CAR_Public/160916.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, September 16, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 186




                            Headlines


ACE MOTOR: "Sprye" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to Dist. of Maryland
ADIDAS AMERICA: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Ruffo" Suit
ALLSTATE FIRE: Faces Ambulatory Suit in District of New Jersey
ALSCO INC: Must Defend Against "English" Wage and Hour Suit
AMERIFACTORS FINANCIAL: Faces Career Counseling Suit in D.S.C.

AMGEN INC: Oct. 25 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
APPLE INC: McCuneWright LLP Files Class Action in California
AR RESOURCES: Wins Prelim. OK of "Kielbasinski" Class Settlement
ARAMARK FACILITY: Saldana, et al. Seek Certification of Class
AT&T SERVICES: "Walton" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class

ATMOS ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Waxahachie Explosion
AVVO INC: Wins Dismissal of Vrdolyak's IRPA Claims
BABIES R US: "Guy" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to S.D. Cal.
BALTIMORE, MD: Settles Class Action Over Royal Farms Ticket Fees
BANNER HEALTH: Faces "Sevilen" Suit in District of Arizona

BASIC RESEARCH: "Spence" Suit Moved from S.D.N.Y. to D. Utah
BMW BANK: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Foley Motors Suit
BRIGADOON FITNESS: Gorss Motels Suit Seeks Certification of Class
BRISTOL-MYERS: Recent Plavix Ruling Favorable for Plaintiffs Bar
BROTHER INT'L: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Hobbs" Suit

BUCKEYE CHECK: "Saenz" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Class Certification Sought in "Naylor" Suit
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces "Back" Suit in Eastern Dist. of Kentucky
CONAGRA FOODS: Ninth Circuit to Address "Ascertainability" Issue
CONTAINER STORE: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Cadigan" Class Suit

COOKING LIGHT: Appeals Decision in "Montellano-Espana" Class Suit
CVB FINANCIAL: "Lloyd" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
DALLAS CENTRAL: Monterra Apartments Sues Over Misappraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: Nessel Development X Sues Over Misappraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: Nessel Development XI Sues Over Misappraisal

DALLAS CENTRAL: Onemain Place Sues Over Misappraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: Old Parkland Sues Over Misappraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: Pavillion North Sues Over Misappraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: PC Brookfield Sues Over Misappraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: PCDF Broadmoor Sues Over Misappraisal

DALLAS CENTRAL: WW Ross Sues Over Misappraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: Solaris LLC Sues Over Misappraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: SPP Covington Sues Over Misappraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: Texas Birchwood Sues Over Misappraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: Tiburon Apartments Sues Over Misappraisal

DALLAS CENTRAL: Tio Milestone Sues Over Misappraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: Towne North Sues Over Misappraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: Villages of Addison Sues Over Misappraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: Wallis Rusty Sues Over Misappraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: West Ferris Sues Over Misappraisal

DALLAS CENTRAL: WW Mosaic Sues Over Misappraisal
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL: Fraud Case Focuses on Process Server
DONALD TRUMP: Faces "Thorne" Suit Over Campaign Sent Via SMS
EVANSTON CITY, IL: Wilson, et al. Seek Certification of 2 Classes
EVOLVED INC: "Perkins" Suit Seek Certification of FLSA Class

FACEBOOK INC: Bid to Certify Class in Privacy Litigation Denied
FINANCIAL CORPORATION: "Koval" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
FORBES MEDIA: Class Certification Bid in "Hall" Suit Dismissed
FRONTON HOLDINGS: "Rife" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
GENERAL MOTORS: Ignition Switch Not to Blame for 2011 Crash

GERAWAN FARMING: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Amaro" Suit
GOOGLE INC: Settles Apple Browser Hacking Claims for $5.5 Million
GRADUATION ALLIANCE: Court Allows Rost to File Amended Complaint
HALLIBURTON ENERGY: "Guerrero" Suit Moved to E.D. of California
HARRIS COUNTY: Petroquip Energy Sues Over Misappraisal

HARRIS COUNTY: PPI Mechanical Sues Over Misappraisal
HARRIS COUNTY: Team Industrial Sues Over Misappraisal
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Class of Purchasers Certified in "Wolf" Suit
HOLLYWOOD POINTE: African-Asian Club's Bid for Class Cert. Denied
HOME DEPOT: "Henry" Suit Moved from N.D. Cal. to E.D. Cal.

HOME TEAM PEST: Garnica Seeks to Certify Customers Class
INSTALLATIONS INC: "Somers" Suit Minimum Pay Under Wage Act
IPAWN RODNEY: "Jones" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to E.D. Ark.
JACKSONVILLE, FL: 11th Cir. Affirms Dissolution of Consent Decree
JERSEY SHORE: Sued in N.J. Super. Ct. Over Race-Based Harassment

JOHN PAUL MITCHELL: Gerard Seeks Review of C.D. Cal. Ruling
JOHNSTON & ARENTZ: Faces Class Action Over Robocalls
KAPRAUN P.C.: "Wilburn" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
KIA MOTORS: Faces "Leong" Suit in Eastern District of New York
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Faces "Ramos" Suit in District of Arizona

KWICK RENTALS: Class Cert. in "Blankenship" Suit Partly Granted
LA ENTERTAINMENT: Florida Court Certifies FLSA Collective Action
LANCASTER SCHOOL DISTRICT: Appeals From Ruling in "Issa" Suit
LEBO AUTOMOTIVE: Calif. Supreme Court Affirms Sandquist Decision
LEE N' EDDIES: Urban Elevator Seeks Certification of Class

LEROY D. BACA: Amador et al. Seek Certification of Class
LINCOLN PARK CITY, MI: "Coulter" Suit Seeks Class Certification
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: Class Cert. in "Roy" Suit Partly Granted
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Myers" Suit in C.D. of California
MANHERTZ BAIL: "Yearby" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla.

MASTERCARD: Hearing in U.K. Class Action Scheduled This Year
MEDICAL BUSINESS: "Rhone" Suit Seeks Class Certification
MY-TRE GLAMMA: Certification of Class Sought in "Heuberger" Suit
NEW ZEALAND STEEL: Faces Class Action Over Steel Reinforcing Mesh
NORTHLAND GROUP: Class Certification Bid in "Aguirre" Denied

OCWEN LOAN: "Beecroft" Suit Moved from D. Minn. to N.D. Ill.
PEPSICO INC: Faces Class Action Over False Claims on Izze Sodas
PMLRA PIZZA: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Reeves" Labor Class Suit
PRODUCTION TESTING: "Brown" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
PRODUCTION TESTING: Brown Seeks Permission to Issue Notice

PROFESSIONAL SERVICE: Hogen Seeks Certification of Three Classes
QUEEN STUCCO: Hopson Seeks to Certify Class of Hourly Employees
RIVER ROCKS: Class Certification Bid in "Payne" Suit Denied
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Lam" Class Suit
SANTA CLARA, CA: Certification of Class & Subclass Sought

SARATOGA DIAGNOSTICS: Dimensions' Bid to Certify Under Advisement
SCOTTRADE INC: Seeks 8th Circuit Review of Ruling in "Kuhns" Suit
SEPTRAN INC: Gets Prelim. OK of Class Settlement in "Barker" Suit
SIZMEK INC: Faces Class Action Over Vector Capital Merger
SIZMEK INC: "Penza" Sues Directors Over Merger with Vector

ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Implanted Heart Devices
STATE STREET: Nov. 2 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
SWIFTSHIPS LLC: Class Certification Bid in "Panzer" Suit Dropped
SYRACUSE, NY: Court Refuses to Junk All Claims in "Winston" Suit
T-MOBILE USA: Faces "Rahmany" Suit in W.D. of Washington

TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Loses Bid to Derail Former Students' Fraud Suit
UNITED STATES: Bid for Class Certification in "Allen" Suit Denied
UNITED STATES: Appeal Filed From Ruling in "Gonzalez-Aviles" Suit
UV LOGISTICS: Class Certification Sought in "Griffis" Suit
VALERO MARKETING: Case Management Scheduling Order Set

VERIZON WIRELESS: Faces "Menichiello" Suit in C.D. Cal.
VISION FINANCIAL: $2,529 in Fees Awarded to Dolemba
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Yousey" Suit Moved from W.D. Ark. to N.D. Cal.
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Consent Decree Entered in California Complaint
YAHOO: Judge Approves E-mail Scanning class Action Settlement

* Class Action Firm Slater & Gordon Incurs $1-Bil. Loss
* Electronic Class Action Settlement Notices Proposed
* Recall of Faulty Products Proposed Under New Draft Bill
* Role of Judges in MDL Cases Faces Increasing Scrutiny


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Groupon's Bid to Amend CMO in "Mosley" Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Amend Suit to Add Asbestos Claim Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wrongful Death Suit Remanded to NJ State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: City Not Entitled to Coverage for Defense Costs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NYCHA's Claims vs. G-I Holdings Dismissed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Remand "Angus" to State Court Granted
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Loses Summary Judgment Bid in "Vega"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment OK in "Malone" Recommended
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Circ. Remands "Jefferson" to District Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Property Owners Win Summary Judgment Bid

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Atwood, Carrier Win Summary Ruling in "Mitchell"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AT&T Wins Summary Judgment in "Jones"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Silver's Bid to Continue Bail Partly Granted
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Still Defends Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Disposed 396K Claims at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Units Had 4,000 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Claims Pursued Against Quaker Chemical
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Had 805 Active Cases at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Had $407MM Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trimas Corp. Had 950 Pending Cases at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers Want $19MM From Asbestos Lawyers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Unlikely to Pay for Aboriginal Kids
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MPs to Move Out of "Asbestos-Riddled Parliament
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wave of Victims to Emerge From Toxic School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Atty Calls for Workplace Protection for All

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Fears Close Hotel Development Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Rugby Player Fronts ICAC Over Dumping Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Additional Asbestos Found at VHS South
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sri Lanka to Take New Steps Over Asbestos Use
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plaintiff Seeks to Restore Asbestos Verdict

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Yuanda Under Pressure Over Asbestos Scandal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Still Possible for 9/11 Survivors
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit Blaming Asbestos in Courthouse Could End
ASBESTOS UPDATE: John Holland Not To Blame for Hospital Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Netherlands Orders Removal of Asbestos Roofs

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Daughter Blames Companies for Mother's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Work Site Hit With 17 Asbestos Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: City Won't Be Fined for Firefighters Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Review May Trigger Chlorine Industry Probe
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Queensland Asbestos School Students "Safe"


                            *********


ACE MOTOR: "Sprye" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to Dist. of Maryland
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamal Sprye, For himself and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ace Motor Acceptance Corp., the
Defendant, Case No. 423332V, was removed from the Circuit Court
for Montgomery County, Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maryland (Greenbelt). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-03064-PX to the proceeding. The assigned
Judge is Hon. Paula Xinis.

Ace Motor is engaged in the dealer financing business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Martin Eugene Wolf, Esq.
          GORDON, WOLF & CARNEY, CHTS.
          102 W Pennsylvania Ave Ste 402
          Towson, MD 21204
          Telephone: (410) 825 2300
          Facsimile: (410) 825 0066
          E-mail: mwolf@GWCfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Nathan Daniel Adler
          Neuberger, Quinn, Gielen,
          Rubin, and Gibber PA
          One South St 27th Fl
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 332 8516
          Facsimile: (410) 332 8517
          E-mail: nda@nqgrg.com


ADIDAS AMERICA: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Ruffo" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Alvin K. Hellerstein entered an opinion and order denying
class certification in the lawsuit styled EDWARD A. RUFFO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
ADIDAS AMERICA INC., Case No. 15 Civ. 5989 (AKH) (S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff Edward Ruffo brought the consumer class action against
Adidas, alleging violations of the New York Deceptive Acts and
Practices Act, the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, and 46
similar state statutes, as well as claims for breach of warranty
and unjust enrichment, presumably under New York law.  The
Plaintiff has moved for certification of a nationwide class of
purchasers of the Defendant's SpringBlade sneakers, as well as a
New York Subclass consisting of all New York residents, who
purchased the allegedly defective shoes.

Judge Hellerstein opined that predominance is not satisfied for
any of the Plaintiff's five causes of action, adding that a wide
range of individualized issues will need to be established for
every plaintiff.  "The claim for express breach of warranty under
New York law, requires a plaintiff to show reliance on advertising
and marketing," Judge Hellerstein continues.

