of people,
agencies must recognize the impact these cases can have on their
rulemaking functions.  To that end, Sant'Ambrogio and Zimmerman
urge agencies to adopt systems that communicate when a policy
decision should be codified as a rule.  For example, Sant'Ambrogio
and Zimmerman suggest that administrative law judges be able to
issue an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking after large cases.
Such a notice would bring the adjudicatory decision into the
rulemaking sphere, inviting interested members of the public to
comment on whether the outcome should be codified in a new
regulation.

Finally, Sant'Ambrogio and Zimmerman praise the experimental
nature of aggregation in agencies.  For one, they argue that
Congress should continue "granting agencies broad discretion" on
rules of procedure and practice.  Agencies can then be flexible
and allow experience to mold their procedure.  The authors argue
that this yield of power will not unjustly remove power from
Congress.  Instead, Sant'Ambrogio and Zimmerman claim that
"aggregated cases will be more transparent to the political
branches" than individual adjudications, thereby increasing agency
accountability.

The committee recently adopted a final recommendation based on
Sant'Ambrogio and Zimmerman's report.


* Defense Bar Seeks Review of Plaintiff-Friendly Jury Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Seal, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that the
products liability defense bar and a group of national
manufacturers, concerned about what they view as a plaintiff-
friendly update to the suggested standard jury instructions, are
seeking reconsideration by the subcommittee that wrote them.  The
concern over the recently unveiled instructions marks the latest
front in a struggle over the future of products liability law in
Pennsylvania following the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's landmark
2014 ruling in Tincher v. Omega Flex.

Earlier this summer, the civil instructions subcommittee of the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Committee for Proposed Standard Jury
Instructions rolled out its first major overhaul to the products
liability jury charges in four decades. In a 10-page letter sent
last month to the subcommittee, members of the defense bar, along
with an alliance of manufacturers including Johnson & Johnson,
Pfizer Inc. and GlaxoSmithKline, urged the subcommittee to address
the ways in which it "veered sharply from the course that the
court plotted in Tincher."

Lee C. Swartz of Tucker Arensberg Attorneys, the subcommittee's
chair, said the review undertaken to publish the updated jury
instructions considered the plaintiffs and defense points of view,
as well as those of academics and the judiciary.  The
subcommittee, he said, will nonetheless take another look at the
instructions at its next meeting, expected to take place in
September.  Mr. Swartz said he could not recall a past instance of
the subcommittee, on which he has served for nearly 50 years,
being asked to reconsider its guidance.

The 56-page chapter of instructions, published by the Pennsylvania
Bar Institute and updated to be brought in line with Tincher,
covers everything from available defenses and duty to warn to
manufacturing and design defects.  But it departs significantly
from the modesty urged by the high court in Tincher, the July 7
letter said.

"The subcommittee has made what we consider to be questionable
predictions about multiple issues that Tincher deliberately
declined to decide," it said.

Chief among those issues, the defense bar said, is the update's
failure to include any mention of the requirement under Section
402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts that a product defect
must be "unreasonably dangerous" to support strict liability.  The
instructions are inconsistent with Tincher's adoption of the
"prevailing standard of proof" reflected in the jury instructions
of most states that follow Section 402A, and should be rewritten
to include an instruction on the issue, the letter said.

In addition to the Pennsylvania Defense Institute, the letter was
signed by the Product Liability Advisory Council and the American
Tort Reform Association.  Eight industry groups, including the
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the National Association of
Manufacturers and the Pennsylvania Chamber of Commerce, also
signed on.

Twenty companies joined the letter, including Eli Lilly and Co.,
Bayer, Omega Flex Inc., Ford Motor Co. and Shell Oil.  It also had
the support of 39 attorneys, including partners from Morgan, Lewis
& Bockius; Pepper Hamilton; Reed Smith; Dechert; and Eckert
Seamans Cherin & Mellott.

The letter further remarked on the "significant inconsistency"
found in the subcommittee's retention of the "every element"
defect test in Section 16.10(1), which the defense bar said
Tincher "expressly rejected," as well as the "troubling" approach
to Tincher's elimination of the separation of negligence and
strict liability concepts. On that topic, the letter said, the
subcommittee only followed Tincher's lead when it was beneficial
to plaintiffs.

"We agree that Tincher dissolved the prohibition against charging
the jury on negligence concepts in strict liability; however, we
believe that the court intended to level the playing field, so
that both sides can take equal advantage of such concepts," the
letter said.  "The current draft of the [instructions] does not
adequately or accurately reflect how negligence concepts affect
strict liability after Tincher."

The defense bar also found Section 16.122 of the new instructions
"particularly objectionable," in part because it deals the
exclusion of evidence on plaintiff fault and industry customs,
issues Tincher reserved for future decision.  The section should
be withdrawn in its entirety because of its inaccuracy, the letter
said.

William Ricci -- bricci@rtjglaw.com -- of Ricci Tyrrell Johnson &
Grey, who signed onto the letter as co-chair of the Pennsylvania
Defense Institute's products liability committee, said the updated
instructions make "improper and premature predictions and
assumptions" on issues Tincher suggested courts should decide.

In particular, Mr. Ricci said, the instructions ignore the reasons
why and the fact that the high court overturned its 1978 ruling in
Azzarello v. Black Brothers, which had guided products liability
law for nearly 40 years.  The Tincher court recommended the
patient development of the common law, but the subcommittee pre-
empted that evolution on a number of issues, Mr. Ricci said.
Plaintiffs attorney Larry Coben -- lcoben@anapolweiss.com -- of
Anapol Weiss said members of the defense bar are concerned with
the instructions because they had expected the high court's
overruling of Azzarello to swing a number of issues in their
favor.


* Italian Class Action Law Ineffective Despite Amendment
--------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Costello, Esq., of Baker & McKenzie, in an article for
Lexology, reports that a class action law was first enacted in
Italy in 2009 (Art. 49 of Law no. 99 of 23 July 2009, hereinafter
the "Class Action Law", in force as of 2010).  In 2012 the Class
Action Law was amended so as to expand its scope and so to protect
the contractual rights of a number of consumers and users that
find themselves in homogeneous situations (whereas the previous
wording required the situations to be identical), still according
to an opt-in scheme.

Nevertheless, even after the amendment, the class action has
proved, over the years, to be an ineffective instrument.  Even if
official data are not available, it is well known that to date
only 58 class actions have been brought before Courts since 2010
and just three of them actually reached a positive outcome for the
consumers.  The most important are the following:

   i. the class action against IntesaSanPaolo started in 2014
before the Turin Court by the consumer association Altroconsumo.
The Court finally ascertained that some overdraft charges applied
by the bank were unlawful and sentenced the latter to give them
back to the account holders.  However, due to the some formal
issues as regards the joining deeds, only 6 consumers were finally
compensated.

  ii. The action started by some consumers seeking compensation
for damages suffered a result of the cancellation of a holiday
package.  The Naples Court sentenced the tour operator Wecantur to
pay EUR3,600 for each consumer, but at the end nobody got his/her
money, as Wecantur went bankrupt.

The common problem with class actions lays with the requisite that
consumers have to be in a homogeneous situation.  Based on that,
most of the class actions have been dismissed in a very
preliminary stage as found to be not admissible under the Class
Action Law.  This was the case, for example, of some class actions
with a potential huge impact, as those started versus the State
owned broadcasting company (RAI TV), the navigation companies Moby
and Snav, and the railway company active in Lombardia, Trenord.

Recently, the Italian consumer associations scored a good point
for a class action brought against Volkswagen about the well known
case concerning the falsification of pollution tests of the diesel
vehicles.  Last June 16, 2016 the Venice Appeal Court, by
reversing a previous decision of the Venice First Degree Court,
admitted the class action concerning the Volkswagen vehicle model
Golf 1.6 HDI and opened the possibility for further consumers to
join the action.  Late in 2015, the Turing First Degree Court had
decreed the same outcome for the class action started still by
Altroconsumo against Fiat, as regards the falsification of the
pollution tests of the vehicle Panda third series 1.2.  So far
more than 20,000 consumers joined this last class action, which is
currently going through the merits stage.

Clearly, the main problems with the Class Action Law over past
years laid with the strict requisites concerning both the
definition of the enforceable rights, which needs to be
homogeneous, and the availability of the action to consumers only.

In 2015 the Italian government promoted a crucial reform of the
Class Action Law, which should become available to professionals,
to enforce any, contractual or non-contractual, homogeneous
rights, which are now defined in a less strict way.  Such a reform
has been approved by the House of Representatives and is currently
in wait for the final green light by the Senate.

It is common opinion that this new law should provide a strong
impulse to the class action in the future.


* Lawyers Call for Bipartisan Backing of Class Action Laws
----------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Coade, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that the legal
profession in Queensland has welcomed the news that class actions
may soon come before the state's courts.

Queensland lawyers have lauded a state government announcement
that legislation for a class action regime will come before the
Parliament later in August.  However, they have flagged that
without bipartisan backing of the legislation, the rights of
Queenslanders will continue to be hampered.

Michelle James, Queensland president of the Australian Lawyers
Alliance, said she expected a bipartisan approach for the new
regime, adding that it would be economically sensible.

"Legislation to permit class actions was introduced by the former
government after long consultation with key stakeholders.  It
makes sense for access to justice, and economically; so we expect
bipartisanship on the passage of the legislation," Ms. James said.

Andrew Watson, head of the class actions team at law firm Maurice
Blackburn, also stressed that both sides of government owed the
people of Queensland their support of the bill.

"Now Queenslanders will finally have the option to exercise their
rights to access greater avenues of justice in their home state,
just as those in NSW and Victoria can," Mr. Watson said.

Levitt Robinson Solicitors special counsel and class action lawyer
Brett Imlay also welcomed the news, highlighting a Productivity
Commission report released in 2014.  According to
Mr. Imlay, introducing a new regime in Queensland finally brings
protection to individuals who may find themselves engaged in a
dispute with government or big business.

"For far too long both the government and big business have been
able to stave off actions for their wrongdoing because individual
plaintiffs could not match the deep pockets of their opponents.

"This new legislation reflects the greater need for a class action
procedure to be available in Queensland, [taking] away this
imbalance and allowing individuals the opportunity to access
justice and take on large corporations, financial institutions and
government when they have been wronged in some way,"
Mr. Imlay said.

The new regime has been a long time coming for the sunshine state,
whose lack of applicable class actions laws has forced locals to
pursue class actions in other jurisdictions.  Victims who were
devastated by the 2011 Queensland floods recently filed a class
action in NSW.

In June, the state law society and bar association renewed its
push for laws to allow local class actions to be sought in
Queensland courts.  Queensland Law Society president Bill Potts
described the absence of a local class actions regime at the time
as an absurd and "ongoing failure", which denied Queenslanders
their right to access to justice.

"At the end of the day, this is an access to justice issue for
Queenslanders; we shouldn't have to go to another state to get
fair compensation when we have suffered harm," Mr. Potts said.

Two months later, the Queensland government has responded.  State
Attorney-General Yvette D'Ath confirmed that legislation would
come before Parliament.

"At present, Queenslanders who wish to take class action lawsuits
have to operate through other jurisdictions to do so," Ms. D'Ath
said.