"While the complaint alleges that plaintiff relied on Adidas
advertising, this element would need to be established for each
plaintiff in order to prevail on Count one," Judge Hellerstein
noted.

"Further, plaintiff has not established that the members of the
class he proposes are entitled to damages, or suffered any harm,"
Judge Hellerstein stated.  "In fact, the limited discovery carried
out so far suggests that for Springblade sneakers, Adidas internal
databases show a defect return rate of approximately 0.7%," Judge
Hellerstein added.

A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/uIlyti from Leagle.com.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy Allan Hellman, Esq.
          Thomas Peter Giuffra, Esq.
          RHEINGOLD, VALET, RHEINGOLD, RUFFO & GIUFFRA LLP
          113 East 37th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 684-1880
          Facsimile: (212) 689-8156
          E-mail: tgiuffra@rheingoldlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Francis John Earley, Esq.
          Michelle Gillette, Esq.
          MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY & POPEO, P.C.
          Chrysler Center
          666 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 935-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 983-3115
          E-mail: FEarley@mintz.com

               - and -

          Joshua Thomas Foust, Esq.
          MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY & POPEO, P.C.
          44 Montgomery St., 36th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 432-6096
          Facsimile: (415) 432-6001
          E-mail: jtfoust@mintz.com

               - and -

          Daniel J. Herling, Esq.
          KELLER AND HECKMAN LLP
          3 Embarcadero Center #1420
          San Francisco, CA 94133
          Telephone: (415) 948-2820
          E-mail: herling@khlaw.com


ALLSTATE FIRE: Faces Ambulatory Suit in District of New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Allstate Fire Casualty Insurance
Company. The case is styled AMBULATORY SURGICAL CENTER OF
SOMERSET, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
and JUAN GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ALLSTATE FIRE CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-05378 (D.N.J., Sep. 2,
2016).

Allstate Fire offers fire, marine, and casualty insurance.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


ALSCO INC: Must Defend Against "English" Wage and Hour Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ROBERT ENGLISH, ALEX RIVERA, and DANIEL
JOYCE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. ALSCO INC., d/b/a American Linen Supply Co.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04910 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge
Matthew F. Kennelly entered an order granting Plaintiffs' motion
for authorization to send notice to similarly situated persons of
the pendency of the lawsuit so that they join the suit if they
wish.

The Court grants plaintiffs' motion for court-authorized notice
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and it is subject to
further determinations regarding the specifics of the notice to be
sent.

The Court denies defendant's motion to dismiss and denies without
prejudice Defendant's alternative motion to transfer venue.

The Fair Labor Standards Act allows plaintiffs to bring a
collective action to recover unpaid overtime compensation on
behalf of "themselves and other employees similarly situated." A
collective action under the FLSA requires would-be plaintiffs to
opt in and binds only those plaintiffs who do so.

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


AMERIFACTORS FINANCIAL: Faces Career Counseling Suit in D.S.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Amerifactors Financial Group,
LLC. The case is titled Career Counseling, Inc. doing business as
Snelling Staffing Services, a South Carolina corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. Amerifactors Financial Group,
LLC, Gulf Coast Bank and Trust Company, and John Does 1-5, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-03013-JMC (D.S.C., Sep. 2, 2016). The
assigned Judge is Hon. J Michelle Childs.

AmeriFactors, a business funding company, provides accounts
receivable financing services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Gressette Felder, Jr., Esq.
          MCGOWAN HOOD AND FELDER
          1517 Hampton Street
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 779 0100
          E-mail: jfelder@mcgowanhood.com


AMGEN INC: Oct. 25 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WESTERN DIVISION

IN RE AMGEN INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION

Case No. CV 07-2536 PSG (PLAx)

Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez

TO:  ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED AMGEN INC. PUBLICLY
TRADED SECURITIES DURING THE PERIOD FROM APRIL 22, 2004 THROUGH
MAY 10, 2007, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"), AND WERE DAMAGED
THEREBY (THE "CLASS")

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the Court, that the Class
Representative in the above-captioned class action (the "Action"),
on behalf of itself and the certified Class, has reached a
proposed Settlement of the Action with Amgen Inc. ("Amgen"), Kevin
W. Sharer, Richard D. Nanula, Roger M. Perlmutter, and George J.
Morrow (collectively, the "Individual Defendants" and, with Amgen,
the "Defendants").  The Settlement provides for a total payment of
$95,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement Amount") for the benefit of
the Class that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action
against Defendants and grant the releases specified and described
in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated July 20,
2016 (the "Stipulation").

A hearing will be held on October 25, 2016 at 1:30 p.m., before
the Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez in Courtroom 880 of the United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
Edward R. Roybal Federal Building and Courthouse, 255 East Temple
Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, to determine, among other things,
whether: (1) the proposed Settlement should be approved by the
Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Action should be
dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation; (3) the
proposed Plan of Allocation for the distribution of the Settlement
Amount and any interest thereon, less any Court-awarded attorneys'
fees, Notice and Administration Expenses, Taxes, and other costs,
fees, or expenses approved by the Court (the "Net Settlement
Fund") should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (4) Class
Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and payment
of litigation expenses should be granted.  The Court may change
the date of the Settlement Hearing without providing another
notice.  You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing in order
to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE NET SETTLEMENT
FUND.  If you have not yet received the full printed Notice of
Proposed Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorneys' Fees
and Expenses (the "Settlement Notice") and a Proof of Claim and
Release form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator or visiting its
website at:

          Amgen Securities Litigation
          c/o Epiq
          PO Box 4178
          Portland, OR 97208-4178
          (800) 462-2317
          www.AmgenSecuritiesLitigation.com

If you are a Class Member, in order to be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof
of Claim form postmarked or received on or before December 23,
2016.

If you previously submitted a valid and timely request for
exclusion from the Class in connection with the Notice of Pendency
of Class Action ("Class Notice") and you wish to remain excluded,
no further action is required.  (You will not be bound by any
judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you
will not be eligible to share in the Net Settlement Fund.)
However, if you previously submitted such a request for exclusion
from the Class in connection with the Class Notice and you want to
opt-back into the Class now for the purpose of being eligible to
receive a payment from the Net Settlement Fund, you may do so.  In
order to opt-back into the Class, you must submit a request to
opt-back into the Class in writing such that it is received on or
before October 4, 2016, in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Settlement Notice.

If you did not previously submit a request for exclusion but you
do not want to be in the Class and be eligible to receive a
payment from the Settlement, you may exclude yourself from the
Class now.  To exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a
written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions
set forth in the Settlement Notice such that it is received on or
before October 4, 2016.  If you are a Class Member and do not
exclude yourself from the Class, you will be bound by any
judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or the application for attorneys' fees and payment of
expenses must be mailed to Class Counsel and Defendants' Counsel
such that they are received on or before October 4, 2016, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Settlement
Notice.

Inquiries, other than requests for copies of the Settlement Notice
and Proof of Claim form, may be directed to Class Counsel:

          Thomas A. Dubbs, Esq.
          Christopher J. McDonald, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          www.labaton.com
          settlementquestions@labaton.com
         (888) 219-6877

Dated:  September 8, 2016
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


APPLE INC: McCuneWright LLP Files Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Wehner, writing for The Daily Dot, reports that Apple's
iPhone has generally been a pretty reliable device over the course
of its existence, but because of its popularity, when a defect
rears its ugly head, it can affect thousands or even millions of
users.  The "touch disease" that has recently been blamed for
countless user-reported iPhone 6 failures has gained enough
attention that there are now lawyers involved.  A
class-action lawsuit has been filed in California over the issue,
and you can join it, too.

McCuneWright LLP has filed the suit on behalf of three
individuals, citing alleged design defects that make the iPhone 6
and 6 Plus unusable.  The suit specifically mentions the "touch
disease" video from troubleshooting and repair website iFixit,
noting that the defect causes a gray flickering at the top of the
display.

As iPhone repair experts discovered, the problem isn't due to the
screen itself, but a faulty connection on the device's logic
board.  The suit also mentions that a metal shield, like the one
on the iPhone 5s logic board, could have prevented the defect in
the first place.

If you have an iPhone 6 or 6 Plus that has suffered from the
"touch disease" defect, you can potentially join McCuneWright's
class-action lawsuit by getting in contact with the group's
office.  A consultation form is available on the official page of
the class-action suit, where you can input your name and contact
information and explain exactly why you believe you would qualify
to be included as a plaintiff.

At present, Apple doesn't officially recognize the defect as being
a widespread problem, so if nothing else, this lawsuit could help
draw some broader attention to what appears to be a real problem
for many users.


AR RESOURCES: Wins Prelim. OK of "Kielbasinski" Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Kim R. Gibson entered an order in the lawsuit captioned
THOMAS KIELBASINSKI; an individual; on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. A.R. RESOURCES, INC., Case No. 3:15-
cv-00066-KRG (W.D. Pa.), granting preliminary approval to the
Class Settlement Agreement between the Plaintiff, individually,
and as representative of the class and the Defendant.  The Court
defines the "Settlement Class" as:

     All consumers in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to whom
     A.R. Resources, Inc. mailed a written communication, in
     connection with its attempt to collect a debt, which written
     communications included a statement that a $5 convenience
     fee would be added to all credit transactions, and which
     resulted in the consumer being charged such a fee, during a
     period beginning March 13, 2014, and ending October 31,
     2015.

Judge Gibson defines the "Class Claims" as those claims arising
from ARR's collection letters, which seek to collect a $5
"convenience fee" when using a credit card to pay for a debt is
not expressly authorized by the agreement creating the Plaintiff's
debt or permitted by law.

The Court appoints the Plaintiff as the Class Representative; his
counsel, Andrew T. Thomasson, Philip D. Stem, and Craig Thor
Kimmel, as Class Counsel; and Heffler Claims Group as the
Settlement Administrator to administer notice to Settlement Class
Members and administer the Settlement.

Judge Gibson approves the Parties' proposed Class Notice and
directs that it be mailed to the last known address of each member
of the Settlement Class as shown in ARR's business records.  Judge
Gibson set this schedule:

   -- Class Counsel will cause the Class Notice to be mailed to
      Settlement Class Members on or before September 29, 2016;

   -- Settlement Class Members will have until November 14, 2016,
      to submit a claim form, exclude themselves from, or object
      to, the Settlement;

   -- Any lawyer, who intends to appear at the Final Fairness
      Hearing also must enter a written Notice of Appearance of
      Counsel with the Clerk of the Court no later than
      November 14, 2016;

   -- To be effective, any claim form, request for exclusion, or
      objection must be postmarked by November 14, 2016; and

   -- A final hearing on the fairness and reasonableness of the
      Agreement and whether final approval will be given to it
      and the requests for fees and expenses by Class Counsel
      will be held on December 12, 2016, at 1:30 p.m.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=N4HFnoC5


ARAMARK FACILITY: Saldana, et al. Seek Certification of Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MARIA IMELDA SALDANA, LUCIA GONZALEZ
BALDERAS and MARIA CARDENAS DE MORA Individually and On Behalf of
All Similarly Situated Persons, the Plaintiffs, v. ARAMARK
FACILITY SERVICES, LLC, ARAMARK FACILITY SERVICES, INC., OPTIMUM
SOURCE, INC., JOANNA OGILVIE and MEGAN OGILVIE, the Defendants,
Case No. 4:15-cv-02855 (S.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs move for
conditional certification of their minimum wage and overtime
claims against Defendants as a collective action, and seek a
judicially approved notice to a class consisting of:

     "all individuals who are employed by or have been employed
     by Aramark Facility Services, LLC, Aramark Facility
     Services, Inc., Optimum Source Inc., Joanna Ogilvie, and/or
     Megan Ogilvie at any time since September 30, 2012 as
     janitors and/or maintenance workers (Putative Class
     Members)."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yjO4j8aO

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
          Houston, TX 77018
          Telephone: (713) 868 3388
          Facsimile: (713) 683 9940


AT&T SERVICES: "Walton" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled WENDELL WALTON and MICHAEL MANTONYA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. AT&T SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:15-
cv-03653-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify
a class pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act:

     "of a small group of AT&T employees asserting overtime
     misclassification claims."

According to the complaint, there are only approximately 301 of
them nationwide, according to AT&T's records. The employees at
issue work in two job titles: "Senior Training Manager Design"
(Designers) and "Senior Training Manager Delivery" (Deliverers)
(collectively, Training Specialists).

The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to order AT&T to produce an
updated class list to Plaintiffs' counsel; direct the
dissemination of notice of the pendency of the action by mail and
e-mail using the proposed Notice; permit potential Collective
Members to file Consent to Join Forms, by mail, fax, e-mail, or
website submission, until 90 days after the date of an order
granting this motion; and permit the dissemination of a reminder
postcard by mail and e-mail.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=m1i3uRsu

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
          Relic Sun, Esq.
          Michael N. Litrownik, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 638 8800
          Facsimile: (415) 638 8810
          E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com
          mlitrownik@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Jason C. Marsili, Esq.
          Brianna M. Primozic, Esq
          POSNER & ROSEN LLP
          3600 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1800
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 389 6050
          Facsimile: (213) 389 0663
          E-mail: jmarsili@posner-rosen.com
          bprimozic@posner-rosen.com


ATMOS ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Waxahachie Explosion
----------------------------------------------------------
L.P. Phillips, writing for 1080 KRLD, reports that Atmos Energy
has been hit with a huge lawsuit over last year's explosion that
damaged a neighborhood in Waxahachie, and nearly 30 plaintiffs
have signed-on.

The lawsuit blames Atmos for not monitoring Metrobore, the
contractor that allegedly cut through both gas and sewer lines.

Attorney Tom Carse tells KRLD news the leak went unnoticed for
four days -- until Adele Chavez turned on her stove and ignited
the leaking gas in September of last year.

Ms. Chavez's home exploded, burning her and her brother.  Several
other homes in the immediate neighborhood were also damaged.

Ms. Chavez and the other 26 plaintiffs are seeking more than $1
million in damages.

A separate suit was filed against Metrobore last year.

Atmos could not be reached for comment.


AVVO INC: Wins Dismissal of Vrdolyak's IRPA Claims
--------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge Robert W. Gettleman entered an order in the lawsuit
captioned JOHN VRDOLYAK, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AVVO, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-02833 (N.D. Ill.), granting Defendant's motion to
dismiss Plaintiff's allegation that Defendant violated the
Illinois Right of Publicity Act (IRPA), by using Plaintiff's
identity for commercial purposes without Plaintiff's consent.

The Defendant has moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim,
arguing that its allegedly wrongful conduct is fully protected
under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and,
even if not, Defendant's use of Plaintiff's name is for a non-
commercial purpose exempted under the IRPA.

The Defendant operates the website Avvo.com on which it promotes
certain legal services, and publishes a directory of attorneys in
the United States.

The court views what defendant does as more akin to the yellow
pages directory, which receives First Amendment protection.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WK6QJLJ9


BABIES R US: "Guy" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to S.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------
Darrick M. Guy, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated aggrieved employees, the Plaintiff, v. Babies "R" Us,
Inc., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. 37-02016-00025048-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-
cv-02224-AJB-JMA to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon.
Anthony J. Battaglia.

Babies "R" Us retails baby registry of strollers, car seats,
cribs, bedding, diapers, and formula.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason E Baker, Esq.
          KEEGAN AND BAKER LLP
          6255 Lusk Boulevard, Suite 140
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (858) 558 9400
          Facsimile: (858) 558 9401
          E-mail: jbaker@keeganbaker.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mia Farber, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS LLP
          725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 689 0404
          Facsimile: (213) 689 0430
          E-mail: farberm@jacksonlewis.com


BALTIMORE, MD: Settles Class Action Over Royal Farms Ticket Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Munshaw, writing for Baltimore Business Journal, reports
that over $420,000 will come out of profits Baltimore reaps from
Royal Farms Arena to settle a class-action lawsuit regarding fees
applied to tickets sold at the venue.

John Bourgeois, the plaintiff in the case, filed a lawsuit in 2014
alleging that the city received illegal convenience and service
fees on tickets sold through Ticketmaster and SMG, the company
that manages the arena.  The suit alleges the fees were collected
between Aug. 1, 2011 and March 14, 2013.

The city owns Royal Farms Arena.

Mr. Bourgeois and his lawyer, Benjamin Carney from the Towson law
firm Gordon, Wolf & Carney, were initially seeking a payout of
$4.3 million for Mr. Bourgeois and other customers who were a part
of the class-action suit.  Mr. Carney could not be reached for
comment.

As part of the settlement, the city's Board of Estimates on is
expected to approve a payout of $420,000 in legal fees to
Bourgeois, a Perry Hall resident, as well as an additional $3,000
in damages.  The city has also agreed to award a $3 voucher to
each member of the lawsuit who purchased a ticket during that time
period.  The lawsuit states that as many as 920,621 tickets may
have been subject to the disputed fees, according to the Board of
Estimates agenda.

The settlement will be paid out from the arena's profits.

In 2013, the city passed an ordinance that allowed Ticketmaster,
the city and other online ticket sellers to charge unlimited fees.
Prior to that, sellers could not charge anything more than face
value for tickets to any events held in the city. Mayor Stephanie
Rawlings-Blake signed the bill in August 2013.

The Board of Estimates agenda states that another class-action
lawsuit in the past regarding ticket fees at Rams Head was also
settled.


BANNER HEALTH: Faces "Sevilen" Suit in District of Arizona
----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Banner Health. The case is
captioned Suzan Sevilen, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Banner Health, an Arizona
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02972-JZB (D. Ariz.,
Sep. 2, 2016). The assigned Magistrate Judge is Hon. John Z Boyle.

Banner Health is a non-profit health system in the United States,
based in Phoenix, Arizona. It operates 23 hospitals as well as
specialized facilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark D Samson, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK LLP - PHOENIX, AZ
          National Bank Plaza
          3101 N Central Ave., Ste. 900
          Phoenix, AZ 85012-2600
          Telephone: (602) 230 6323
          Facsimile: (602) 248 2822
          E-mail: msamson@kellerrohrback.com


BASIC RESEARCH: "Spence" Suit Moved from S.D.N.Y. to D. Utah
------------------------------------------------------------
Adelaide Spence, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Mitchell K. Friedlander, Basic
Research, Bremenn Research Labs, doing business as Bremenn,
Clinical, Dennis Gay, and Tiffany Strobel, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:15-cv-04945, was transferred from the US District Court for
the Southern District of New York, to the US District Court for
the District of Utah (Central). The Utah District Court Clerk
assigned Case no. 2:16-cv-00925-CW to the proceeding. The assigned
Judge is Hon. Clark Waddoups.

Basic Research distributes innovative formulations that address
the specific needs of consumers -- from weight loss to
bodybuilding, anti-aging, joint health, skin care, and cosmetics.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher B. Sullivan, Esq.
          David R. Parkinson, Esq.
          Jason M. Kerr, Esq.
          Ronald F. Price, Esq.
          PRICE PARKINSON & KERR PLLC
          5742 W HAROLD GATTY DR
          Salt Lake City, UT 84116
          Telephone: (801) 530 2900
          E-mail: sullivan@ppktrial.com
                  davidparkinson@ppktrial.com
                  jasonkerr@ppktrial.com
                  ronprice@ppktrial.com


BMW BANK: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Foley Motors Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Joe Billy McDade denied without prejudice to refiling at
a later time after adequate discovery has been completed the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification filed in the lawsuit
titled FOLEY MOTORS, INC., an Illinois corporation, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons
v. BMW BANK OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NA,
LLC, CREDITSMARTS CORP. and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-
01044-JBM-JEH (C.D. Ill.).

The Motion was filed on the same day that the Action was
initiated, pursuant to Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011).

The Court finds that filing a premature motion to certify class
before any discovery has even taken place is unnecessary and
serves no useful purpose.

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


BRIGADOON FITNESS: Gorss Motels Suit Seeks Certification of Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled GORSS MOTELS, INC., individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the
Plaintiff, v. BRIGADOON FITNESS INC., BRIGADOON FINANCIAL, INC.
and JOHN DOES 1-5, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00330-JD-SLC
(N.D, Ind.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of:

     "all persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the
     filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile
     messages of material advertising the commercial availability
     or quality of any property, goods, or services by or on
     behalf of Defendants, and (3) which Defendants did not have
     prior express permission or invitation, or (4) which did not
     display a proper opt-out notice."

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vUlqID97

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BRISTOL-MYERS: Recent Plavix Ruling Favorable for Plaintiffs Bar
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that in a defeat
for the product liability defense bar, the California Supreme
Court on Aug. 29 ruled that both local and out-of-state residents
can sue drug maker Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. in California state
courts over claims that the blood thinning medication Plavix
seriously harmed or killed patients.

The 4-3 decision cracks the door open to nationwide product
liability cases in California, three years after the U.S. Supreme
Court placed new restrictions on when courts may assert
jurisdiction over a company that is headquartered outside the
borders of its state.

Companies have been keen to keep mass tort litigation out of
venues like California that are perceived to be more plaintiff-
friendly, preferring to tackle liability cases either en masse in
federal court or by picking them off one by one when smaller suits
are scattered around the country.

Hunter Shkolnik of New York-based mass tort specialty firm Napoli
Shkolnik, who has spearheaded the Plavix litigation in California,
called the decision "huge" for the plaintiffs bar. Although other
jurisdictions like Pennsylvania and New Jersey have typically been
open to mass tort cases, he explained, the ruling ensures that
California will also remain an open door to plaintiffs.

That gives plaintiffs more options, and helps avoid having cases
simply get routed to a federal multidistrict proceeding where they
can get hung up by defense motions.  "They will litigate us to
death if we're all in one place," Mr. Shkolnik said.

Bristol-Myers is headquartered in New York and has most of its
other major operations in New Jersey.  In 2013, it sought to quash
suits brought on behalf of more than 600 individuals -- the bulk
of whom reside outside California -- that were filed in state
court in San Francisco alleging that Plavix causes internal
bleeding that sometimes leads to death.  Lawyers for Bristol-Myers
argued that the court lacked jurisdiction.

Writing for the majority on Aug. 29 in Bristol-Myers Squibb v.
Anderson, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye rejected that
contention.  Although California courts lack general jurisdiction
over Bristol-Myers, they may exercise specific jurisdiction in the
Plavix litigation because the company conducted significant
research, sales and marketing activities within the state, Justice
Cantil-Sakauye ruled.

Moreover, she wrote, because the claims of the California
plaintiffs pertain to a single, nationwide marketing campaign for
the drug, the claims of out-of-state residents are sufficiently
related to the claims of in-state residents that California courts
may also hear them.

"Both the resident and nonresident plaintiffs' claims are based on
the same allegedly defective product and the assertedly misleading
marketing and promotion of that product, which allegedly caused
injuries in and outside the state," Justice Cantil-Sakauye wrote.
"Thus, the nonresident plaintiffs' claims bear a substantial
connection to" California.

Bristol-Myers is represented by Arnold & Porter's Anand Agneshwar
-- anand.agneshwar@aporter.com -- who deferred a request for
comment to the company.  A spokeswoman for the company did not
respond to an inquiry about the court's ruling.

Defense lawyers said the ruling broadens the types of cases that
can proceed in California, although it doesn't give plaintiffs
carte blanche.

"It's a multidimensional chess match, and this is defining the
chess board and making sure California is still a place where
plaintiffs' lawyers can at least consider filing a mass tort,"
said Aton Arbisser -- aton.arbisser@kayescholer.com -- a partner
at Kaye Scholer in Los Angeles.  The decision split the court
almost along ideological lines.

Justice Cantil-Sakauye, the Republican-appointed chief justice,
was joined by more liberal-leaning Justices Goodwin Liu,
Mariano-Florentino Cuellar and Leondra Kruger in the majority.
Justice Kathryn Werdegar wrote in dissent and was backed by
Justices Carol Corrigan and Ming Chin, two of the bench's more
conservative jurists.

Justice Werdegar complained that the majority's opinion undercut
the U.S. Supreme Court's 2014 ruling in Daimler AG v. Bauman,
which held that courts cannot exercise general jurisdiction over
entities simply because they have "continuous and systematic"
commercial contact with a state.  Instead, general jurisdiction is
conferred only when the entity is "at home" -- in other words, has
its headquarters or major business operations -- in the same
state, the high court ruled.


BROTHER INT'L: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Hobbs" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Philip S. Gutierrez denied the Plaintiff's amended motion
for class certification after considering the arguments in the
moving, opposing, and reply papers filed in the lawsuit titled
Kenneth Hobbs v. Brother International Corporation, Case No. 2:15-
cv-01866-PSG-MRW (C.D. Cal.).

Mr. Hobbs filed the Lawsuit on January 21, 2015, believing that
BIC misrepresented its printer's capabilities on its Web site.