"For cases that are particularly pertinent to Queensland, it will
also allow the knowledge and expertise of our judges and lawyers
to be better utilized," she said.


* New Rules Target "Professional Objectors" in Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that after five objectors appealed the approval of $151 million in
class action settlements over alleged price-fixing of polyurethane
foam, a federal judge in Ohio slapped them with a $145,463 bond --
then he hit them where it hurt.

"Their conduct here resembles scavenger ants on a jelly roll,
scrambling to extort money from the approved settlements," wrote
U.S. District Judge Jack Zouhary in April.  "To now have objectors
file frivolous appeals in pursuit of a payoff is not simply a
detriment to the settling parties -- it is an insult to the
judicial system."

Recognizing such mounting criticism of so-called "professional
objectors," a civil rules committee of the U.S. Judicial
Conference's Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure
introduced a new proposed rule that would force objectors and
their lawyers to get court approval for fees, rather than
negotiate them behind closed doors, in exchange for withdrawing
their objection.  The proposal, introduced on Aug. 12, is the most
aggressive in a package of potential changes to class actions, or
Rule 23, which hasn't been amended since 2003.  Many practitioners
say they see the rules change as a means of curbing what they
consider to be an abuse of the class action settlement process.

"What's new about that proposal is it basically says that an
objector can't be paid off to drop their objection without
approval by the district court," said Leslie Brueckner, senior
attorney at Public Justice.  "That could have a big impact because
it could effectively halt the problem of so-called 'professional
objectors,' who basically hold up class action settlements for
their own pecuniary gain, by basically exposing that kind of
practice to the light of day."

The proposal, if approved, could take years to become effective.
The proposals are open for public comment until Feb. 15, after
which the committee must adopt the changes, which then go to the
U.S. Supreme Court and Congress for approval.

In deciding what to change, the committee skirted more
controversial topics in favor of focusing on how much information
a judge needs to have in order to preliminarily approve a class
action settlement.  The objector fee proposal "solidified
relatively recently," said Richard Marcus, associate professor at
University of California, Hastings College of the Law, who is
associate reporter of the Rule 23 subcommittee.

"The concern we heard was almost universal about bad objectors
being bad news," he said.  "And so that's the focus of this
amendment."

"The role of objectors has gotten a lot of attention,"
Andrew McGuinness, a defense attorney in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and
author of the blog www.topclasslaw.com.  "Even though this is just
two sentences of proposed changes in the rule, it's probably the
most significant in terms of the amount of attention it got and
the scope."

And it's not just lawyers involved in the settlement.  "Bad faith"
objectors also hurt attorneys who have legitimate gripes about a
settlement, said noted class action critic Ted Frank of the Center
for Class Action Fairness.  He said judges have compared him to
other objector counsel, even though he's never taken fees in
exchange for dropping his objection.

Still, he said the proposal doesn't go far enough: It fails to
address the financial burdens entailed in objecting to a class
action settlement.

"The problem we have under the current system is there aren't
enough objections, not that there are too many," he said.  "We
need to incentivize more people to bring good objections.  Right
now, you can either be a bad faith objector or a nonprofit
objector, but there's really not a way to do this."

Brian Fitzgerald, a law professor at Vanderbilt University Law
School, Nashville, Tennessee, and author of a 2009 law review
article called "The End of Objector Blackmail?" said the proposal
doesn't go far enough to curb abuse.  He said judges could approve
the fees in hopes of clearing their dockets.

"Why even open the door to these side payments?" he said.
In the polyurethane settlements, Judge Zouhary ordered the
objectors to seek court approval for any payments they got in
exchange for dropping their appeals.  All but one of the objectors
voluntarily dismissed their appeals a month after being required
to post a bond.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gov't Partially Loses Recon Bid in "Dippolito"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned FRANK DIPPOLITO, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants, Civ. No. 13-0175 (RBK)
(JS)(D.N.J.), Judge Robert B. Kugler of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey denied in part and granted in
part the Defendants' motion for reconsideration, and denied the
Plaintiff's countermotion for reconsideration.

Frank Dippolito is a former federal prisoner who was previously
incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution ("F.C.I.")
Fort Dix, in Fort Dix, New Jersey, at the time he filed this
action.  In January, 2013, the Plaintiff submitted his pro se
civil rights complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of
Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). On July 15, 2013,
the Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis was
granted. The Plaintiff, among other things, alleges that F.C.I.
Fort Dix has a "serious asbestos problem and lead paint issues."

The Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint under
FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted in two separate motions.  On December 21,
2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motion.  On January 5, 2016, the remaining Defendants filed the
instant motion for reconsideration with the Court.  On March 7,
2016, the Plaintiff filed a countermotion for reconsideration.

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated August 2, 2016 is available
at https://is.gd/C3Pqt8 from Leagle.com.

FRANK DIPPOLITO, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

ERIC HOLDER, JR., Defendant, is represented by DAVID VINCENT
BOBER, OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY.

HARLEY LAPPIN, Defendant, is represented by DAVID VINCENT BOBER,
OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY.

CHARLES E. SAMUELS JR., Defendant, is represented by DAVID VINCENT
BOBER, OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY.

KATHLEEN M. KENNY, Defendant, is represented by DAVID VINCENT
BOBER, OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY.

MR. D. SCOTT DODRILL, Defendant, is represented by DAVID VINCENT
BOBER, OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY.

JOYCE CONLEY, Defendant, is represented by DAVID VINCENT BOBER,
OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY.

WARDEN DONNA ZICKEFOOSE, Defendant, is represented by DAVID
VINCENT BOBER, OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY.

CAPTAIN JANEL FITZGERALD, Defendant, is represented by DAVID
VINCENT BOBER, OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY.

MR. HUTCHENS, Defendant, is represented by DAVID VINCENT BOBER,
OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY.

MR. HOLDREN, Defendant, is represented by DAVID VINCENT BOBER,
OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY.

MR. G. LAWHORNE, Defendant, is represented by DAVID VINCENT BOBER,
OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY.

JACQUILINE NICHOLS, Defendant, is represented by DAVID VINCENT
BOBER, OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY.

ROBERT HAZELWOOD, Defendant, is represented by DAVID VINCENT
BOBER, OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY.

MR. H. SUTHERLAND, Defendant, is represented by DAVID VINCENT
BOBER, OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY.

MIKE CARROLL, Defendant, is represented by DAVID VINCENT BOBER,
OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY.

MR. ROBINSON, Defendant, is represented by DAVID VINCENT BOBER,
OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY.

MR. BULLOCK, Defendant, is represented by DAVID VINCENT BOBER,
OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY.

MR. HARWICK, Defendant, is represented by DAVID VINCENT BOBER,
OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY.

OFFICER YEOMAN, Defendant, is represented by DAVID VINCENT BOBER,
OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY.

OFFICER DANIELS, Defendant, is represented by DAVID VINCENT BOBER,
OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY.

MS. ALEXANDER, Defendant, is represented by DAVID VINCENT BOBER,
OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY.

JOE NORWOOD, Defendant, is represented by DAVID VINCENT BOBER,
OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY.

MR. HARRELL WATTS, Defendant, is represented by DAVID VINCENT
BOBER, OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY.

MR. LEMYRE, Defendant, is represented by DAVID VINCENT BOBER,
OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY.

OFFICER SMEYLK, Defendant, is represented by DAVID VINCENT BOBER,
OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY.

LIEUTENANT ANDERSON, Defendant, is represented by DAVID VINCENT
BOBER, OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY.

WARDEN JORDAN HOLLINGSWORTH, Defendant, is represented by DAVID
VINCENT BOBER, OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY.

CHRISTINE Y. DYNAN, Defendant, is represented by DAVID VINCENT
BOBER, OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY.

MR. THOMAS MCGLOUGHLIN, Defendant, is represented by DAVID VINCENT
BOBER, OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. App. Flips Dismissal of Hoffman's Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two, reversed and
remanded for further proceedings the case captioned LARRY HOFFMAN
and JUDITH HOFFMAN, husband and wife, Appellants, v. GENERAL
ELECTRIC COMPANY; KETCHIKAN PULP COMPANY, Respondents, ALASKAN
COPPER COMPANIES, INC. d/b/a Alaska Copper and Brass; ALASKA PULP
CORPORATION; ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC.; ASBESTOS CORPORATION
LIMITED; AW CHESTERTON COMPANY; CERTAINTEED CORPORATION; CHICAGO
BRIDGE AND IRON COMPANY; CLEANER BROOKS, INC.; CRANE SUPPLY;
EXPERT DRYWALL, INC.; FAMILIAN NORTHWEST, INC., individually and
as successor-in-interest and parent and alter ego to Alaska Pipe &
Supply; GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC; KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC.;
OAKFABCO, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to
and/or f/k/a and/or f/d/b/a Kewanee Boiler Corporation; OJI
HOLDINGS CORPORATION f/k/a Oji Paper Co., Ltd., individually and
as successor-in-interest and parent and alter ego to Alaska Pulp
Corporation and Alaska Pulp Corporation, Ltd.; PACIFIC PLUMBING
SUPPLY LLC; SABERHAGEN HOLDINGS, INC.; TRANE U.S., INC. f/k/a
American Standard, Inc., individually and as successor-in-interest
to Kewanee Boiler Corporation; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; WHITNEY
HOLDING CORP., Defendants, No. 47439-5-II (Wash. App.).

According to the court, Hoffman has alleged facts that, when
viewed as true, could support a conclusion that neither
Washington's law nor Alaska's statute of repose bar Hoffman's
claims.  Thus, Hoffman has shown, at least under the CR 12(b)(6)
standard, that there may be no conflict of law and, therefore, the
trial court erred by dismissing his claim on the basis that a
conflict of law existed and that Alaska law barred his claim, the
court said.

After Larry Hoffman developed mesothelioma from exposure to
asbestos, he filed suit again Ketchikan Pulp Company and General
Electric Company, alleging that each negligently contributed to
his condition.  The superior court dismissed Hoffman's case
pursuant to CR 12(b)(6) after it determined that his claims were
barred by Alaska's statute of repose. Hoffman appeals, arguing
that the trial court erred by ruling that there is a conflict of
laws and that Alaska's statute of repose governs this dispute such
that it bars Hoffman's claims.

GE and Ketchikan then moved to dismiss. They argued that Hoffman's
action should be dismissed under CR 12(b)(6) for failure to state
a claim on which relief can be granted because the Alaska statute
of repose barred Hoffman's action. Hoffman urged the court to deny
the CR 12(b)(6) motion, arguing first that Alaska's statute of
repose did not apply.

A full-text copy of the Unpublished Opinion dated August 9, 2016,
is available at https://is.gd/l6dpOl from Leagle.com.

John Wentworth Phillips, Esq. -- Phillips Law Group PLLC, 315 5th
Ave S. Ste 1000, Seattle, WA, 98104-2682, Counsel for
Appellant(s).