The Court finds that individual questions predominate over common
questions regarding all of the Plaintiff's remaining claims for
the proposed class.  Judge Gutierrez opines that the evidence does
not show that consumers were exposed to different variations of
the alleged misrepresentations.  Rather, Judge Gutierrez says, it
shows that many class members never even encountered the
representations, given that they were only available on the
Defendant's Web site and on some printer cartons.  Because
substantial evidence shows that consumers were exposed to
different information from different sources, the Plaintiff cannot
claim a class-wide presumption of reliance, Judge Gutierrez adds.

Having failed to demonstrate that the Defendant's representations
were uniform, the Plaintiff also fails to provide any evidence
that a significant portion of consumers would have behaved
differently if the Defendant excised the alleged
misrepresentations from its materials, Judge Gutierrez also
explains.  Judge Gutierrez adds that the Plaintiff's petition for
class certification fails not only for lack of a damages model but
also because calculating damages would require individualized
inquiry.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=IMQr68us


BUCKEYE CHECK: "Saenz" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JUAN SAENZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BUCKEYE CHECK
CASHING OF ILLINOIS, LLC, CHECKSMART FINANCIAL, LLC, and COMMUNITY
CHOICE FINANCIAL, INC., the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 1:16-cv-06052
(N.D. Ill.,), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class:

     "(1) all persons in Illinois (2) to whom Defendant sent a
     letter to collect a debt (3) of Plaintiff's Complaint (4)
     which letter stated in part that "your debt has now been
     transferred to our office for collection action" or in any
     other way suggests the new involvement of a third party in
     attempting to collect an alleged debt (5) which fails to
     provide any notices of consumers' rights listed in the FDCPA
     (6) within 1 year of the complaint."

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint him as class
representative, to appoint his lawyers as counsel for the class
and, to allow himself to file a memorandum in support of the
motion after taking class discovery.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Wood, Esq.
          Celetha Chatman, Esq.
          COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD.
          73 W. Monroe Street, Suite 502
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 757 1880
          Facsimile: (312) 476 1362
          E-mail: mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com
                  cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Class Certification Sought in "Naylor" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned NAYLOR FARMS, INC. and HARREL'S LLC, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. CHAPARRAL ENERGY, LLC, An Oklahoma Limited
Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No. 5:11-cv-00634-HE (W.D.
Okla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class and to
grant all other relief deemed appropriate by the Court.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are the putative Class
Representatives for more than 10,000 royalty owners. Other than
Plaintiffs, these 10,000 royalty owners are "clueless" about the
lawsuit, and the facts and law giving rise to it. The Class is
owed in excess of $150,000,000 in unpaid royalty. Those monies
were appropriated by Defendant Chaparral Energy, LLC for its use
and benefit and to the detriment of the Class. The Plaintiffs have
alleged causes of action for breach of contract, breach of
fiduciary duty, actual and constructive fraud, unjust enrichment
and an accounting.

Chaparral Energy is an independent oil and gas producer and
operator with headquarters in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and field
offices throughout the South Central United States.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JIYoIsQ1

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Conner L. Helms, OBA No. 12115
          Gary R. Underwood, OBA No. 9154
          Erin M. Moore, OBA No. 20787
          HELMS & UNDERWOOD
          One NE Second Street, Suite 202
          Oklahoma City, OK 73104
          Telephone: (405) 319-0700
          Facsimile: (405) 319-9292

The Defendant is represented by:

          John J. Griffin, Jr., Esq.
          Christopher M. Staine, Esq.
          CROWE & DUNLEVY
          20 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 1800
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          E-mail: john.griffin@crowedunlevy.com
                  Christopher.staine@crowedunlevy.com

               - and -

          Christopher A. Chrisman, Esq.
          Anthony J. Shaheen, Esq.
          HOLLARD & HART - DENVER
          555 17th St., Suite 3200
          Denver, CO 80201-8749
          E-mail: cachrisman@hollarndhart.com
                  ajshaheen@hollarndhart.com


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces "Back" Suit in Eastern Dist. of Kentucky
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Chesapeake Energy Corp. The case
is captioned Thomas R. Back, Individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated states, the Plaintiff, v. Chesapeake
Energy Corp., Chesapeake Operating, LLC, and Chesapeake
Appalachia, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 7:16-cv-00192-ART-EBA
(E.D. Ken., Sep. 2, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Amul R.
Thapar.

Chesapeake Energy is a petroleum and natural gas exploration and
production company headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clark C. Johnson, Esq.
          Jeffrey Steven Moad, Esq.
          Marjorie Ann Farris, Esq.
          STITES & HARBISON, PLLC
          400 W. Market Street, Suite 1800
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 681 0349
          Facsimile: (502) 779 8249
          E-mail: cjohnson@stites.com
                  jmoad@stites.com
                  mfarris@stites.com


CONAGRA FOODS: Ninth Circuit to Address "Ascertainability" Issue
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a pair of food labeling cases set to be heard this month by
the Ninth Circuit could carve out some much-needed guidance on the
increasingly critical issue of how to identify members of a class
action.

Ascertainability, a term coined by the class action bar, has
become the subject of rising debate in the courts as more cases
get filed over cheap consumer goods.  Despite calls for reform,
the U.S. Judicial Conference's Committee on Rules of Practice and
Procedure declined to include ascertainability in its proposed
changes to Rule 23 this month, and the U.S. Supreme Court has
rejected at least two petitions this year on the issue.
That has left the debate swirling in the circuit courts, which
have split on what standards need to be met to identify class
members.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit could
add to that debate on Sept. 12 with a pair of appeals set for oral
arguments. One case involves "100% Natural" Wesson cooking oils,
the other "All Natural Fruit" labels on Dole fruit.
"This is the first time that the current dispute over the scope
and purpose of the 'ascertainability' doctrine is going to be
meaningfully argued before the Ninth Circuit," said Adam Levitt
-- alevitt@gelaw.com -- director at Grant & Eisenhofer, plaintiffs
attorney in the Wesson case.

Though not an explicit requirement, ascertainability is among the
issues courts consider in certifying class actions.  It's
particularly an issue for defendants, who raise concerns that
class members might not remember whether they bought the product
or, in some cases, could have fraudulent claims.  In cases
involving food labels, most consumers don't have receipts, leaving
plaintiffs attorneys to rely on retailer records and signed
affidavits.

"This issue really becomes very significant in low-value consumer
class actions where the amount of the product is relatively low,"
said David Sellinger -- sellingerd@gtlaw.com -- a shareholder in
Greenberg Traurig's Florham Park, New Jersey, office who is
following both Ninth Circuit cases.

In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit raised
the bar to achieve ascertainability with rulings in several cases
requiring that plaintiffs had to provide a "reliable and
administratively feasible" method to identify class members.

In other words, Mr. Sellinger said: "It's not enough that the
consumer says he or she is in the class.  There has to be a way
for the defendant and for the court to verify that that person is
actually in the class."

Some circuit courts have followed, while others have taken a more
liberal view that affidavits are enough.

On Jan. 14, the Ninth Circuit agreed to assign the Wesson and Dole
cases to the same merits panel.  In moving to combine the cases,
lawyers wrote: "The court's decisions on these cases will define
the contours of the 'ascertainability' doctrine in this Circuit,
particularly as applied to cases involving low-priced consumer
goods."

In the Wesson case, ConAgra Foods Inc., represented by A.  Brooks
Gresham -- bgresham@mcguirewoods.com -- a Los Angeles partner at
McGuireWoods, is challenging certification of classes in 11
states.  The case alleges that all bottles labeled as "100%
Natural" were false and misleading because the cooking oils
contained genetically modified organisms.  In a March 2 brief,
Gresham wrote that upholding the district judge's order, which
required no plan to identify the class apart from sworn claim
forms, "would dramatically lower the bar for class certification
in the Ninth Circuit."

But adopting ConAgra's view that affidavits aren't enough "would
effectively eliminate the entire category of low-dollar value
consumer class actions," countered Levitt in a Dec. 18 brief.
In the case against Dole Packaged Foods LLC, plaintiffs are
appealing the decertification of a class of consumers who bought
10 products with "All Natural Fruit" labels.  The plaintiffs seek
damages in a case alleging that the labels are misleading because
the fruit cups and cans contain citric acid and ascorbic acid.
Yet both appeals raise other issues that the Ninth Circuit could
prioritize over ascertainability.  In fact, on Aug. 31, the Ninth
Circuit asked lawyers in the Dole case to address at oral
arguments what impact their case would have on the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration's review of how "natural" should be defined in
food labels.


CONTAINER STORE: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Cadigan" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant The Container Store, Inc., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in lawsuit styled Cadigan, et al. v. The Container Store,
Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-12984-NMG, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, Boston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 12,
2016, District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton accepted and adopted the
Report and Recommendation (R&R) of Magistrate Judge M. Paige
Kelley and denied the Defendant's motion to enforce arbitration
and class action waivers and stay the action.

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

The appellate case is captioned as Cadigan, et al. v. The
Container Store, Inc., Case No. 16-2112, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

The Appellate Court ordered that Transcript Report/Order form and
Appearance form are due on September 16, 2016.

Plaintiffs-Appellees MARK CADIGAN, MIKA PYYHKALA, LISA IRVING,
HEATHER ALBRIGHT, JEANINE KAY LINEBACK, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE
BLIND, and ARTHUR JACOBS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Jana Eisinger, Esq.
          MARTINEZ LAW GROUP, P.C.
          720 South Colorado Blvd.
          South Tower, Suite 1020
          Denver, CO 80246
          Telephone: (303) 597-4000
          E-mail: eisinger@mlgrouppc.com

               - and -

          Timothy Elder, Esq.
          TRE LAW PRACTICE
          4226 Castanos St.
          Fairmont, CA 94536
          Telephone: (410) 415-3493
          E-mail: telder@trelegal.com

               - and -

          Scott C. LaBarre, Esq.
          LABARRE LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          1660 S. Albion St., Suite 918
          Denver, CO 80222
          Telephone: (303) 504-5979
          Facsimile: (303) 757-3640
          E-mail: slabarre@labarrelaw.com

               - and -

          Jeremy Y. Weltman, Esq.
          CLARK HUNT AHERN & EMBRY
          55 Cambridge Parkway
          Cambridge, MA 02142-0000
          Telephone: (781) 997-1600
          E-mail: jweltman@kcl-law.com

Defendant-Appellant THE CONTAINER STORE, INC., is represented by:

          Michael J. Chilleen, Esq.
          Gregory Francis Hurley, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          650 Town Center Dr., 4th Floor
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 513-5100
          Facsimile: (714) 428-5981
          E-mail: mchilleen@sheppardmullin.com
                  ghurley@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Howard E. Stempler, Esq.
          SEDER & CHANDLER
          339 Main Street, Suite 300
          Worcester, MA 01608-0000
          Telephone: (508) 575-7721
          E-mail: hstempler@sederlaw.com


COOKING LIGHT: Appeals Decision in "Montellano-Espana" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Cooking Light Inc. and Gus Karasakalides filed an
appeal from a District Court decision and order, dated August 4,
2016, entered in the lawsuit titled Montellano-Espana v. Cooking
Light Inc., Case No. 14-cv-1433, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn).

The Case is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Montellano-Espana v. Cooking
Light Inc., Case No. 16-3088, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellee Panfilo Montellano-Espana, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, is represented by:

          Brandon David Sherr, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 229-2249
          Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
          E-mail: bsherr@zellerlegal.com

Defendants-Appellants Cooking Light Inc. and Gus Karasakalides are
represented by:

          Arthur H. Forman, Esq.
          98-20 Metropolitan Avenue
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Telephone: (718) 268-2616
          E-mail: ahf@ahforman.com


CVB FINANCIAL: "Lloyd" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled BARRY R. LLOYD, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CVB FINANCIAL
CORP., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:10-cv-06256-CAS-PJW
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class,
appoint Lead Plaintiff Jacksonville P&F as class representative,
and appoint Bernstein Litowitz as counsel for the class.

The Class is defined as:

     "all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
     acquired the common stock of CVB Financial Corp. (CVB or the
     Company) between March 4, 2010, and August 9, 2010,
     inclusive, and were damaged thereby (the Class)."

CVB Financial is the bank holding company for Citizens Business
Bank.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blair A. Nicholas, Esq.
          Timothy A. Delange, Esq.
          Niki L. Mendoza, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
          & GROSSMANN LLP
          12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 793 0070
          Facsimile: (858) 793 0323
          E-mail: blairn@blbglaw.com
                  timothyd@blbglaw.com
                  nikim@blbglaw.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Monterra Apartments Sues Over Misappraisal
----------------------------------------------------------
MONTERRA APARTMENTS, LLC, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL
APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11037 (Judicial
District Court of Dallas County, Texas, Sep. 2, 2016), seeks all
relief resulting from Defendant's excess appraised value of
Plaintiff's property under the Property Tax Code.

The Property owner filed its protest because the District (i)
assigned an excessive value to the Property for tax year 2016,
(ii) failed to apply generally accepted appraisal methods'
and techniques by the Code, (iii) appraised the Property unequally
because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least
ten percent the median level of appraisal of a reasonable and
representative sample of other properties in the appraisal
district; and (iv) appraised the Property unequally because the
appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent
the median level of appraisal of a sample of properties in the
appraisal district consisting of a reasonable number of other
properties similarly situated to, or, of the same general kind or
character as, the Property.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jason C. Marshall, Esq.
     THE MARSHALL FIRM PC
     302 N. Market St., Ste. 510
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Telephone: (214) 742 4800
     Facsimile: (214) 452 9064
     E-mail: JMarshall@Marshall-firm.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Nessel Development X Sues Over Misappraisal
-----------------------------------------------------------
NESSEL DEVELOPMENT X, LLC., (dba LaVita Apartments), the
Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant,
Case No. DC-16-11059 (Judicial District Court of Dallas County,
Texas, Sep. 2, 2016), seeks all relief resulting from Defendant's
excess appraised value of Plaintiff's property under the Property
Tax Code.

The Property owner filed its protest because the District (i)
assigned an excessive value to the Property for tax year 2016,
(ii) failed to apply generally accepted appraisal methods'
and techniques by the Code, (iii) appraised the Property unequally
because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least
ten percent the median level of appraisal of a reasonable and
representative sample of other properties in the appraisal
district; and (iv) appraised the Property unequally because the
appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent
the median level of appraisal of a sample of properties in the
appraisal district consisting of a reasonable number of other
properties similarly situated to, or, of the same general kind or
character as, the Property.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason C. Marshall, Esq.
          THE MARSHALL FIRM PC
          302 N. Market St., Ste. 510
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 742 4800
          Facsimile: (214) 452 9064
          E-mail: Admin@Marshall-firm.com
                  JMarshall@Marshall-firm.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Nessel Development XI Sues Over Misappraisal
------------------------------------------------------------
NESSEL DEVELOPMENT XI, LLC., (dba Cityscape), the Plaintiff, v.
DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-
11060 (Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, Sep. 2,
2016), seeks all relief resulting from Defendant's excess
appraised value of Plaintiff's property under the Property Tax
Code.

The Property owner filed its protest because the District (i)
assigned an excessive value to the Property for tax year 2016,
(ii) failed to apply generally accepted appraisal methods'
and techniques by the Code, (iii) appraised the Property unequally
because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least
ten percent the median level of appraisal of a reasonable and
representative sample of other properties in the appraisal
district; and (iv) appraised the Property unequally because the
appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent
the median level of appraisal of a sample of properties in the
appraisal district consisting of a reasonable number of other
properties similarly situated to, or, of the same general kind or
character as, the Property.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason C. Marshall, Esq.
          THE MARSHALL FIRM PC
          302 N. Market St., Ste. 510
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 742 4800
          Facsimile: (214) 452 9064
          E-mail: Admin@Marshall-firm.com
                  JMarshall@Marshall-firm.com

DALLAS CENTRAL: Onemain Place Sues Over Misappraisal
----------------------------------------------------
ONEMAIN PLACE OFFICE, LLC, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL
APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11049 (Judicial
District Court of Dallas County, Texas, Sep. 2, 2016), seeks all
relief resulting from Defendant's excess appraised value of
Plaintiff's property under the Property Tax Code.

The Property owner filed its protest because the District (i)
assigned an excessive value to the Property for tax year 2016,
(ii) failed to apply generally accepted appraisal methods'
and techniques by the Code, (iii) appraised the Property unequally
because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least
ten percent the median level of appraisal of a reasonable and
representative sample of other properties in the appraisal
district; and (iv) appraised the Property unequally because the
appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent
the median level of appraisal of a sample of properties in the
appraisal district consisting of a reasonable number of other
properties similarly situated to, or, of the same general kind or
character as, the Property.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason C. Marshall, Esq.
          THE MARSHALL FIRM PC
          302 N. Market St., Ste. 510
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 742 4800
          Facsimile: (214) 452 9064
          E-mail: Admin@Marshall-firm.com
                  JMarshall@Marshall-firm.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Old Parkland Sues Over Misappraisal
---------------------------------------------------
OLD PARKLAND UNIT F, LLC, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL
APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11081 (Judicial
District Court of Dallas County, Texas, Sep. 2, 2016), seeks all
relief resulting from Defendant's excess appraised value of
Plaintiff's property under the Property Tax Code.

The Property owner filed its protest because the District (i)
assigned an excessive value to the Property for tax year 2016,
(ii) failed to apply generally accepted appraisal methods'
and techniques by the Code, (iii) appraised the Property unequally
because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least
ten percent the median level of appraisal of a reasonable and
representative sample of other properties in the appraisal
district; and (iv) appraised the Property unequally because the
appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent
the median level of appraisal of a sample of properties in the
appraisal district consisting of a reasonable number of other
properties similarly situated to, or, of the same general kind or
character as, the Property.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason C. Marshall, Esq.
          THE MARSHALL FIRM PC
          302 N. Market St., Ste. 510
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 742 4800
          Facsimile: (214) 452 9064
          E-mail: Admin@Marshall-firm.com
                  JMarshall@Marshall-firm.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Pavillion North Sues Over Misappraisal
------------------------------------------------------
PAVILLION NORTH HOLDING, LTD., the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL
APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11069 (Judicial
District Court of Dallas County, Texas, Sep. 2, 2016), seeks all
relief resulting from Defendant's excess appraised value of
Plaintiff's property under the Property Tax Code.

The Property owner filed its protest because the District (i)
assigned an excessive value to the Property for tax year 2016,
(ii) failed to apply generally accepted appraisal methods'
and techniques by the Code, (iii) appraised the Property unequally
because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least
ten percent the median level of appraisal of a reasonable and
representative sample of other properties in the appraisal
district; and (iv) appraised the Property unequally because the
appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent
the median level of appraisal of a sample of properties in the
appraisal district consisting of a reasonable number of other
properties similarly situated to, or, of the same general kind or
character as, the Property.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason C. Marshall, Esq.
          THE MARSHALL FIRM PC
          302 N. Market St., Ste. 510
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 742 4800
          Facsimile: (214) 452 9064
          E-mail: Admin@Marshall-firm.com
                  JMarshall@Marshall-firm.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: PC Brookfield Sues Over Misappraisal
----------------------------------------------------
PC BROOKFIELD, LLC, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL
DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11063 (Judicial District
Court of Dallas County, Texas, Sep. 2, 2016), seeks all relief
resulting from Defendant's excess appraised value of Plaintiff's
property under the Property Tax Code.

The Property owner filed its protest because the District (i)
assigned an excessive value to the Property for tax year 2016,
(ii) failed to apply generally accepted appraisal methods'
and techniques by the Code, (iii) appraised the Property unequally
because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least
ten percent the median level of appraisal of a reasonable and
representative sample of other properties in the appraisal
district; and (iv) appraised the Property unequally because the
appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent
the median level of appraisal of a sample of properties in the
appraisal district consisting of a reasonable number of other
properties similarly situated to, or, of the same general kind or
character as, the Property.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason C. Marshall, Esq.
          THE MARSHALL FIRM PC
          302 N. Market St., Ste. 510
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 742 4800
          Facsimile: (214) 452 9064
          E-mail: Admin@Marshall-firm.com
                  JMarshall@Marshall-firm.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: PCDF Broadmoor Sues Over Misappraisal
-----------------------------------------------------
PCDF BROADMOOR, LLC, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL
DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11042 (Judicial District
Court of Dallas County, Texas, Sep. 2, 2016), seeks all relief
resulting from Defendant's excess appraised value of Plaintiff's
property under the Property Tax Code.

The Property owner filed its protest because the District (i)
assigned an excessive value to the Property for tax year 2016,
(ii) failed to apply generally accepted appraisal methods'
and techniques by the Code, (iii) appraised the Property unequally
because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least
ten percent the median level of appraisal of a reasonable and
representative sample of other properties in the appraisal
district; and (iv) appraised the Property unequally because the
appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent
the median level of appraisal of a sample of properties in the
appraisal district consisting of a reasonable number of other
properties similarly situated to, or, of the same general kind or
character as, the Property.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason C. Marshall, Esq.
          THE MARSHALL FIRM PC
          302 N. Market St., Ste. 510
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 742 4800
          Facsimile: (214) 452 9064
          E-mail: Admin@Marshall-firm.com
                  JMarshall@Marshall-firm.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: WW Ross Sues Over Misappraisal
----------------------------------------------
WW ROSS AVENUE, LP., (dba Olympus at Ross), the Plaintiff, v.
DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-
11062 (Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, Sep. 2,
2016), seeks all relief resulting from Defendant's excess
appraised value of Plaintiff's property under the Property Tax
Code.

The Property owner filed its protest because the District (i)
assigned an excessive value to the Property for tax year 2016,
(ii) failed to apply generally accepted appraisal methods'
and techniques by the Code, (iii) appraised the Property unequally
because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least
ten percent the median level of appraisal of a reasonable and
representative sample of other properties in the appraisal
district; and (iv) appraised the Property unequally because the
appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent
the median level of appraisal of a sample of properties in the
appraisal district consisting of a reasonable number of other
properties similarly situated to, or, of the same general kind or
character as, the Property.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason C. Marshall, Esq.
          THE MARSHALL FIRM PC
          302 N. Market St., Ste. 510
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 742 4800
          Facsimile: (214) 452 9064
          E-mail: Admin@Marshall-firm.com
                  JMarshall@Marshall-firm.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Solaris LLC Sues Over Misappraisal
--------------------------------------------------
SOLARIS, LLC, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT,
the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11058 (Judicial District
Court of Dallas County, Texas, Sep. 2, 2016), seeks all relief
resulting from Defendant's excess appraised value of Plaintiff's
property under the Property Tax Code.

The Property owner filed its protest because the District (i)
assigned an excessive value to the Property for tax year 2016,
(ii) failed to apply generally accepted appraisal methods'
and techniques by the Code, (iii) appraised the Property unequally
because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least
ten percent the median level of appraisal of a reasonable and
representative sample of other properties in the appraisal
district; and (iv) appraised the Property unequally because the
appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent
the median level of appraisal of a sample of properties in the
appraisal district consisting of a reasonable number of other
properties similarly situated to, or, of the same general kind or
character as, the Property.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason C. Marshall, Esq.
          THE MARSHALL FIRM PC
          302 N. Market St., Ste. 510
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 742 4800
          Facsimile: (214) 452 9064
          E-mail: Admin@Marshall-firm.com
                  JMarshall@Marshall-firm.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: SPP Covington Sues Over Misappraisal
----------------------------------------------------
SPP COVINGTON POINTE, LTD., the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL
APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11068 (Judicial
District Court of Dallas County, Texas, Sep. 2, 2016), seeks all
relief resulting from Defendant's excess appraised value of
Plaintiff's property under the Property Tax Code.

The Property owner filed its protest because the District (i)
assigned an excessive value to the Property for tax year 2016,
(ii) failed to apply generally accepted appraisal methods'
and techniques by the Code, (iii) appraised the Property unequally
because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least
ten percent the median level of appraisal of a reasonable and
representative sample of other properties in the appraisal
district; and (iv) appraised the Property unequally because the
appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent
the median level of appraisal of a sample of properties in the
appraisal district consisting of a reasonable number of other
properties similarly situated to, or, of the same general kind or
character as, the Property.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason C. Marshall, Esq.
          THE MARSHALL FIRM PC
          302 N. Market St., Ste. 510
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 742 4800
          Facsimile: (214) 452 9064
          E-mail: Admin@Marshall-firm.com
                  JMarshall@Marshall-firm.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Texas Birchwood Sues Over Misappraisal
------------------------------------------------------
TEXAS BIRCHWOOD APARTMENTS, LP, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL
APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11079 (Judicial
District Court of Dallas County, Texas, Sep. 2, 2016), seeks all
relief resulting from Defendant's excess appraised value of
Plaintiff's property under the Property Tax Code.