G. William Shaw, Esq. -- bill.shaw@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP,
925 4th Ave Ste 2900, Seattle, WA, 98104-1158; William Edward
Fitzharris, Jr., Esq. -- wfitzharris@pregodonnell.com -- Preg,
O'Donnell & Gillett, 901 5th Ave Ste 3400, Seattle, WA, 98164-
2026; Jennifer Diana Loynd, Esq. -- jloynd@pregodonnell.com --
Preg O'Donnell & Gillett, PLLC, 901 5th Ave Ste 3400, Seattle, WA,
98164-2026; David E. Chawes, Esq. -- dchawes@pregodonnell.com --
Preg, O'Donnell & Gillett PLLC, 901 5th Ave Ste 3400, Seattle, WA,
98164-2026; Mark Bradley Tuvim, Esq. -- mtuvim@gordonrees.com --
Gordon & Rees LLP, 701 5th Ave Ste 2100, Seattle, WA, 98104-7084;
Kevin James Craig, Esq. -- kcraig@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees
LLP, 701 5th Ave Ste 2100, Seattle, WA, 98104-7084; Diane J. Kero,
Esq. -- dkero@gth-law.com -- Gordon Thomas Honeywell, 600
University St Ste 2100, Seattle, WA, 98101-4161; Barry Neal
Mesher, Esq. -- barry.mesher@sedgwicklaw.com -- Sedgwick LLP, 520
Pike St Ste 2200, Seattle, WA, 98101-4093; Brian David Zeringer,
Esq. -- brian.zeringer@sedgwicklaw.com -- Sedgwick LLP, 520 Pike
St Ste 2200, Seattle, WA, 98101-4093; Christopher S. Marks, Esq. -
- christopher.marks@sedgwicklaw.com -- Sedgwick LLP, 520 Pike St
Ste 2200, Seattle, WA, 98101-4093; Megan Maria Coluccio, Esq. --
megan.coluccio@sedgwicklaw.com -- Sedgwick LLP, 520 Pike St Ste
2200, Seattle, WA, 98101-4093; Kirk C. Jenkins, Esq. --
kirk.jenkins@sedgwicklaw.com -- Sedgwick LLP, One Wacker Drive,
Suite 4200, Chicago, IL, 60606;Timothy Kost Thorson, Esq. --
thorson@carneylaw.com -- Carney Badley & Spellman, 701 5th Ave Ste
3600, Seattle, WA, 98104-7010; David Albert Shaw, Esq. --
dshaw@williamskastner.com -- Williams Kastner & Gibbs, 601 Union
St Ste 4100, Seattle, WA, 98101-2380, Counsel for Respondent(s).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Bid to Remand "Hovsepian"
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Carol E. Jackson of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, denied the motion
to remand the case captioned BERJ HOVSEPIAN, Plaintiff, v. CRANE
CO., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:16-CV-414-CEJ (E.D. Mo.).



Plaintiff Berj Hovsepian initiated the action in the Twenty-Second
Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri (City of St. Louis) on December
15, 2015. He asserts claims of strict liability, negligence,
willful and wanton misconduct, and conspiracy against 78
defendants.

Judge Jackson held, among other things, that "Crane has
established a colorable federal contractor defense  The Navy
approved exacting MILSPECs stringently requiring all valves Crane
designed and manufactured contain asbestos.  The valves were
inspected and tested for compliance with the MILSPECs, and would
have been rejected if nonconforming.  That the valves were
accepted for use on the vessels where plaintiff then installed
them demonstrates they conformed to the MILSPECs.  The Navy also
knew at least as much as Crane about the risks of asbestos, both
generally and specifically to individuals who, like plaintiff,
were hired to install asbestos-containing parts on Navy vessels.
Therefore, Crane has adduced sufficient evidence to have the
merits of its colorable federal contractor defense adjudicated in
federal court, and plaintiff's motion to remand must be denied."

A full-text copy of the Memorandum and Order dated August 5, 2016
is available at https://is.gd/g1Mo04 from Leagle.com.

Berj Hovsepian, Plaintiff, is represented by Carson C. Menges,
Esq. -- FLINT AND ASSOCIATES LLC, Demetrious T. Zacharopoulos,
Esq. -- WOLF AND ZACHAROPOULOS LLP, Erin Rafferty Burton, Esq. --
FLINT AND ASSOCIATES LLC, Jacob A. Flint, FLINT AND ASSOCIATES LLC
& Timothy Paul Hulla, Esq. -- FLINT AND ASSOCIATES LLC.

Crane Co., Defendant, is represented by Carl J. Geraci, Esq. --
cgeraci@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM & Benjamin John Wilson,
Esq. -- bwilson@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, is represented by
Gregory C. Flatt, Esq. -- gflatt@heylroyster.com -- HEYL AND
ROYSTER & Kent L. Plotner, Esq. -- kplotner@heylroyster.com --
HEYL AND ROYSTER.

ALFA Laval, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Paul W. Lore, Esq.
-- plore@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees.

Burnham Commerical Boilers, Defendant, is represented by Trevor
Alan Sondag, Esq. -- tsondag@hinshawlaw.com -- HINSHAW AND
CULBERTSON.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Daniel G. Donahue,
Esq. -- ddonahue@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY AND MANSFIELD,
P.L.L.P. & Michael R. Dauphin, Esq. -- mdauphin@foleymansfield.com
-- FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P.

Cleaver Brooks Inc., Defendant, is represented by Timothy A.
McGuire, Esq. -- tmcguire@otmblaw.com -- O'CONNELL AND TIVIN, LLC.
Crown Cork & Seal Company Inc., Defendant, is represented by
Stephen J. Maassen, Esq. -- HOAGLAND AND FITZGERALD.

Cummins, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Nathan Asher Lindsey,
Esq. -- nlindsey@rwdmlaw.com -- RASMUSSEN AND WILLIS & Virginia M.
Giokaris, Esq. -- vgiokaris@rwdmlaw.com -- RASMUSSEN AND WILLIS.
Flowserve Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Ashley E.
Benoist, SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE, LTD.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Julia Yasmin
Tayyab, MORGAN AND LEWIS, LLP & Trevor Alan Sondag, HINSHAW AND
CULBERTSON.

Greene Tweed & Co Inc., Defendant, is represented by Ashley E.
Benoist, SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE, LTD.

Honeywell International Inc., Defendant, is represented by Anthony
L. Springfield, POLSINELLI PC.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, is represented by Carl J.
Geraci, HEPLER BROOM &Benjamin John Wilson, HEPLER BROOM.

John Crane, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Agota Peterfy,
BROWN AND JAMES, P.C. & Albert J. Bronsky, BROWN AND JAMES, P.C..
JP Bushnell Packing Supply Company, Inc., Defendant, is
represented by Douglas Michael Sinars, SINARS AND ROLLINS, LLC.

Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Nathan
Asher Lindsey, RASMUSSEN AND WILLIS & Virginia M. Giokaris,
RASMUSSEN AND WILLIS.

Lamons Gasket Company, Defendant, is represented by Paul B. Lee,
NELSEN & LEE, P.C. & Leo W. Nelsen, Jr., NELSEN & LEE, P.C.

Maremont Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Andrew M. Voss,
GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER, PC & David W. Ybarra, GREENSFELDER AND
HEMKER PC.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by
Charles L. Joley, JOLEY AND OLIVER & Georgiann Oliver, JOLEY AND
OLIVER.

Paccar, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Earl B. Thames, HAWKINS
AND PARNELL, LLP &Jacob A. Flint, FLINT AND ASSOCIATES LLC.

Pneumo Abex Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Matthew E.
Pelikan, WILLIAMS AND VENKER, LLC, Ross S. Titzer, WILLIAMS AND
VENKER, LLC & Thomas L. Orris, WILLIAMS AND VENKER, LLC.

Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company, Defendant, is represented
by Daniel G. Donahue, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P. & William C.
Foote, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P..

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, is represented by Anita Maria Kidd,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP,
Melanie R. King, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP & Raymond R. Fournie,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Rules on Libery Allocation Method Dispute
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff,
v. THE FAIRBANKS COMPANY, Defendant/Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL UNION
FIRE INSURANCE OF PITTSBURGH, PA; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY; FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY; AXA ROYALE BELGE; THE
HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY; TRAVELER'S CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY,
Defendants, Nos. 13-cv-3755 (JGK), 15-cv-1141 (JGK), Judge John G.
Koeltl of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted Fairbanks' motion for reconsideration
on the allocation method that should apply to the Liberty umbrella
policies.

Based on the New York Court of Appeals' decision in Viking Pump,
the all sums allocation method should apply to the Liberty
umbrella policies, Judge Koeltl ruled.  As the parties recognize,
the Summary Judgment Decision of March 21, 2016, is controlling in
all other respects, Judge Koeltl said.

In this case, Liberty argued in its motion for summary judgment
concerning the non-cumulation clauses that the non-cumulation
clauses should limit the ability of Fairbanks to recover under
multiple Liberty umbrella policies.  Liberty contends that the
non-cumulation clause operates so that as Liberty makes payments
for the asbestos claims under the first-year policy, the 1974
policy, those payments would also reduce the amount available
under the subsequent Liberty umbrella policies.  Liberty argues
that the occurrence limit and the aggregate limit on the policy
precludes "stacking" or recovery under more than one policy.
Liberty seeks a declaration that "the limits afforded to Fairbanks
under each of the 1975-1981 Umbrella Policies for the Asbestos
Claims must be reduced by the amount of payments that Liberty
makes for Asbestos Claims under any previous Umbrella Policy."

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August
8, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/fPtOQX from Leagle.com.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Plaintiff, is represented by
Lloyd Andrew Gura, Esq. -- lgura@moundcotton.com -- Mound Cotton
Wollan & Greengrass, Mark Joseph Weber, Esq. --
mweber@moundcotton.com -- Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass & Peter
Michael Fabiankovic, Esq. -- pfabiankovic@moundcotton.com -- Mound
Cottan Wollan and Greenglass.

The Fairbanks Company, Defendant, is represented by Andrew M.
Roman, Esq. -- aroman@cohenlaw.com -- Cohen & Grigsby, P.C., pro
hac vice, David F. Russey, Esq. -- drussey@cohenlaw.com --  Cohen
& Grigsby, P.C., pro hac vice, Richard A. Ejzak, Esq. --
rejzak@cohenlaw.com -- Cohen & Grigsby, P.C. & Seth Michael
Choset, Esq. -- Weinberg, Kaley, Gross & Pergament, LLP.

Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Defendant, is represented
by Robert W. Mauriello, Jr., Esq. -- Graham, Curtin P.A.

National Union Fire Insurance Company Of Pittsburgh, PA,
Defendant, is represented by Joseph J. Schwartz, Esq. -- Mendes &
Mount, LLP.

Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Defendant, is represented
by William Patrick Downes, Esq. -- Schaeffer & Krongold LLP.
Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by
Michael Anthony Kotula, Esq. -- michael.kotula@rivkin.com --
Rivkin Radler, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Win Summary Judgment in "Winhauer"
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled ROBERT LEE WINHAUER, JR. Individually and as
Executor of the Estate of ROBERT LEE WINHAUER, and on behalf of
all Wrongful Death beneficiaries, Plaintiff, v. AIR & LIQUID
SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al. Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-00177-
RGA-SRF, Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware recommended granting
the summary judgment motions filed by Honeywell International,
Inc., and Ingersoll Rand Co.

Robert Lee Winhauer filed the asbestos action in the Delaware
Superior Court against multiple defendants on December 18, 2014,
asserting personal injury claims proximately caused by alleged
wrongful exposure to asbestos.  Defendant Crane Co. removed the
action to the district court on February 23, 2015.  After Mr.
Winhauer's death, the complaint was amended to substitute a
representative of Mr. Winhauer's estate as the plaintiff, and to
add a wrongful death claim.

The court recommends granting Honeywell's motion for summary
judgment.  Honeywell asserts that the motion should be granted
because mere speculation is not enough for Plaintiff to
demonstrate frequent, regular, and proximate exposure to asbestos-
containing Bendix brakes.  Moreover, any exposure that may have
occurred is de minimis.  The Plaintiff responds that Mr. Winhauer
was exposed to significant amounts of asbestos as a result of
completing twelve brake jobs on personal automobiles with Bendix
Brakes, each requiring four to five hours to complete.
Additionally, the frequency, regularity, and proximity analysis is
relaxed inmesothelioma cases.

The court recommends granting Ingersoll's motion for summary
judgment.  Ingersoll asserts that it is speculative to assume that
the air compressors at issue were manufactured by Ingersoll.
Further, there is no evidence that Mr. Winhauer was exposed to
asbestos from working with the air compressors at issue.  The
Plaintiff responds that cumulative exposure to Ingersoll's air
compressors, despite Mr. Winhauer's "mistaken" identification of
Allis Chalmers as the compressor manufacturer, is sufficient to
satisfy the frequency, regularity, and proximity test under a
lessened standard for mesothelioma cases.

A full-text copy of the Report and Recommendation dated August 9,
2016 is available at https://is.gd/Vqc6tF from Leagle.com.

Robert Lee Winhauer, Jr., Plaintiff, is represented by David W.
deBruin, Esq. -- The deBruin Firm LLC, Gemma R. Galeoto, Esq. --
Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, pro hac vice & Samuel I.
Iola, Esq. -- siola@sgpblaw.com -- Simon Greenstone Panatier
Bartlett, PC, pro hac vice.

Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC, Defendant, is represented by Matthew P.
Donelson, Esq. -- mdonelson@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans
Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

Carver Pump Company, Defendant, is represented by Neal C. Glenn,
Esq. -- nglenn@kjmsh.com -- Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna
LLP & Daniel Partick Daly, Esq. -- ddaly@kjmsh.com -- Kelley
Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Cleaver-Brooks Inc., Defendant, is represented by James J.
Horning, Jr., Esq. -- jhorning@rjm-law.com -- Reilly, Janiczek,
McDevitt, Henrich & Cholden, P.C. & Stephanie S. Levitsky, Esq. --
slevitsky@rjm-law.com -- Reilly Janiczek & McDevitt PC.

Crane Co., Defendant, is represented by Nicholas E. Skiles, Esq. -
- nskiles@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward
Martyniak , Swartz Campbell LLC.

Flowserve US Inc., Defendant, is represented by Bernadette M.
Plaza, Esq. -- bplaza@goldfeinlaw.com --  Goldfein & Joseph &
Willard F. Preston, III, Esq. -- wpreston@goldfeinlaw.com --
Goldfein & Joseph.

FMC Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Neal C. Glenn,
Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP & Daniel Partick Daly,
Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

General Electric Company, Defendant, is represented by Beth E.
Valocchi, bvalocchi@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell LLC.

Honeywell International Inc., Defendant, is represented by Joelle
Florax, Esq. -- jflorax@rawle.com -- Rawle & Henderson LLP &
Stephanie Michelle Smith, Esq. -- ssmith@rawle.com -- Rawle &
Henderson LLP.

IMO Industries Inc., Defendant, is represented by Eileen M. Ford,
Esq. -- eford@moodklaw.com -- Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty &
Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Esq.  --
mmantzavinos@moodklaw.com -- Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty &
Kelly, P.C.

Ingersoll Rand Company, Defendant, is represented by Jessica Lee
Tyler, Esq. -- JLTyler@mdwcg.com -- Marshall, Dennehey, Warner,
Coleman & Goggin.

John Crane Inc., Defendant, is represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Esq. -- Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by
Sally J. Daugherty, Esq. -- Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP.

Sterling Fluid Systems (USA) LLC, Defendant, is represented by
Neal C. Glenn, Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP & Daniel
Partick Daly, Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Velan Valve Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Donald
Robert Kinsley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC & Paul A.
Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Borgwarner Continues to Defend Suits at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Borgwarner Inc., continues to defend itself against asbestos-
related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2016.

The Company states, "Like many other industrial companies who have
historically operated in the U.S., the Company (or parties the
Company is obligated to indemnify) continues to be named as one of
many defendants in asbestos-related personal injury actions. We
believe that the Company's involvement is limited because, in
general, these claims relate to a few types of automotive products
that were manufactured many years ago and contained encapsulated
asbestos. The nature of the fibers, the encapsulation and the
manner of use lead the Company to believe that these products are
highly unlikely to cause harm. As of June 30, 2016 and December
31, 2015, the Company had approximately 9,300 and 10,100 pending
asbestos-related product liability claims, respectively. The
decrease in the pending claims is primarily a result of the
Company's continued efforts to obtain dismissal of dormant claims.

"The Company's policy is to vigorously defend against these
lawsuits and the Company has been successful in obtaining
dismissal of many claims without any payment. The nature of the
historical product being encapsulated and the lifecycle of the
product allow the Company to aggressively defend against these
lawsuits. The Company expects that the vast majority of the
pending asbestos-related product liability claims where it is a
defendant (or has an obligation to indemnify a defendant) will
result in no payment being made by the Company or its insurers. In
2016, of the approximately 1,800 claims resolved, 195 (11%)
resulted in payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of
the Company. In the full year of 2015, of the approximately 5,300
claims resolved, 349 (7%) resulted in payment being made to a
claimant by or on behalf of the Company.

"Prior to June 2004, the settlement and defense costs associated
with all claims were paid by the Company's primary layer insurance
carriers under a series of interim funding arrangements. In
addition to the primary insurance available for asbestos-related
claims, the Company has excess insurance coverage available for
potential future asbestos-related product claims. In June 2004,
primary layer insurance carriers notified the Company of the
alleged exhaustion of their policy limits.

"A declaratory judgment action was filed in January 2004 in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois by Continental Casualty
Company and related companies against the Company and certain of
its historical general liability insurers. The court has issued a
number of interim rulings and discovery is continuing. The Company
has entered into settlement agreements with some of its insurance
carriers, resolving their coverage disputes by agreeing to pay
specified amounts to the Company. The Company is vigorously
pursuing the litigation against the remaining insurers.

"The Company has paid and accrued $417.1 million in defense and
indemnity costs in advance of insurers' reimbursement and has
received $228.4 million in cash and notes from insurers. The net
balance of $188.7 million is expected to be fully recovered.
Timing of recovery is dependent on final resolution of the
declaratory judgment action or additional negotiated settlements.
At December 31, 2015, insurers owed $163.3 million in association
with these claims.

"In addition to the $188.7 million net balance relating to past
settlements and defense costs, the Company has estimated a
liability of $110.5 million for claims asserted, but not yet
resolved and their related defense costs at June 30, 2016. The
Company also has a related asset of $110.5 million to recognize
proceeds from the insurance carriers, which is expected to be
fully recovered. Receipt of these proceeds is not expected prior
to the resolution of the declaratory judgment action, which is
expected to occur subsequent to June 30, 2017. At December 31,
2015, the comparable value of the accrued liability and associated
insurance asset was $108.5 million.

"The Company believes that its ultimate liability (i.e., the total
of its indemnity or other claim dispositions plus legal related
fees) cannot be reasonably estimated at this time in excess of
amounts accrued. The Company's ability to reasonably estimate its
liability has been significantly affected by, among other factors,
the volatility of asbestos-related litigation in the United
States, the significant number of co-defendants that have filed
for bankruptcy, the magnitude and timing of co-defendant
bankruptcy trust payments, the inherent uncertainty of future
disease incidence and claiming patterns against the Company, and
the impact of tort reform legislation that may be enacted at the
state or federal levels. The Company's ability to reasonably
estimate its liability for asbestos-related claims may also be
affected in the future by the new discovery of facts; changes in
litigation; the impact of any possible tort reform; changes in
assumptions regarding the number and nature of asbestos-related
claims, including the total population claiming exposure; the
amounts of any judgments over time; and changes in
settlement/defense strategies. The Company reviews factors
relevant to asbestos-related claims that have been, or may in the
future be, asserted against it on an ongoing basis."

BorgWarner Inc. develops, manufactures, and sells engineered
automotive systems and components primarily for powertrain
applications worldwide. BorgWarner Inc. was founded in 1987 and is
headquartered in Auburn Hills, Michigan.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Continues to Defend Suits at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlisle Companies Incorporated continues to defend itself against
asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016.

The Company states, "Over the years, the Company has been named as
a defendant, along with numerous other defendants, in lawsuits in
various state courts in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due
to exposure to asbestos-containing brakes, which Carlisle
manufactured in limited amounts between the late-1940s and the
mid-1980s.  In addition to compensatory awards, these lawsuits may
also seek punitive damages.

"Generally, the Company has obtained dismissals or settlements of
its asbestos-related lawsuits with no material effect on its
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.  The
Company maintains insurance coverage that applies to the Company's
defense costs and payments of settlements or judgments in
connection with asbestos-related lawsuits.

"At this time, the amount of reasonably possible additional
asbestos claims, if any, is not material to the Company's
financial position, results of operations or operating cash flows
although these matters could result in the Company being subject
to monetary damages, costs or expenses, and charges against
earnings in particular periods.

"The Company may occasionally be involved in various other legal
actions arising in the normal course of business.  In the opinion
of management, the ultimate outcome of such actions, either
individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse
effect on the consolidated financial position, results of
operations for a particular period or annual operating cash flows
of the Company."

Carlisle Companies Incorporated (Carlisle) is a holding company
for Carlisle Corporation, and its wholly owned subsidiaries.
Carlisle is a diversified manufacturing company consisting of five
segments, which manufacture and distribute a range of products.
Its segments include Carlisle Construction Materials (CCM or the
Construction Materials segment), Carlisle Transportation Products
(CTP or the Transportation Products segment), Carlisle Brake &
Friction (CBF or the Brake & Friction segment) and Carlisle
Interconnect Technologies (CIT or the Interconnect Technologies
segment). On August 1, 2011, the Company acquired PDT Phoenix GmbH
(PDT). On January 2, 2012, the Company sold the PDT's non roofing
and waterproofing unit (PDT Profiles) of its German company, PDT
Phoenix GmbH to Datwyler Group of Altdorf. In March 2012, the
Company purchased Hertalan Holding B.V. In December 2012, the
Company acquired Thermax-Raydex business from Belden Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Had 34,790 Pending Claims at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation had approximately 34,790 asbestos claims pending,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2016.

The Company states, "It is a defendant in lawsuits claiming
various personal injuries related to asbestos and other materials,
which allegedly occurred principally as a result of exposure
caused by various products manufactured by Westinghouse, a
predecessor, generally prior to the early 1970s. Westinghouse was
neither a producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos. The Company is
typically named as one of a large number of defendants in both
state and federal cases. In the majority of asbestos lawsuits, the
plaintiffs have not identified which of the Company's products is
the basis of a claim. Claims against the Company in which a
product has been identified principally relate to exposures
allegedly caused by asbestos-containing insulating material in
turbines sold for power-generation, industrial and marine use.