The Property owner filed its protest because the District (i)
assigned an excessive value to the Property for tax year 2016,
(ii) failed to apply generally accepted appraisal methods'
and techniques by the Code, (iii) appraised the Property unequally
because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least
ten percent the median level of appraisal of a reasonable and
representative sample of other properties in the appraisal
district; and (iv) appraised the Property unequally because the
appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent
the median level of appraisal of a sample of properties in the
appraisal district consisting of a reasonable number of other
properties similarly situated to, or, of the same general kind or
character as, the Property.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason C. Marshall, Esq.
          THE MARSHALL FIRM PC
          302 N. Market St., Ste. 510
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 742 4800
          Facsimile: (214) 452 9064
          E-mail: Admin@Marshall-firm.com
                  JMarshall@Marshall-firm.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Tiburon Apartments Sues Over Misappraisal
---------------------------------------------------------
TIBURON APARTMENTS, LLC, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL
APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11065 (Judicial
District Court of Dallas County, Texas, Sep. 2, 2016), seeks all
relief resulting from Defendant's excess appraised value of
Plaintiff's property under the Property Tax Code.

The Property owner filed its protest because the District (i)
assigned an excessive value to the Property for tax year 2016,
(ii) failed to apply generally accepted appraisal methods'
and techniques by the Code, (iii) appraised the Property unequally
because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least
ten percent the median level of appraisal of a reasonable and
representative sample of other properties in the appraisal
district; and (iv) appraised the Property unequally because the
appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent
the median level of appraisal of a sample of properties in the
appraisal district consisting of a reasonable number of other
properties similarly situated to, or, of the same general kind or
character as, the Property.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason C. Marshall, Esq.
          THE MARSHALL FIRM PC
          302 N. Market St., Ste. 510
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 742 4800
          Facsimile: (214) 452 9064
          E-mail: Admin@Marshall-firm.com
                  JMarshall@Marshall-firm.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Tio Milestone Sues Over Misappraisal
----------------------------------------------------
TIO MILESTONE SPRINGFIELD APARTMENTS INVESTORS, L.P. (Springfield
Apartments), the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT,
the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11093 (Judicial District
Court of Dallas County, Texas, Sep. 2, 2016), seeks monetary
relief of $100,000 or less (attorneys' fees) and non-monetary
relief (correction of the appraisal roll as it pertains to
Plaintiffs property).

In May, 2016, Plaintiff learned that the Appraisal District had
made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for use
by the relevant Taxing Units in Dallas County, Texas in assessing
2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Appraisal District appraised
the value of the Property at $12,800,000, an amount in excess of
the appraised value required by law.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DALLAS CENTRAL: Towne North Sues Over Misappraisal
--------------------------------------------------
TOWNE NORTH SC PTNR, LTD., the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL
APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11075 (Judicial
District Court of Dallas County, Texas, Sep. 2, 2016), seeks all
relief resulting from Defendant's excess appraised value of
Plaintiff's property under the Property Tax Code.

The Property owner filed its protest because the District (i)
assigned an excessive value to the Property for tax year 2016,
(ii) failed to apply generally accepted appraisal methods'
and techniques by the Code, (iii) appraised the Property unequally
because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least
ten percent the median level of appraisal of a reasonable and
representative sample of other properties in the appraisal
district; and (iv) appraised the Property unequally because the
appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent
the median level of appraisal of a sample of properties in the
appraisal district consisting of a reasonable number of other
properties similarly situated to, or, of the same general kind or
character as, the Property.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jason C. Marshall, Esq.
     THE MARSHALL FIRM PC
     302 N. Market St., Ste. 510
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Telephone: (214) 742 4800
     Facsimile: (214) 452 9064
     E-mail: JMarshall@Marshall-firm.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Villages of Addison Sues Over Misappraisal
----------------------------------------------------------
VILLAGES OF ADDISON LLC & VILLAGES OF ADDISON ORCHARD LLC
(The Villages of Addison), the Plaintiffs, v. DALLAS CENTRAL
APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11126 (Judicial
District Court of Dallas County, Texas, Sep. 2, 2016), seeks
monetary relief of $100,000 or less (attorneys' fees) and non-
monetary relief (correction of the appraisal roll as it pertains
to Plaintiff's property).

In May, 2016, the Plaintiff learned that the Appraisal District
had made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for
use by the relevant Taxing Units in Dallas County, Texas in
assessing 2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Appraisal District
appraised the value of the Property at $4,496,510, an amount in
excess of the appraised value required by law.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DALLAS CENTRAL: Wallis Rusty Sues Over Misappraisal
---------------------------------------------------
WALLIS RUSTY FAM, LP., the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL
DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11047 (Judicial District
Court of Dallas County, Texas, Sep. 2, 2016), seeks all relief
resulting from Defendant's excess appraised value of Plaintiff's
property under the Property Tax Code.

The Property owner filed its protest because the District (i)
assigned an excessive value to the Property for tax year 2016,
(ii) failed to apply generally accepted appraisal methods'
and techniques by the Code, (iii) appraised the Property unequally
because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least
ten percent the median level of appraisal of a reasonable and
representative sample of other properties in the appraisal
district; and (iv) appraised the Property unequally because the
appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent
the median level of appraisal of a sample of properties in the
appraisal district consisting of a reasonable number of other
properties similarly situated to, or, of the same general kind or
character as, the Property.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason C. Marshall, Esq.
          THE MARSHALL FIRM PC
          302 N. Market St., Ste. 510
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 742 4800
          Facsimile: (214) 452 9064
          E-mail: JMarshall@Marshall-firm.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: West Ferris Sues Over Misappraisal
--------------------------------------------------
WEST FERRIS BRANCH, LLC, (dba The Lex), the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS
CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11061
(Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, Sep. 2, 2016),
seeks all relief resulting from Defendant's excess appraised value
of Plaintiff's property under the Property Tax Code.

The Property owner filed its protest because the District (i)
assigned an excessive value to the Property for tax year 2016,
(ii) failed to apply generally accepted appraisal methods'
and techniques by the Code, (iii) appraised the Property unequally
because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least
ten percent the median level of appraisal of a reasonable and
representative sample of other properties in the appraisal
district; and (iv) appraised the Property unequally because the
appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent
the median level of appraisal of a sample of properties in the
appraisal district consisting of a reasonable number of other
properties similarly situated to, or, of the same general kind or
character as, the Property.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason C. Marshall, Esq.
          THE MARSHALL FIRM PC
          302 N. Market St., Ste. 510
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 742 4800
          Facsimile: (214) 452 9064
          E-mail: Admin@Marshall-firm.com
                  JMarshall@Marshall-firm.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: WW Mosaic Sues Over Misappraisal
------------------------------------------------
WW MOSAIC DALLAS, LLC, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL
DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11053 (Judicial District
Court of Dallas County, Texas, Sep. 2, 2016), seeks all relief
resulting from Defendant's excess appraised value of Plaintiff's
property under the Property Tax Code.

The Property owner filed its protest because the District (i)
assigned an excessive value to the Property for tax year 2016,
(ii) failed to apply generally accepted appraisal methods'
and techniques by the Code, (iii) appraised the Property unequally
because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least
ten percent the median level of appraisal of a reasonable and
representative sample of other properties in the appraisal
district; and (iv) appraised the Property unequally because the
appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent
the median level of appraisal of a sample of properties in the
appraisal district consisting of a reasonable number of other
properties similarly situated to, or, of the same general kind or
character as, the Property.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason C. Marshall, Esq.
          THE MARSHALL FIRM PC
          302 N. Market St., Ste. 510
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 742 4800
          Facsimile: (214) 452 9064
          E-mail: Admin@Marshall-firm.com
                  JMarshall@Marshall-firm.com


DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL: Fraud Case Focuses on Process Server
---------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Stockman, writing for LawNewz.com, reports that there is a
very strange twist in the class action fraud lawsuit filed against
the Democratic National Committee and former Chair Debbie
Wasserman Schultz.  The recent developments haven't gotten much
mainstream media attention, but they are all documented in federal
court.  They involve a lawsuit process server -- who "served" the
DNC with the class action paperwork -- and then suddenly died.

The lawsuit, which was actually filed before the Wikileaks
document dump, claims that the DNC "actively concealed its bias"
from its donors and supporters backing Bernie Sanders.  Hundreds
of Sanders supporters have reportedly signed up to be part of the
class.  They have even started a very active Facebook page.  The
plaintiffs say the recent Wikileaks emails only give them more
evidence that the Democratic National Committee was on board with
Hillary Clinton from the very start.

A guy named Shawn Lucas "served" the DNC and Debbie Wassermann
Schultz with a lawsuit back in July.  He was a lawsuit process
server.  He even posted a YouTube video of him serving the lawsuit
which can been seen below.  The video has garnered nearly a half a
million views.  That's partly because about a month after he
served the lawsuit and amidst the Wikileaks scandal, Lucas
suddenly died.  Online conspiracy theorists have said the two must
be related.  There is absolutely no evidence of that so far.  The
police report says he was found unconscious laying on the bathroom
floor of his Washington D.C. home.  The D.C. Metropolitan Police
tell LawNewz.com that the investigation is still ongoing.

But the video has become the subject of a court fight.  The
question is whether the plaintiffs (the Bernie Sanders supporters)
properly served the the defendants (Wasserman and the DNC).  That
actually matters because, according to the federal rules, if you
don't serve the lawsuit properly to the opposing side, you can't
move forward with the case.  Lawyers for the DNC contend they
weren't properly served.  If you watch to the video, you will see
Lucas served the lawsuit to a woman named Rebecca Herries. She was
apparently an assistant to one of the DNC executives.  DNC lawyers
are trying to derail the case by saying that that even though she
works for the DNC, "she doesn't have authority" to accept the
lawsuit.  If you read the transcript, you will see that she
certainly made it seem like she had authority to deal with the
legal matter.  Here's how the conversation went down, according to
the video:

Ms. Herries: "Shawn hi, Becca"

Process Server: [Inaudible question to Becca] Ms. Herries: "I'm
just with the DNC upstairs"

Process Server: "You're with the DNC"

Ms. Herries: "Yes"

Process Server: "All right, well this is going to be a service to
the DNC"

Ms. Herries: "to the DNC- okay"

Process Server: "And this is for Debbie Wasserman Shultz"

Ms. Herries: "Perfect"

Process Server: "You guys have been served."

Ms. Herries: "Okay"

Process Server: "Thank you so much, we'll see you in court"

Of course, Lucas could not testify about what happened because he
is dead.  In an order that came out on Aug. 30, Judge William
Zloch sided with the DNC -- but did chastise the DNC lawyers for
their apparent shenanigans over being served.

"No evidence at the hearing explains Ms. Herries's conduct;
however, the Court hereby advises Defendant DNC that will not
tolerate the conduct in which Defendant DNC engaged in this
instance," Judge Zloch wrote in his order.  The judge ordered the
plaintiffs to re-serve the case on the defendants.  This lawsuit
will be an interesting one to follow -- especially when the judge
actually gets into the meat of the allegations.


DONALD TRUMP: Faces "Thorne" Suit Over Campaign Sent Via SMS
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled JOSHUA THORNE and DAVID
ROBERTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC., a principal
campaign committee, Case No. 1:16-cv-04603 (N.D. Ill.), move for
entry of an order certifying this class:

    All individuals: (a) to whom, within the last four years of
    the filing of this action, Defendant Donald J. Trump For
    President, Inc. ("Defendant") sent a non-emergency telephone
    SMS message to the individuals' cellular telephones through
    the use of an automatic dialing system; and (b) who did not
    voluntarily provide their cellular numbers to Defendant for
    it to send them SMS messages regarding Donald J. Trump's
    political campaign.

The Case involves common fact questions about the Defendant's SMS
text campaign and common legal questions under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Messrs. Thorne and Roberts inform the Court that they file the
Motion soon after filing their consolidated complaint in order to
avoid an attempt by the Defendant to moot their individual claims.
However, the Plaintiffs contend, in this case, additional
discovery is necessary for the Court to determine whether to
certify the class they seek to represent.

As a result, Plaintiffs say they will seek leave to pursue class
discovery as soon as practicable.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4uVfvF5w

Plaintiff David Roberts is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
          Todd A. Lewis, Esq.
          Julia L. Titolo, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
          E-mail: phil@classlawyers.com
                  david@classlawyers.com
                  tod@classlawyers.com
                  julia@bockhatchllc.com

Plaintiff Joshua Thorne is represented by:

          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          Richard L. Miller II, Esq.
          Ke Liu, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 North State St., Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0000
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
                  rmiller@siprut.com
                  kliu@siprut.com


EVANSTON CITY, IL: Wilson, et al. Seek Certification of 2 Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Jermaine Wilson and Dameon Sanders, the
Plaintiffs, v. City of Evanston, Illinois, Case No. 1:14-cv-08347
(N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify two classes:

Class I, Substantive Due Process:

     "all persons whose property, following an arrest on and
     after October 23, 2012, was held at the Evanston Police
     Department and destroyed or otherwise disposed of before the
     conclusion of court proceedings in connection with which
     such property was seized or otherwise taken possession of";
     and

Class II, Procedural Due Process:

     "all persons whose property, following an arrest on and
     after October 23, 2012, was held at the Evanston Police
     Department and destroyed or otherwise disposed of while that
     person remained in the custody of a jail or penitentiary."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=z9fGoOpW

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EVOLVED INC: "Perkins" Suit Seek Certification of FLSA Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Brittany Perkins, et al., Individually and
on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Evolved, Inc., et al., the Defendant,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00724-JLG-KAJ (E.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs move
the Court pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to
certify a class of:

     "all current and former hourly employees enrolled in
     Defendants' "Apprenticeship Program," including both
     piercing and tattoo apprentices, that worked at the Evolved
     Stores from three years preceding the filing of the
     Complaint through the final disposition of this case who
     were not paid minimum wage for all hours worked in a
     workweek, and or who had 20 hours automatically deducted
     from their pay each week."

The Plaintiffs further move the Court for an order:

  1) implementing a procedure, whereby Court-approved Notice
     of Plaintiff's FLSA claims can be promptly sent to all
     potential opt-in plaintiffs via U.S. Mail; and

  2) requiring Defendants to, within 14 days of this Court's
     order, identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by providing
     a list in electronic and importable format, of the names,
     addresses, and e-mail addresses of all potential opt-in
     plaintiffs who worked for Defendants at any time from
     approximately July 22, 2013 through and including the
     present and until the final resolution of the case.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
          Jason C. Cox, Esq.
          BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN
          GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
          250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 221 4221
          Facsimile: (614) 744 2300
          E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
                  jcox@barkanmeizlish.com


FACEBOOK INC: Bid to Certify Class in Privacy Litigation Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Ronald M. Whyte denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the lawsuit titled In re Facebook Privacy
Litigation, Case No. 10-cv-02389-RMW(N.D. Cal.).

Judge Whyte also:

   -- denied as moot Facebook's motion to strike the expert
      opinion of Edward Pscheidt because the Plaintiffs do not
      rely on Mr. Pscheidt's opinions;

   -- denied the Plaintiffs' motion to strike the testimony of
      Matt Jones; and

   -- denied as moot Facebook's motion to strike the expert
      opinions of Forrest Vickery, as the Court does not reach
      the parties' arguments with respect to damages.

"Because the court finds that individualized questions will
predominate with respect to Facebook's alleged breach and
misrepresentation, the court denies plaintiffs' motion for class
certification," Judge Whyte explained.

Judge Whyte also stated that the Court has also filed an
unredacted copy of the Order that is accessible to case
participants only. If either party believes that the redacted
portions of the Order disclose confidential information, the party
must file an administrative motion to file under seal within 14
days of the Order.  The motion must be accompanied by an
unredacted version of the Order, filed under seal, highlighting
the portions of the Order that the party seeks to seal.  The
motion must also be accompanied by a declaration establishing that
such portions of the Order are sealable.  No proposed order or
redacted version of the order need be filed.  If neither party
moves to seal any part of the Order within 14 days, the Order will
be made public in its entirety.

According to plaintiffs, Facebook's business model represents a
bargain between Facebook and its users.  They contend that
Facebook users provide their valuable personally identifiable
information ("PII") to Facebook in exchange for access to
facebook.com and for Facebook's promises not to disclose their PII
to third parties without consent.

Plaintiffs claim that Facebook violated its own policies and
promises by disclosing users' "sensitive personally identifiable
information" to advertisers.  Specifically, plaintiffs allege that
when users clicked on Facebook ads, Facebook sent "referer
headers" to the advertisers that would allow the advertiser to
identify the user who clicked the ad.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/wlRSur from Leagle.com.

Plaintiff David Gould is represented by:

          Charles Hyunchul Jung, Esq.
          Kassra Powell Nassiri, Esq.
          NASSIRI & JUNG LLP
          47 Kearny Street, Suite 700
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 762-3100
          E-mail: cjung@nassiri-jung.com
                  knassiri@nassiri-jung.com

Plaintiffs Karen Bryant and Christopher Brock are represented by:

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1125
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 350-9700
          Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
          E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com

Plaintiff Barbara Moskowitz is represented by:

          Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 712-8155
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: Jordan.Lurie@CapstoneLawyers.com

Plaintiff Howard L. Schreiber is represented by:

          Eric David Freed, Esq.
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP LLC
          101 Second Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 543-8700
          Facsimile: (415) 391-8269
          E-mail: eric@freedweiss.com

Plaintiff Katherine Pohl and Consol Plaintiff Wendy Marfeo are
represented by:

          Kassra Powell Nassiri, Esq.
          NASSIRI & JUNG LLP
          47 Kearny Street, Suite 700
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 762-3100
          E-mail: knassiri@nassiri-jung.com

Consol Plaintiff Wendy Marfeo is represented by:

          Matthew Joseph Zevin, Esq.
          STANLEY LAW GROUP
          10021 Willow Creek Rd., Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92131
          Telephone: (619) 235-5306
          Facsimile: (815) 377-8419
          E-mail: mzevin@stanleylawgroup.com

Consol Plaintiffs Valerie Gudac and Richard Beiles are represented
by:

          Francis M. Gregorek, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          Symphony Towers
          750 B Street, Suite 2770
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          E-mail: Gregorek@whafh.com

Consol Plaintiff Zetha Noble is represented by:

          Donald Amamgbo, Esq.
          AMAMGBO & ASSOCIATES PLC
          2355 Westwood Blvd., Suite 755
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 337-1137
          Facsimile: (310) 337-1157
          E-mail: donald@amamgbolaw.com

               - and -

          Reginald Von Terrell, Esq.
          THE TERRELL LAW GROUP
          PO Box 13315
          Oakland, CA 94661
          Telephone: (510) 237-9700
          Facsimile: (510) 237-4616
          E-mail: ReggieT2@aol.com

               - and -

          Sydney Jay Hall, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SYDNEY JAY HALL
          1308 Bayshore Highway, Suite 220
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 342-1830
          Facsimile: (650) 342-6344
          E-mail: sydneyhalllawoffice@yahoo.com

Defendant Facebook, Inc., is represented by:

          Jeffrey Gutkin, Esq.
          Matthew Dean Brown, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          101 California Street, 5th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
          Telephone: (415) 693-2026
          Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
          E-mail: jgutkin@cooley.com
                  brownmd@cooley.com

Interested Party Zynga Game Network Inc. is represented by:

          Richard L. Seabolt, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          Spear Tower
          One Market Plaza, Suite 2200
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1127
          Telephone: (415) 957-3212
          Facsimile: (415) 354-3317
          E-mail: RLSeabolt@duanemorris.com


FINANCIAL CORPORATION: "Koval" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled KATE KOVAL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FINANCIAL
CORPORATION OF AMERICA, CORP., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-
04093 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class
of:

     "all persons in Illinois (2) to whom Defendant sent a letter
     to collect a debt (3) which letter threatened to collect a
     service fee for paying by credit card or electronic payment
     (4) within 1 year of the complaint."

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the FDCPA by
threatening to collect a convenience fee from consumers who opted
to pay an alleged debt using a credit card when such a fee is
unlawful in the state of Illinois.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tIXt8D9y

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Wood, Esq.
          Celetha Chatman, Esq.
          COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD.
          73 W. Monroe Street, Suite 502
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 757 1880
          Facsimile: (312) 476 1362
          E-mail: mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com
                  cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com


FORBES MEDIA: Class Certification Bid in "Hall" Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge George Caram Steeh entered an order dismissing
Plaintiff's motion for class certification without prejudice in
the lawsuit styled BRIAN HALL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FORBES MEDIA LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-13844-GCS-DRG (E.D. Mich.).

Mr. Brian Hall filed the putative class action alleging that the
Defendant violated Michigan's Preservation of Personal Privacy
Act, popularly referred to as the Video Rental Privacy Act (VRPA),
by unlawfully disclosing subscribers' information to data miners
and other third party companies. The Plaintiff also alleges a
state law claim of unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on October
30, 2015, which has been stayed pending discovery. On this
date, the court entered a stay of the case pending a ruling by the
Sixth Circuit on a motion to dismiss for lack of Article III
standing in the case of Coulter-Owens v. Time, Inc., No. 16-1321.
For administrative and statistical reasons, the court now
dismisses Plaintiff's motion for class certification without
prejudice. The motion may be reopened after the stay has been
lifted by the court.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gX5ZuRMU


FRONTON HOLDINGS: "Rife" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RUDY RIFE, the Plaintiff, v. FRONTON
HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a CASINO MIAMI and DAVE JONAS, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-21570-JAL (S.D, Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order granting conditional certification of a
Collective Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a putative
class defined as follows:

     "all persons who are currently, or who were, employed by
     Fronton Holdings, LLC d/b/a Casino Miami and/or Dave Jonas
     from May 3, 2013 to the present as a "manager",
     "supervisor", or other similarly titled position, either
     directly by Defendants or through any of their subsidiaries
     or affiliated companies."

The Plaintiff further asks the Court for an order:

     1. appointing Plaintiff as representative of the Collective
        Action with authority to appear at any
        mediation/settlement conference on behalf of and to bind
        the Collective.

     2. expediting production by Defendants, within 10 days from
        the entry of an Order from the Court, of a complete list
        of each person -- including his/her last known home
        address, telephone number, fax number, and email address
        -- who worked with a title containing "manager" or
        "supervisor" for Defendants at any time between May 3,
        2013 and the present; and

     3. requiring Defendants to format and produce, on an
        expedited basis, a list both in hard copy and
        electronically in an Excel spreadsheet, of each such
        person listed alphabetically, and with each person's last
        known home address, cellular number, fax number, and
        email addresses in a separate field corresponding with
        each name to facilitate the preparation and sending of
        notice.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zxUWi2Kx

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian H. Pollock, Esq.
          FAIRLAW FIRM
          8603 S. Dixie Highway, Suite 408
          Miami, FL 33143
          Telephone: (305) 230 4884
          Facsimile: (305) 230 4844


GENERAL MOTORS: Ignition Switch Not to Blame for 2011 Crash
-----------------------------------------------------------
Juan A. Lozano, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
Texas jury on Aug. 25 found that a General Motors Co. ignition
switch was not to blame for a 2011 accident that killed one driver
and injured another, handing the carmaker its third courtroom win
this year in a series of trials designed to help attorneys settle
dozens of similar claims.

The jury deliberated less than two hours in reaching its verdict
in a trial that began Aug. 9.

Zachary Stevens and his parents had sued GM, claiming a faulty
ignition switch in Stevens' Saturn Sky jostled off, causing him to
lose control of his car and hit another vehicle, killing its
driver.  Mr. Stevens' attorneys say he suffered a traumatic brain
injury and a skull fracture in the accident.

The switches can slip out of the on position, causing the cars to
stall, knocking out power steering and turning off air bags. GM
says it has fixed the problem.

Josh Davis, Mr. Stevens' attorney, said that while his client
never hid the fact that he was speeding before the accident,
Stevens and his family still maintain the ignition switch was the
main cause.

"It's obviously very disappointing," Mr. Davis said after the
verdict . He had asked jurors to award the Stevens family more
than $14.5 million.

Attorneys for GM told jurors in Houston the accident was caused by
Mr. Stevens' reckless speeding on a rain-slick road.

"As a result, an innocent man was killed. The accident had nothing
to do with either General Motors or the ignition switch," GM
spokesman Jim Cain said in a statement after the verdict.