"Claims are frequently filed and/or settled in groups, which may
make the amount and timing of settlements, and the number of
pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation from period to
period. The Company does not report as pending those claims on
inactive, stayed, deferred or similar dockets which some
jurisdictions have established for claimants who allege minimal or
no impairment. As of June 30, 2016, the Company had pending
approximately 34,790 asbestos claims, as compared with
approximately 36,030 as of December 31, 2015 and 38,000 as of June
30, 2015. During the second quarter of 2016, the Company received
approximately 1,190 new claims and closed or moved to an inactive
docket approximately 1,440 claims. The Company reports claims as
closed when it becomes aware that a dismissal order has been
entered by a court or when the Company has reached agreement with
the claimants on the material terms of a settlement. Settlement
costs depend on the seriousness of the injuries that form the
basis of the claims, the quality of evidence supporting the claims
and other factors. In 2015, as the result of an insurance
settlement, insurance recoveries exceeded the Company's after tax
costs for settlement and defense of asbestos claims by
approximately $5 million. In 2014, the Company's costs for
settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance and
taxes were approximately $11 million. The Company's costs for
settlement and defense of asbestos claims may vary year to year
and insurance proceeds are not always recovered in the same period
as the insured portion of the expenses.

"The Company believes that its reserves and insurance are adequate
to cover its asbestos liabilities. This belief is based upon many
factors and assumptions, including the number of outstanding
claims, estimated average cost per claim, the breakdown of claims
by disease type, historic claim filings, costs per claim of
resolution and the filing of new claims. While the number of
asbestos claims filed against the Company has trended down in the
past five to ten years and has remained flat in recent years, it
is difficult to predict future asbestos liabilities, as events and
circumstances may occur including, among others, the number and
types of claims and average cost to resolve such claims, which
could affect the Company's estimate of its asbestos liabilities."

CBS Corporation operates as a mass media company worldwide. The
company operates through four segments: Entertainment, Cable
Networks, Publishing, and Local Broadcasting. CBS Corporation was
founded in 1986 and is headquartered in New York, New York. CBS
Corporation operates as a subsidiary of National Amusements, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Had 1,200 Claims at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
There were 1,200 claims pending asbestos claims filed against
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. at June 30, 2016, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016.

The Company states, "We are a defendant in lawsuits wherein
plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos due to work we may have
performed at various locations. We have never been a manufacturer,
distributor or supplier of asbestos products. Over the past
several decades and through June 30, 2016, we have been named a
defendant in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving
approximately 5,900 plaintiffs and, of those claims, approximately
1,200 claims were pending and 4,700 have been closed through
dismissals or settlements. Over the past several decades and
through June 30, 2016, the claims alleging exposure to asbestos
that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled for an
average settlement amount of approximately two thousand dollars
per claim. We review each case on its own merits and make accruals
based upon the probability of loss and our estimates of the amount
of liability and related expenses, if any. While we have seen an
increase in the number of recent filings, especially in one
specific venue, we do not believe the increase or any unresolved
asserted claims will have a material adverse effect on our future
results of operations, financial position or cash flow, and at
June 30, 2016, we had approximately $6,600 accrued for liability
and related expenses. With respect to unasserted asbestos claims,
we cannot identify a population of potential claimants with
sufficient certainty to determine the probability of a loss and to
make a reasonable estimate of liability, if any. While we continue
to pursue recovery for recognized and unrecognized contingent
losses through insurance, indemnification arrangements or other
sources, we are unable to quantify the amount, if any, that we may
expect to recover because of the variability in coverage amounts,
limitations and deductibles, or the viability of carriers, with
respect to our insurance policies for the years in question."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Had 79 Cases at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company had 79 individual cases pending,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing of the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016.

The Company states, "It is a defendant in a number of civil
actions alleging that certain talcum powder products it sold prior
to 1996 were contaminated with asbestos. As of June 30, 2016,
there were 79 individual cases pending against the Company in
state and federal courts throughout the United States, 29 of which
were filed against the Company during the quarter ended June 30,
2016. On June 24, 2016, a jury rendered a verdict in the Company's
favor in one of the pending cases following a trial in California.
In addition to the pending cases, as of June 30, 2016, 28 cases
filed against the Company had been voluntarily dismissed and/or
had final judgment entered in favor of the Company, and the
Company had settled 16 cases for amounts that are not material to
the Company's results of operations.

"A number of the 79 pending cases are expected to go to trial in
2016. While the Company and its legal counsel believe that these
cases are without merit and intend to challenge them vigorously,
there can be no assurances of the outcome at trial. Since the
amount of any potential losses from these cases currently cannot
be estimated, the range of reasonably possible losses in excess of
accrued liabilities does not include any amount relating to these
cases."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus Had $6.7MM Liability at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation has estimated its asbestos-related
aggregate liability including related legal costs to $6,711,000,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2016.

The Company states, "Like many industrial manufacturers, the
Company is involved in asbestos-related litigation.  In
continually evaluating costs relating to its estimated asbestos-
related liability, the Company reviews, among other things, the
incidence of past and recent claims, the historical case dismissal
rate, the mix of the claimed illnesses and occupations of the
plaintiffs, its recent and historical resolution of the cases, the
number of cases pending against it, the status and results of
broad-based settlement discussions, and the number of years such
activity might continue. Based on this review, the Company has
estimated its share of liability to defend and resolve probable
asbestos-related personal injury claims. This estimate is highly
uncertain due to the limitations of the available data and the
difficulty of forecasting with any certainty the numerous
variables that can affect the range of the liability. The Company
will continue to study the variables in light of additional
information in order to identify trends that may become evident
and to assess their impact on the range of liability that is
probable and estimable.

"Based on actuarial information, the Company has estimated its
asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs
to range between $5,400,000 and $8,300,000 using actuarial
parameters of continued claims for a period of 37 years from June
30, 2016.  The Company's estimation of its asbestos-related
aggregate liability that is probable and estimable, in accordance
with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles approximates
$6,711,000, which has been reflected as a liability in the
consolidated financial statements as of June 30, 2016. The
recorded liability does not consider the impact of any potential
favorable federal legislation. This liability will fluctuate based
on the uncertainty in the number of future claims that will be
filed and the cost to resolve those claims, which may be
influenced by a number of factors, including the outcome of the
ongoing broad-based settlement negotiations, defensive strategies,
and the cost to resolve claims outside the broad-based settlement
program. Of this amount, management expects to incur asbestos
liability payments of approximately $2,000,000 over the next 12
months. Because payment of the liability is likely to extend over
many years, management believes that the potential additional
costs for claims will not have a material effect on the financial
condition of the Company or its liquidity, although the effect of
any future liabilities recorded could be material to earnings in a
future period.

"The Company believes that a share of its previously incurred
asbestos-related expenses and future asbestos-related expenses are
covered by pre-existing insurance policies. The Company has
engaged in a legal action against the insurance carriers for those
policies to recover these expenses and future costs incurred. When
the Company resolves this legal action, it is expected that a gain
will be recorded for previously expensed cost that is recovered."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Had 11,800 Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------
There were 11,800 claims pending against Corning Incorporated,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2016.

The Company states, "Corning and PPG Industries, Inc. ("PPG") each
owned 50% of the capital stock of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation
("PCC").  On April 16, 2000, PCC filed for Chapter 11
reorganization in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania.  At the time PCC filed for bankruptcy
protection, there were approximately 11,800 claims pending against
Corning in state court lawsuits alleging various theories of
liability based on exposure to PCC's asbestos products and
typically requesting monetary damages in excess of one million
dollars per claim.  On April 27, 2016, the Modified Third Amended
Plan of Reorganization for Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (the
"Plan") became effective.

"As required by the Plan, Corning contributed its equity interests
in PCC and Pittsburgh Corning Europe N.V. ("PCE"), a Belgian
corporation, on April 27, 2016 and June 9, 2016, respectively, and
recognized a gain of $56 million in the selling, general and
administrative expenses line of the Company's Consolidated
Statements of Income for the difference between the fair value of
the asbestos litigation liability and carrying value of the
investment.  Corning must also contribute $290 million in a fixed
series of payments.  Corning has the option to use its common
stock rather than cash to make these payments, but the liability
is fixed by dollar value and not the number of shares.  Assuming
certain conditions are met, the Plan requires Corning to make: (1)
one payment of $70 million on June 9, 2017; and (2) five
additional payments of $35 million, $50 million, $35 million, $50
million, and $50 million, respectively, on each of the five
subsequent anniversaries of the first payment, the final payment
of which is subject to reduction based on the application of
credits under certain circumstances.

"In addition to the claims against Corning related to its
ownership interest in PCC, at the time PCC filed for bankruptcy,
Corning was a defendant in other cases alleging injuries from
asbestos related to its Corhart business and seeking similar
amounts of monetary damages per case (the "non-PCC asbestos
claims").  The Bankruptcy Court then granted a preliminary
injunction (the "Stay"), which suspended all asbestos cases
against PCC, PPG and Corning -- including these non-PCC asbestos
claims.  Approximately 9,700 such non-PCC asbestos claims (with
approximately 37,300 claimants) may still be pending.  The Stay
will be lifted on August 25, 2016.  The non-PCC asbestos claims
against Corning have been covered, in part, by insurance without
material impact to Corning to date.  As of June 30, 2016, Corning
had received approximately $19 million in insurance payments for
non-PCC asbestos claims that were subject to the Stay.  When the
Stay is lifted, the non-PCC asbestos claims will be allowed to
proceed against Corning.  Corning believes that the $150 million
reserve for estimated asbestos litigation liabilities that was
established in prior periods continues to be reasonable.  The
liability for non-PCC asbestos claims was estimated based upon
industry data for asbestos claims since Corning does not have
recent claim history due to the Stay issued by the Bankruptcy
Court.  The estimated liability represents the undiscounted
projection of claims and related legal fees over the next 20
years.  The amount may need to be adjusted in future periods as
more data becomes available; however, we cannot estimate any
lesser or greater liabilities at this time.

"The liability for the Amended PCC Plan and the non-PCC asbestos
claims was estimated to be $440 million at June 30, 2016, compared
with an estimate of liability of $678 million at December 31,
2015.  The decline in the liability is due to the contribution of
the equity interests of PCC and PCE in the total amount of $238
million, as required by the Plan.  The $440 million liability is
comprised of $290 million for the fixed series of payments for the
remaining PCC asbestos liability, and $150 million for the non-PCC
asbestos claims, all referenced in the preceding paragraphs. At
June 30, 2016, $370 million of the obligation, consisting of the
$220 million for the fixed series of payments due in the years
2018 through 2022 and $150 million for the non-PCC asbestos
claims, is classified as a non-current liability.  The amount of
the obligation related to the fixed payment of $70 million due in
the second quarter of 2017 is classified as a current liability
because the contribution of those assets is expected to be made
within the next twelve months."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Chattanooga Library Ceiling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Smith, writing for WRCBtv.com, reported that all services at
one Chattanooga landmark will continue despite asbestos being
found in the ceilings. Contractors discovered the problem while
working on the lighting at the Chattanooga Public Library. The
asbestos has to be removed before the improvement projects can
continue.

The asbestos found at the Chattanooga Public Library is minimal,
but the director says she isn't taking any chances.

The discovery of asbestos on three floors of the Chattanooga
Public Library was no surprise to employees. "Go to any building
across the country that is this age and you'll find that product,"
said the library's Executive Director Corinne Hill.

Crews working on lighting fixtures discovered the problem."It was
less than 0.001 but the rule is, the law is it has to be at zero
percent."

The library was undergoing a lighting upgrade project, worth 1.5
million dollars in taxpayer dollars. Ten percent of that was set
aside for asbestos removal. "If you find it, it has to go. You
have to contain it."

David Bashor an asbestos expert said with no direct exposure, the
health risk is minimal. "Unless you went every day and sat under a
place that was being damaged every day. There is no exposure level
there," said Bashor.

Exposure occurs when materials containing asbestos are damaged or
disturbed, releasing particles into the air. "Not intended for
asbestos. Proper filtration, even what got released over time
would be scrubbed out of the air."

Floors will be worked on one level at a time while the asbestos is
removed, but all services will remain available to the public. "We
will move the children's department to the 4th floor. Kids will
still have a place to go. We are not going to say this service is
no longer available," said Hill.

Corinne Hill said this is a safety issue but there are no safety
concerns. "Never been any danger of any kind. Simply part of an
improvement project."

The city is in the process of taking bids for the asbestos
removal. It's not clear yet, if additional funds will be needed to
cover the removal in addition to the lighting upgrade.

The project is expected to be completed in September 2017.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Border Security Blamed for SA Asbestos
-------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reported that deadly asbestos has
been found in equipment imported from China for a Port Pirie
smelter redevelopment project, the South Australian government
says.

The illegal material was found by project developer Nyrstar in the
plaster coating of eight metal vessels, with one vessel being at
least 10 metres tall.

Safework SA learnt of the find nearly two weeks ago and shut down
construction near the asbestos, which Nyrstar is now trying to
remove.

An investigation by Safework SA has found the material was
imported from China over the past year and that workers who may
have been exposed to the asbestos were wearing protective gear.

SA deputy premier John Rau says it is the Australian Border
Force's responsibility to keep the illegal product out and has
requested urgent talks with Immigration Minister Peter Dutton.

"It is disgraceful that more than ten years after a total ban on
asbestos was imposed across the nation, Commonwealth border guards
are still failing to keep these products out of this country," Mr
Rau said in a statement on Wednesday.

The Australian Workers Union has called for a full inquiry into
the incident.

"We need to find out how on earth a contractor thought it was
appropriate to deliver an asbestos-laden piece of equipment to an
Australian site," AWU national secretary Scott McDine said.

"This is hardly an isolated incident. Border security needs proper
resourcing to keep Australians safe from asbestos-related
disease."

Independent senator Nick Xenophon called for an audit of all
building products imported into Australia over the last five
years.

The $563 million transformation of Port Pirie's ageing lead and
zinc smelter to a multi-metals processing facility is planned for
completion in the second half of 2017.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Unit of Yuanda Facing Asbestos Probe
--------------------------------------------------------
Grant Prior, writing for Construction Enquirer, reported that the
UK division of Chinese cladding giant Yuanda is facing a formal
investigation into the potential import and use of building
materials containing asbestos.

The Health and Safety Executive has launched the probe following
problems on Yuanda sites in Australia.

White asbestos was found in roof panels imported by Yuanda from
China and used on a new hospital in Perth.

A letter seen by the Enquirer states that the HSE has "established
contact with Yuanda (UK) Co. Ltd. to conduct preliminary
enquiries, establish their relationship to Yuanda Australia,
understand the operation of their supply chain and the
specification and quality assurance and quantity of materials they
bring into the UK."

It is understood the HSE has taken a number of samples from Yuanda
sites in this country.

No-one at Yuanda UK was available to comment but it is understood
that the firm is confident that no materials used in its projects
contain asbestos.

Yuanda UK told campaigners at the International Ban Asbestos
Secretariat: "We have undertaken a comprehensive review of all our
materials and products and confirm that none used in the UK and
Europe raises any concerns.

"The materials used for our projects are all specified and checked
by Yuanda UK and we do not use materials from the suppliers who
provided the materials in question in the Australian projects."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liverpool Council Workers Exposed to Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marie Hogg, writing for Liverpool Leader, reported that Liverpool
Council is investigating allegations it mishandled three new
incidents of asbestos contamination, exposing council workers to
the substance.

The United Services Union has alleged a number of "serious" safety
breaches occurred between August 11 and August 15, and one
worker's concerns for their health at the time fell on deaf ears.

The fresh allegations come as former Penrith Panthers player Craig
Izzard fronts a corruption inquiry over unrelated claims he
solicited bribes to turn a blind eye to illegal dumping across the
region.

In a report to council on August 18, the union addressed three
incidents in which council workers were allegedly exposed to the
contaminated waste.

At the first incident, the union alleges an employee removing
concrete from Badgerys Creek Creek Road found "fibro material was
in the pile that had the characteristic dimple appearance of
asbestos material".

"Council employees were not asked if they had any dust or debris
on them nor were they given any instructions about
decontaminating", the union alleges in the report.

Four days later, workers at another asbestos clean-up arrived
"without protective clothing including masks and gloves," and the
contaminated road "was accessible to the public and unprotected
workers for at least five hours".

The report also said despite one worker making concerns for their
health known, "at no stage has any supervisor or manager responded
to (their) concerns".

"These three incidents in a very short time frame show that there
are ongoing issues in dealing with asbestos at Liverpool Council,"
it said.

"Once again staff and ratepayers have been exposed."

Liverpool Council's former chief executive Carl Wulff stepped down
from the role in March after claims he had misled colleagues over
other alleged instances of asbestos contamination.

Liverpool Council's acting chief executive Michael Cullen said it
was "undertaking a thorough investigation into the allegations
raised about staff being exposed to contaminated waste."

"Council's Work Health and Safety officers, with the help of an
independent consultant, are now in the process of preparing a
detailed report on the facts surrounding the allegations.

"We are taking the issue very seriously ... I must stress the
welfare of all staff, their families and the community is
Council's primary and immediate concern."

He said council would pursue those involved in what is believed to
be separate cases of illegal dumping.

"Those that are caught can expect to face severe penalties for
their actions," he said.

Last year, the NSW Environment Protection Authority investigated
allegations of unlawful waste disposal involving the council.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Preparation Impacts Mesothelioma Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Strauss, writing for Surviving Mesothelioma, reported that
there is new evidence that how asbestos fibers are prepared for
use can have an impact on their ability to trigger asbestos-
related diseases such as asbestosis, lung cancer, and malignant
mesothelioma.

Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral that is ground up for
use in a variety of industrial and construction applications.

Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania recently found that
asbestos that is ground while dry, rather than ground with water,
contains 7 times more iron than wet-ground asbestos, potentially
making it even more likely to cause deadly mesothelioma.

Asbestos and Mesothelioma

Before asbestos was linked to peritoneal and pleural mesothelioma
in the early part of the 20th century, asbestos was prized for its
strength and ability to resist heat, fire and corrosion.

But after industrial workers and miners who handled asbestos and
asbestos-containing products began to receive mesothelioma
diagnoses in the decades after their exposure, asbestos was
revealed to be a highly-toxic substance and was banned in many
countries.

How Toxic is Asbestos?

To measure the toxicity of asbestos fibers prepared in different
ways, the Penn team ground chrysotile ore with or without water
for 5 to 30 minutes.

The resulting fibers were applied to macrophages, a type of immune
system cell, taken from the peritoneal membranes of mice. The
peritoneum is the membrane that surrounds the abdominal organs and
is the site of peritoneal mesothelioma.

The macrophages reacted more negatively to the dry-ground fibers
than the wet-ground, producing more reactive oxygen species,
molecules which may play a role in the development of lung cancer
and mesothelioma. The scientists say the difference is iron.

"These results indicate that grinding methods significantly affect
the surface concentration of iron, resulting in changes in fiber-
induced reactive oxygen species generation or toxicity," writes
author Ashkan Salamatipour with the Division of Pulmonary, Allergy
and Critical Care Medicine at Penn.

Asbestos Toxicity and Mesothelioma

Scientists are still not entirely sure how asbestos triggers
malignant mesothelioma, but the high concentration of iron in
asbestos ore is believed to be a factor. The size and shape of
asbestos fibers make it difficult for the body to rid itself of
the toxin once it has been inhaled or ingested, holding the excess
iron in place and raising the risk of cancers like mesothelioma.

To get a clearer picture of just how dangerous asbestos really is,
the University of Pennsylvania researchers say asbestos fiber
preparation techniques should be considered when comparing
asbestos toxicity studies to one another.

Source:

Salamatipour, A, et al, "Asbestos Fiber Preparation Methods Affect
Fiber Toxicity", July 12, 2016, Environmental Science & Technology
Letters, pp. 270-274


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Bricklawyer Dies After Asbestos Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Daily Echo reported that a retired Southampton bricklayer
died after years of asbestos exposure, an inquest heard.

Peter Dampier, 80, of Forest Hill Drive, worked at Fawley Refinery
after leaving the army in 1958.

He was first exposed to deadly material whilst repairing a
chimney.

The towering structure was lined with asbestos because of its heat
protection capabilities.

In a statement written before his death, Mr Dampier said: "I was
not directly in contact with asbestos, but carpenters and plumbers
working near me would use it.

"I was not provided with any warning nor with any protection."

The 80-year-old also helped construct the University of
Southampton student accommodation buildings on Wessex Lane in the
1970s, where asbestos was also used.

However, iIn 2014 Mr Dampier was diagnosed with mesothelioma and
died on July 5 at his home.

Assistant coroner Sarah Whitby recorded a conclusion of death due
to industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Exposure Linked to Autoimmune Diseases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Rolfson, writing for The Western News, reported that
during the last 15 years, substantial evidence has shown a strong
link between Libby amphibole asbestos and higher risks of
autoimmune diseases and disorders, the Center for Asbestos Related
Disease announced on Aug. 15.

The CARD clinic completed the six-year-long Libby Epidemiology
Research Program study on the effects of asbestos on the immune
system in the fall of 2015 and recently released preliminary data
from that study.

As part of the three-fold project, research scientists from Idaho
State University, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and
University of Montana, along with the CARD clinic, studied the
effects of asbestos on the immune system, lung development and
lung-scarring, and whether or not these health complications
overlap.

According to Dusti Thompson, the CARD clinic outreach specialist,
based on the preliminary results of the studied 950 self-reported
autoimmune diagnoses, there may be as much as a 10-fold increase
in risk for lupus, scleroderma, and rheumatoid arthritis in people
exposed to amphibole asbestos.

"The immune system is supposed to attack foreign things like germs
but sometimes it makes a mistake and starts attacking the body's
tissue," Dr. Jean Pfau, the lead researcher on the autoimmune
project, said. Pfau is a research scientist at the Idaho State
University Department of Microbiology and Immunology who has been
studying the effects of inhaled dusts on the immune system for 15
years. According to Pfau, Libby amphibole asbestos exposure has a
stronger link to autoimmune disorders than other types of asbestos
exposure.

Pfau said that autoimmune diseases and disorders can be really
frustrating for patients and doctors because they are especially
difficult to diagnose, and are often misdiagnosed as other
diseases.

"You have a community where people are obviously getting sick,"
Pfau said. "You have a huge amount of stress. You have a lot of
people that are suffering and they don't know why. They are really
just struggling."

There's a long list of autoimmune diseases, but the most common
caused by amphibole asbestos are lupus, scleroderma, and
rheumatoid arthritis among much more, rarer autoimmune disorders,
which are not classified as of yet. These diseases do tend to run
in families, as a gene-environment interaction. Pfau noted that
while susceptibility would probably continue through genes, she
suspects that since the asbestos exposure isn't there, it might
not happen.

Unlike other autoimmune diseases like type I diabetes or thyroid
diseases, Pfau said the autoimmune diseases caused by amphibole
asbestos don't attack specific parts of the body. The earliest
symptoms of autoimmune diseases are severe fatigue, inflammatory
symptoms and sore joints.

To find out if a patient has an autoimmune disease or disorder, a
rheumatologist would take an Antinuclear Antibody test. Pfau noted
that the patient is diagnosed if they need to test positive in the
Antinuclear Antibody test, on top of having a set of symptoms.
According to Thompson, during the research, they found that
residents of the Libby area exposed to amphibole asbestos are
significantly more likely to have a positive Antinuclear
Autoantibody test, a blood test used to evaluate a person for
autoimmune disorders.

A positive test result means an increased risk of systemic
autoimmune diseases such as lupus, scleroderma and rheumatoid
arthritis. Thompson noted that it's important to remember that
these autoimmune diseases remain very rare, even in Libby. The
preliminary data presented also does not indicate that everyone
exposed to the amphibole asbestos will get one of these diseases.
This all began when the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry awarded a $5 million grant to the Icahn School of
Medicine at Mount Sinai in 2009, in partnership with researchers
at ISU and MSU, to create the Libby Epidemiology Research Program,
which had the mission of furthering research in long-term health
effects of amphibole asbestos in Libby and the surrounding
community. Pfau said the researchers began by gathering subjects
to collect samples and data from patients diagnosed with
autoimmune diseases, abiding by research rules and regulations.
After the data was collected, the researchers performed data
analysis.

Also in their testing, researchers found that autoantibodies
caused by amphibole asbestos may increase the risk of worsening
the scarring in the lining of the lung. According to Pfau, the
overall mission was to build a database and see how these health
conditions overlap.

"[The data] becomes a great resource for the future," Pfau said.
"We have shown we think that the autoimmune component is making
the pleural lung disease worse. We now kind of know some of the
pathway components and what's happening in the body. That means we
(can) begin to have ways to explore therapy."

Pfau also said that the research from Libby will bring about
change that will help a lot of people in areas throughout the U.S.
that experience similar issues with certain dust.

"We just look forward to being able to further our research and go
down other trails in addition to what we've already done,"
Thompson said.

Since the early 2000s, the CARD Clinic, in partnership with
numerous organizations and universities, have been studying the
health complications of amphibole asbestos. The current
preliminary results add to the Agency for Toxic Substances &
Disease Registry's data presented in a 2000-2001 extensive
screening program in Libby. In that study, more than 7,000
residents were questioned and 6.7 percent of the population
reported having lupus, rheumatoid arthritis or systemic sclerosis,
which is proportionally higher than the less-than one percent of
the U.S. population who have ever suffered from these conditions,
they noted. In addition, they also found that 18 percent of 6,668
had abnormalities in the lining of their lungs, with the average
rate of the U.S. being 0.2 to 0.3 percent.

A 2014 journal article publication, written by Pfau and Kinta M.
Serve of the Center for Environmental Health Sciences at the
University of Montana also added to the body of work associating
autoimmune disorders with amphibole asbestos. According to the
2014 publication, the difficulty of linking asbestos to specific
autoimmune disorders comes from a lack of statistics, exposure
misclassifications, mixed exposures to different fibers and the
time interval between exposure and appearance of clinical disease.
On top of those reasons, some people with these diseases do not
present definite or readily observable symptoms. For these
reasons, some of the data found cannot be proven as completely
accurate.

While preliminary results are not conclusive, there is certainly
substantial evidence gathered through the past 16 years that
contributes to the association between autoimmune disorders and
asbestos exposure.

Thompson and Pfau hope that the autoimmune study final results
will be ready by the end of this year. The pleural lining lung
study is currently on hold until further notice and data from the
study on lung development of children exposed to asbestos will be
released by the end of the month.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: York Victims' Families Seek Help from Colleagues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Laycock, writing for The Press, reported that the families of
two men who both apparently fell victim to York's asbestos
timebomb have appealed for former colleagues to come forward with
information.

Richard Sanderson, known as Dick, who was born and worked in York
before emigrating to Australia in the early 1970s, died last year
from the asbestos-related cancer mesothelioma.

Frederick Dugmore, who was known as Tony, died in July 2014 after
being diagnosed with the same condition.

Solicitor Charlie Bradley, of York-based solicitors Corries, who
acts for Mr Sanderson's family in seeking damages, said they
wanted to find out how he came into contact with asbestos.

He said: "We know that there is a long latency period between
exposure to asbestos and the development of mesothelioma,
typically between 40 to 50 years.

"Mr Sanderson moved to Australia in 1974 so we are looking at work
he did in the York area in the 1960s and 1970s".

He urged anyone who worked alongside Mr Sanderson - who worked in
construction - or who had any other information to phone him on
01904 527473 or email him at charlie.bradley@corries.co.uk

Thompsons Solicitors said that Tony' Dugmore's wife, Betty,
believed he might have been exposed to asbestos during his time
working for the British Rail Locking Shop near York railway
station and Armstrong Patents Limited in York.

"Tony first joined British Rail in 1961 as a shunter at a railway
depot in York, where he checked train carriages for faults before
they were sent out for use," said a spokesman.

"He worked for Armstrong Patents Limited from 1966 to 1967 and
again from 1974 to 1975 where he was on a production line soaking
car shock absorbers in acid."

Tony's daughter, Dion, said: "Dad had been an active person for as
long as I remember, but in the last couple of years of his life we
saw him deteriorate to the point where he could hardly move at
all.

"It was a horrible for our family to see and we had no idea that
his ill health was asbestos-related until it was too late."

She urged anyone who worked for British Rail, either shunting or
in the locking shop, or Armstrongs in the 1960s and 1970s, who
could recollect the use of asbestos in these locations, to come
forward and share their experiences.

Helen Tomlin, the solicitor who is dealing with the family's case,
said: "Tony had a long career with a number of employers.
Unfortunately Tony died before we were instructed, and we need to
speak to ex-colleagues so we can confirm the circumstances of his
asbestos exposure in the specific locations where he worked."

She urged anyone who had information about asbestos exposure at
either of his York workplaces to phone her on 01132 056385.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: P. Browder Co-Chairs 2016 Litigation Conference
----------------------------------------------------------------
Simmons Hanly Conroy, one of the nation's largest mass torts firms
and a leader in asbestos and mesothelioma litigation, is pleased
to announce that Perry J. Browder, Esq. --
pbrowder@simmonsfirm.com -- shareholder and head of the firm's
Asbestos Litigation Practice, will chair the Asbestos Litigation
Conference: A National Overview & Outlook. The firm also is a
sponsor of the event that will be held Sept. 12-14 at the Fairmont
San Francisco Hotel in San Francisco.

Produced by Perrin Conferences, the 8th annual conference is a
three-day, comprehensive educational forum with panels and events
covering cutting edge topics and trends in asbestos litigation,
including related legal, scientific and insurance coverage
implications. Attendees will include many of the nation's leading
plaintiff and defense attorneys, judges, insurance professionals,
risk managers, and scientific and medical experts.

"The Asbestos Litigation Conference is one of the best-attended
and most productive events in the nation for asbestos litigation
practitioners," said Browder, who leads the firm's team of more
than 50 asbestos attorneys and has spent more than 20 years
helping families resolve hundreds of million dollar-plus asbestos
cases. "The event's atmosphere encourages learning and engagement
among plaintiffs' and defense lawyers, as well as judges and
representatives from companies and insurance carriers, for
addressing important challenges."

Browder also will participate in the conference panel discussion
"National Trends Driving Asbestos Litigation," which will provide
an update on current trends, statistics and dynamics impacting
asbestos litigation. Other panel topics will include insurance,
judges and corporate perspectives roundtable discussions; updates
on lung cancer; "Settlement Dynamics and Negotiation Strategies";
"Evaluating Industrial Hygiene Conclusions"; "Impact of
Bankruptcies on Litigation Strategies"; jurisdictional updates;
and discussions about the latest wave of talc litigation including
a relevant mock trial exercise. The conference also will feature
Young Lawyers and Women in Business networking lunches designed to
encourage and foster supportive relationships in those communities
within the asbestos litigation industry.

                About Simmons Hanly Conroy, LLC

Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC is one of the nation's largest mass tort
law firms and has recovered more than $5 billion in verdicts and
settlements for plaintiffs. Primary areas of litigation include
asbestos and mesothelioma, pharmaceutical, consumer protection,
environmental and personal injury. The firm's attorneys have been
appointed to leadership in numerous national multidistrict
litigations, including Vioxx, Yaz and Toyota Unintended
Acceleration. The firm also represents small and mid-size
corporations, inventors and entrepreneurs in matters involving
business litigation. Offices are located in New York City,
Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, St. Louis, and Alton,
Illinois. Read more at www.simmonsfirm.com.

Contact: Mark Motley
Chief Marketing Officer
Tel: 618.259.2222
Email: mmotley@simmonsfirm.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teaticket School Opening Due to Asbestos Find
--------------------------------------------------------------
CapeCod.com reported that the Falmouth Public School District says
the Teaticket Elementary School will not be open in time for the
start of the academic year due to asbestos found in the building
this summer.

School officials consulted with the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection after discovering  that HVAC upgrade work
disturbed hazardous materials, according to a statement from
Superintendent Nancy Taylor.

"The administration is working closely with the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Department of LAbor Standards as well as other local
and state agencies. The current timetable for the completion of
this work is anticipated to be approximately two months," Taylor
wrote in a letter to the community.

The school has established a cleaning and abatement plan, and
officials are working to find an appropriate relocation spot for
students.

Taylor said all the clean up plans are being developed with the
intention of minimizing disruptions to students and families.
A community information session on the work and its effects will
take place at the Falmouth High School Auditorium.

Taylor said the health and safety of students and staff will
remain the district's top priority. She posted the following steps
that are now underway:

   * Environmental contractors began the cleaning and abatement of
asbestos this past weekend at the Teaticket Elementary School

   * The Superintendent and Director of Finance and Operations met
with the Department of Environmental Protection, Department of
Labor Standards, environmental and abatement contractors, and town
officials to review the phases of the plan to return to the
building

   * Central Office administrators worked closely with building
principals to develop a plan to temporarily relocate Teaticket
students and staff

   * A request for a site review of our relocation plan from the
appropriate governing agencies is in process.  The Teaticket
administration and support staff have been temporarily relocated
to the School Administration Building and can be reached at 508-
548-0151 ext. 178

   * Channel 14 will air a live broadcast of the Teaticket
Elementary School community information meeting on Thursday,
August 25 at 5:30 PM. For non-Comcast Falmouth subscribers, the
meeting can also be viewed online at http://www.fctv.org/v3/14live
. Childcare will be provided for this forum. If you are in need of
this service please call 508-548-0151 ext. 143. Updated
information will be released in a timely manner. Superintendent
Updates will be made available on the Falmouth Public Schools'
website, district and Teaticket Facebook pages, and provided to
local media.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Manufacturer Wins Summary Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Connecticut court has
awarded summary judgment to an asbestos defendant, finding that
the plaintiff had failed to create a genuine issue of material
fact as to whether the decedent was exposed to asbestos in the
defendant's products.

In the July opinion, the Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial
District of Fairfield, said that testimony from the defendant's
records custodian established the absence of a causal connection
between the defendant's conduct and the decedent's injuries.

Plaintiff Katherine Filosi asserted the claims on behalf of Donald
Filosi, contending that he was exposed to asbestos while employed
as a rigger.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Official Accepts Bribes to Ignore Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Visentin, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reported
that a government employee responsible for investigating illegal
dumping in Western Sydney allegedly solicited bribes in exchange
for ignoring the dumping of dangerous waste products including
asbestos, a corruption inquiry has heard.

Craig Izzard, a former investigator with the Western Sydney
Regional Illegal Dumping Squad (RID), is being examined by the
Independent Commission Against Corruption over his alleged
involvement in "black market" dumping.

Counsel assisting the inquiry James Mack told the hearing former
rugby league player Mr Izzard was the principle person of interest
in four allegations of corrupt conduct, including three occasions
in 2015 when he allegedly solicited bribes from people in exchange
for not investigating their dumping activity.

In his opening address, Mr Mack told the hearing the high costs
associated with dumping dangerous products legally had created a
"black market for dumping".

"The more dangerous the waste, the more expensive it is to
comply," he said.

The hearing heard that the legal disposal of a typical truck load
of 30 tonnes of asbestos-contaminated waste could cost as much as
$10,000 in handling fees.

From 2010 until he was sacked in March this year, Mr Izzard was
employed by the Western Sydney RID, which investigated illegal
dumping on behalf of seven Western Sydney councils, where he was
allocated responsibility for the Liverpool council area.

Mr Mack told the hearing that although all four allegations had a
"distinct and different factual matrix" and related to a separate
location, "common to all of the allegations is the conduct of Mr
Izzard".

"If those responsible for the enforcement of the laws are not
subject to proper oversight, an environment is created where
corrupt culture can permeate the regulatory system."

The commission heard that between January and May 2015, Mr Izzard
allegedly failed to investigate allegations that Antonio Barillaro
was involved in carrying out illegal landfill operations at 100
Martins Road, Badgerys Creek.

"Simply put, it is alleged Mr Izzard asked Mr Barillaro for cash
in return for Mr Izzard not enforcing illegal dumping laws," Mr
Mack said.

He said the commission would likely hear evidence from Liverpool
council staff in which Mr Barillaro told them in May 2015 that Mr
Izzard had attempted, unsuccessfully, to solicit a bribe from him.

Mr Izzard is accused of similar conduct in connection with the
owner of another property in Willowdene Avenue, Luddenham, which
was used for dumping asbestos.

Mr Mack told the court the property owner Reuben Matthews had
already pleaded guilty to dumping offences in the Liverpool Local
Court and  had been fined $55,000. Another man, Nosir Kobite was
fined $25,000 after pleading guilty to transporting the waste to
the property.

On a third occasion on December 8, 2015, Mr Izzard allegedly
solicited a corrupt payment from Ibrahim Beydoun, an established
operator in the waste industry, over a property in Rossmore.

As well as allegedly ensuring that the previous occupant had
vacated the property, Mr Izzard also allegedly assisted in the
approval of the property for use as a waste transfer facility, Mr
Mack said.

"It is further alleged Mr Kobite acted as middleman for the
payment from Mr Beydoun to Mr Izzard," he said.

Mr Izzard then allegedly sought payment from Mr Kobite directly in
exchange for not investigating breaches of illegal dumping laws at
property in Riverstone, which had been leased by an excavation
company.

Mr Kobite was a guarantor on the lease, and Mr Izzard had assured
the property managers he could vouch for Mr Kobite and was happy
with the company's use of the site, Mr Mack told the commission.

Large amounts of illegally dumped asbestos were later found to
have contaminated the site, he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bags of Asbestos Dumped Near Children's Park
-------------------------------------------------------------
Timothyna Duncan, writing for Birmingham Mail, reported that fly-
tippers have sparked a safety alert after allegedly dumping bags
of potentially deadly ASBESTOS near a children's park.

Project manager Aaron Bradley, 30, raised the alarm this morning
after spotting the potentially harmful industrial waste in
Lancaster Way in Smith's Wood .

He posted the images on Facebook to warn other residents to avoid
the area, while Solihull Council sent an asbestos team to the
scene.

"I posted the pictures on Facebook, so they wouldn't go to the
area." Bradley said.

"How can someone be so inconsiderate?"

Asbestos produces dust when it is left to decay and this can
gradually but severely damage your lungs if you breathe it in. It
is linked to many lung cancers.

As Bradley's work at a mechanical company involves health and
safety, he recognised the dangers of this mineral, which companies
have to pay to dispose off safely.

He said: "In 15 years, a child can be diagnosed with lung cancer
because someone didn't dispose of it in the right way.

"I understand it costs a lot of money, but the person who did this
has put everyone's life at risk."

Craig Rooney, who used to live in the area, posted on Facebook:
"This area is getting worse and worse... people have no respect
any more.

"The council needs to put up CCTV and prosecute the culprits."

A spokesman for Solihull Council said: "We are aware of it and we
are sending an asbestos team out there."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Seek Summary Judgment in "Napoli"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record,
reported that Union Carbide and several others have filed motions
for summary judgment after Madison County Associate Judge Stephen
Stobbs suggested it may be the more appropriate method for
handling cases that are not ready for their October trial date.

A motion hearing to address the summary judgment requests has been
scheduled for Aug. 26 at 9 a.m.

Union Carbide originally sought dismissal for want of prosecution
in 46 asbestos cases set for trial Oct. 3. Several other asbestos
defendants joined in the motion.

However, Union Carbide attorney Charles Anderson said the
defendant had been dismissed from all but two -- leaving "Foster"
and "Hinkle" claims. Other defendants seeking relief from the
cases remain as parties to the litigation.

Associate Judge Donald Flack filed 30 of the 46 cases before he
became a judge. Bob Perica of Wood River entered appearances in
all 30 of Flack's suits, but withdrew in all of them on Feb. 21,
2014, at which time the Napoli Shkolnik firm entered appearances
for all 30 plaintiffs. Napoli attorney Eric Jackstadt represents
the plaintiffs in the cases.

Stobbs heard arguments on the motions to dismiss on Aug. 10. He
said he would need to consider case law before ruling on the
motions, but he suggested that motions for summary judgment might
be more appropriate.

The first motion for summary judgment was filed the next day.

In Union Carbide's Aug. 15 motion for summary judgment in both the
Foster and Hinkle cases, it explains that time has lapsed for
obtaining fact, exposure and site witness depositions.

"First, plaintiff has not offered or tendered a single witness for
deposition in this matter as is required by the Standing Order.
Second, plaintiff has not produced or otherwise offered any
evidence Mr. Foster was exposed to asbestos and/or asbestos-
containing products attributable to Union Carbide," the motion
states.

As a result, Union Carbide claims it is entitled to summary
judgment relief.

Several other defendants filed similar motions for summary
judgment.

In Foster, defendants Honeywell International Inc. and CBS
Corporation also filed motions.

In Hinkle, defendants Mannington Mills Inc., Ford Motor Company
and Honeywell also filed motions.

No ruling has been entered on the motions to dismiss for want of
prosecution.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Cir. Flips Dismissal of Asbestos Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that the 3rd Circuit U.S. Court
of Appeals has reversed the dismissal of three asbestos cases,
finding that the defendants had, in fact, waived their personal
jurisdiction defenses and had expressed their wish to proceed to
trial in the Northern District of Ohio.

In the Aug. 18 opinion, the 3rd Circuit said that the defendants
had expressed a willingness to litigate the underlying cases in
Ohio and post-transfer filings confirmed the waiver of the lack of
personal jurisdiction defense.

Plaintiffs Lionel Wilson, Joseph Braun, and Thomas Guiden filed
asbestos-related lawsuits in the late 1980s.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Victim Has Only Months to Live
------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that
David Hoff, 65, a father, a grandfather and a few years into his
retirement, is looking toward his twilight years that
statistically should number about 17.  That translates into a life
expectancy that would take him into his early eighties. But it has
not worked out that way for him, a resident of Beaverton, Oregon.
Hoff is living with a diagnosis of Mesothelioma. He'll be lucky if
he sees 67, as opposed to 82.

According to The Oregonian, Hoff was recently awarded $8.75
million in an Asbestos lawsuit he launched against three
defendants, two of which reached a confidential asbestos
mesothelioma settlement with the plaintiff during trial, leaving
Kaiser Gypsum the lone defendant that took the trial to its
conclusion.

Hoff was a carpenter in his twenties, deployed to construction
sites where workers applied drywall compound to drywall, before
the product was sanded, releasing compound dust into the air. It
is alleged that the drywall compound manufactured by Kaiser Gypsum
contained asbestos. Hoff was diagnosed with asbestos mesothelioma
just a few years ago, keeping to the incubation profile of
mesothelioma that can lie in wait for decades before suddenly
emerging.

Mesothelioma asbestos cancer is not curable. It remains a virtual
death sentence for anyone diagnosed with Mesothelioma, a cancer
that affects the lining of the lungs.

In Hoff's case, he had no identifiable health problems until his
early 60s, when he consulted a doctor for an unrelated complaint
involving his kidneys. An imaging scan revealed a small buildup of
fluid near Hoff's lungs. He was formally diagnosed with asbestos
mesothelioma in August, 2015.

He has since had one of his lungs removed, which will not prevent
death but buy him some time. Doctors have told him he has,
perhaps, 18 months left at most. Hoff attempted to attend his
trial when it began in May, but after a few days had to beg off
due to illness and was hospitalized.

At trial it was revealed that Kaiser Gypsum stopped manufacturing
the spackle drywall compound in 1975 on its own volition, even
though the US Environmental Protection Agency was starting to make
noise about the dangers of asbestos at about the same time.

Hoff's asbestos compensation trial revealed that Kaiser may have
known about the potential for asbestosis and asbestos cancer
associated with its product as early as 1965.

While it is not known if Kaiser plans to appeal the verdict,
Kaiser Gypsum has moved to have the verdict overturned. If that
happens, Hoff may never live to see his asbestos claims turn into
cash. The jury in his trial awarded Hoff $750,000 for medical
expenses, and $4 million for pain and suffering. Hoff's wife
Patricia was also awarded $4 million for her suffering up to this
point, and beyond following the certain loss of her husband.

The asbestos lawsuit is David P. Hoff, et al. v. CertainTeed
Corp., et al., Case No. 15CV23996, Oregon Circuit Court,
Multnomah)



                            *********

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  * * *