Mr. Stevens, who was 19 at the time, had been driving westbound on
a road northeast of Houston near the town of New Caney when his
car began to act erratically and he was unable to control it,
according to his attorneys.  Mr. Stevens' car hit a guardrail and
went into the eastbound lane, where it struck a vehicle driven by
Mariano Landaverde, who died at the scene. Mr. Landaverde's family
had also been part of the lawsuit but settled out of court with
GM.

In a videotaped deposition played for jurors earlier in the trial,
GM Chief Executive Officer Mary Barra said the automaker failed to
designate the flawed ignition switch as a safety concern, instead
misdiagnosing the problem as a customer satisfaction issue.

Mr. Stevens was charged with manslaughter, but a grand jury
declined to indict and the charges were eventually dropped after
GM began its recall related to the ignition switch.

In 2014, GM recalled 2.6 million older small cars worldwide to
replace the faulty switches. Those included the Saturn Sky, as
well as the Chevrolet Cobalt and others. GM also reviewed a
backlog of safety problems and ordered a record 84 recalls that
year covering more than 30 million vehicles, including 27 million
in the U.S.

GM won two other ignition cases tried earlier this year.

In January, a trial in New York ended abruptly after the judge
raised questions about the plaintiff's truthfulness. In March, a
New York jury found that an ignition switch was not to blame in a
2014 accident on an icy New Orleans bridge.

These cases have been part of a series of bellwether trials that
are testing the legal boundaries of hundreds of claims remaining
against GM.

In September, GM announced it had settled 1,385 death and injury
cases for $275 million and a class-action shareholders' lawsuit
for $300 million.

The company paid nearly $600 million to settle 399 claims made to
a fund it established. Those claims covered 124 deaths and 275
injuries. GM's fund rejected more than 90 percent of the 4,343
claims it received, according to figures the company released in
December.

After the Aug. 25verdict, several jurors said that while they were
upset about GM's failure to let consumers know about the ignition
switch problems sooner, they didn't see any proof in this case
that the switch was at fault.

"I held my nose and I did my job," said Walter Kimble, 58, one of
the jurors. "I wanted so desperately to make that young man a
millionaire, but they didn't give me anything I could work with."


GERAWAN FARMING: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Amaro" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Gerawan Farming, Inc., and Gerawan Farming Partners,
Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled
Rafael Amaro, et al. v. Gerawan Farming, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:14-cv-00147-DAD-SAB, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California, Fresno.

The appellate case is captioned as Rafael Amaro, et al. v. Gerawan
Farming, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-80120, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, District
Judge Dale A. Drozd granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

On February 3, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the
Defendants alleging violations of the Migrant and Seasonal
Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA), as well as various
California labor laws.  The Plaintiffs are former employees of
Defendants.

Plaintiffs-Respondents RAFAEL MARQUEZ AMARO and JESUS ALARCON
URZUA, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Marcos Camacho, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARCOS CAMACHO
          1227 California Ave.
          Bakersfield, CA 93304
          Telephone: (661) 324-8100

               - and -

          Liane Lara Katzenstein Ly, Esq.
          Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
          16133 Ventura Boulevard
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990-8300
          E-mail: liane@kingsleykingsley.com
                  eric@kingsleykingsley.com

               - and -

          Mario G. Martinez, Esq.
          MARTINEZ AGUILASOCHO & LYNCH APLC
          P.O. Box 11208
          Bakersfield, CA 93389
          Telephone: (661) 859-1174
          E-mail: mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com

Defendants-Petitioners GERAWAN FARMING, INC., a California
Corporation, and GERAWAN FARMING PARTNERS, INC., a California
Corporation, are represented by:

          Daniel Lewis Allender, Esq.
          Victor Hao-Jan Jih, Esq.
          David Schwarz, Esq.
          IRELL & MANELLA LLP
          1800 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276
          Telephone: (310) 203-7003
          Facsimile: (310) 203-7199
          E-mail: dallender@irell.com
                  VJih@irell.com
                  dschwarz@irell.com


GOOGLE INC: Settles Apple Browser Hacking Claims for $5.5 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff John Roberts, writing for Fortune, reports that Google agreed
to a settlement on Aug. 29 that could finally end the legal fall-
out from a scheme by the search giant to circumvent privacy
settings on Apple's Safari browser.  The tactic, discovered by
security researchers in 2012, involved Google tricking consumers'
browsers into accepting ad-tracking software.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, filed in Delaware
federal court, Google will pay $5.5 million to resolve a
long-running class action lawsuit -- but affected consumers will
see none of that money.  Instead, some of the cash will go to
legal fees and settlement expenses while the rest will go to a
handful of privacy groups.

The deal will also permit Google to deny any fault over the
browser hacking, which caused a major controversy when it was
discovered, and raised questions about the extent to which tech
companies track consumers' online behavior.

The hack itself involved a default setting on Apple's desktop and
mobile Safari browser that rejected so-called "cookies" -- small
bits of software code that keep track of the websites a consumers
visits in order to serve them ads.  Google got around the setting
by disguising their cookies in a way that qualified for a loophole
in the Safari settings.

After Google's practice came to light, the company agreed to pay
$17 million to state attorneys general over privacy violations,
and another $22.5 million to the Federal Trade Commission for
violating the terms of an earlier settlement.  In both cases,
Google denied any wrong-doing -- an outcome an FTC Commissioner
then described as "inexplicable."

The effect of the Aug. 29 deal is that it could put an end to the
related class action litigation, which has bounced around the
courts for years.  Last year, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
revived parts of a case a lower court judge had dismissed, leading
the parties to ask Supreme Court earlier this year to review parts
of the appeal.

The proposed settlement, however, must be approved by a judge and
that outcome is not a sure thing.  While judges are typically
quick to bless class action settlements, some have decided to
reject arrangements -- like the one involving Google -- in which
the settlement money is paid to outside groups rather than
consumers.

Google declined to comment about the settlement, and lawyers for
the plaintiffs did not respond to a request for comment.  News of
the settlement came in June, but its details were only filed
recently.


GRADUATION ALLIANCE: Court Allows Rost to File Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Paul C. Huck granted the Plaintiff's motion for leave to
file amended complaint in the lawsuit styled SHIRLEY ROST v.
GRADUATION ALLIANCE, Inc., a Utah corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-
24296-PCH (S.D. Fla.).

As explained in the Motion, the Plaintiff seeks to amend the
complaint to add detail learned during discovery and development
of the factual record, and to revise the class allegations and
definition by, for example, removing the "Replied Stop Class" and
amending the "Consent Class."

Judge Huck also denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion
for class certification as it is rendered moot by the Plaintiff's
proposed amendments to the complaint.  As previously ordered, the
Plaintiff may move for class certification by October 3, 2016.

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


HALLIBURTON ENERGY: "Guerrero" Suit Moved to E.D. of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Guerrero, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated
and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, v. Halliburton
Energy Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. BCV-16-101645, was
removed from Kern County Superior Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California - Live (Fresno). The
Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-01300-LJO-
JLT to the proceeding. The assigned Chief Judge is Hon. Lawrence
J. O'Neill.

Halliburton Energy provides products, services, and integrated
solutions for oil and gas exploration, development, and
production.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Thomas Mara, Esq.
          Jamie Kathryn Serb, Esq.
          William Turley, Esq.
          THE TURLEY LAW FIRM
          7428 Trade Street
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 234 2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234 4048
          E-mail: dmara@turleylawfirm.com
                  jkserb@gmail.com
                  kcorzine@turleylawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew C. Kane, Esq.
          MCGUIRE WOODS LLP (LOS ANGELES)
          1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 315 8295
          Facsimile: (310) 310 8210
          E-mail: mkane@mcguirewoods.com


HARRIS COUNTY: Petroquip Energy Sues Over Misappraisal
------------------------------------------------------
PETROQUIP ENERGY SERVICES, the Plaintiff, v. HARRIS COUNTY
APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-59292 (Judicial
District Court of Harris County, Texas, Sep. 2, 2016), seeks
relief from District's levying of a tax on Plaintiff's property
based on a higher valuation, pursuant to Texas Property Tax Code.

According to the complaint, the District placed a January 1, 2016
assessed value on the Plaintiff's property. This assessed value is
grossly in excess of its actual fair market value.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. Montgomery Briscoe, Esq.
          EGGLESTON & BRISCOE, LLP
          4800 Three Allen Center
          333 Clay Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 659 5100
          Facsimile: (713) 951 9920
          E-mail: wmb@eggstonbriscoe.com


HARRIS COUNTY: PPI Mechanical Sues Over Misappraisal
----------------------------------------------------
PPI MECHANICAL TESTING SERVICES LLC, the Plaintiff, v. HARRIS
COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-59282
(Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, Sep. 2, 2016),
asks the Court to fix the excessive valuation of the property
owned by the Plaintiff for property tax purposes for the year
2016.

According to the complaint, the District placed a January 1, 2016
assessed value on the Plaintiff's property. This assessed value is
grossly in excess of its actual fair market value.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. Montgomery Briscoe, Esq.
          EGGLESTON & BRISCOE, LLP
          4800 Three Allen Center
          333 Clay Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 659 5100
          Facsimile: (713) 951 9920
          E-mail: wmb@eggstonbriscoe.com


HARRIS COUNTY: Team Industrial Sues Over Misappraisal
-----------------------------------------------------
TEAM INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC, the Plaintiff, v. HARRIS COUNTY
APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-59170 (Judicial
District Court of Harris County, Texas, Sep. 2, 2016), seeks
monetary relief of $200,000-1,000,000 resulting from the
Defendant's excess appraised value of Plaintiff's property.

The Plaintiff alleges that the 2016 value of the Property
constitutes an unequal appraisal of the Property in that the
appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds, by at least 10%, the
median level of appraisal of a reasonable and representative
sample of other properties or a sample of other properties.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raymond Gray, Esq.
          Lorri Michel, Esq.
          Shane Rogers, Esq.
          Natalie A. Maloney, Esq.
          MICHELLE & GRAY, LLP
          812 W. 11th Street, Suite 301
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 477 0200
          Facsimile: (512) 477 6636
          E-mail: raymond@michelgray.com
                  lorri@michelgray.com
                  shane@michelgray.com
                  natalie@michelgray.com


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Class of Purchasers Certified in "Wolf" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Beverly Reid O'Connell granted the Defendant's motion to
strike the declaration of William Buckley, and granted in part the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit styled
ANNE WOLF v. HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY, Case No. 5:15-cv-01221-BRO-
GJS (C.D. Cal.).

In view of Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., and the questions
regarding online purchasers' reliance on the advertisement in
question, the Court exercises its discretion to revise the class
definition, according to the civil minutes.  In particular, the
Court (1) declines to certify the proposed nationwide class and
(2) limits the California subclass to those consumers, who
purchased their Printer at a physical, retail location in
California.

The certified class description will read as follows:

     Class 1: All consumers, who, between in or about April 2014,
              and the present, purchased one or more HP Laserjet
              P1102 printers at a physical, retail location in
              the state of California, and whose printer was
              advertised to include the HP Smart Install feature,
              but was in fact subject to HP's disablement of the
              Smart Install Feature.

The putative class action is brought under the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act.  The Plaintiff asserts a claim against HP.  HP
engages in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of computers
and related equipment and services.

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


HOLLYWOOD POINTE: African-Asian Club's Bid for Class Cert. Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In light of certain significant concerns, the Hon. James Otero
denies without prejudice the Club's motion for class action
certification in the lawsuit captioned United African-Asian
Abilities Club v. Hollywood Pointe, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:16-
cv-01117-SJO-FFM (C.D. Cal.).

The Court grants the Club leave to file a renewed motion for class
certification, with a memorandum totaling no more than 25 pages,
which addresses each of the issues noted in the Court's civil
minutes within 45 days of the issuance of the Order.  The Club is
encouraged to seek leave to amend its operative pleading, and to
redefine its proposed classes and subclasses in a manner that
might make class-wide adjudication feasible.

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


HOME DEPOT: "Henry" Suit Moved from N.D. Cal. to E.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Henry, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff, v. Home Depot
U.S.A., Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:14-cv-04858, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California - (Sacramento). The Eastern District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-02102-MCE to the proceeding. The
assigned District Judge is Hon. Morrison C. England, Jr.

Home Depot is a home improvement supplies superstore that sells
tools, construction products and services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SHAUN SETAREH
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888 7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888 0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com

               - and -

          Arnab Banerjee, Esq.
          Melissa Grant, Esq.
          Raul Perez, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 450
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556 4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943 0396
          E-mail: arnab.banerjee@capstonelawyers.com
                  melissa.grant@capstonelawyers.com
                  raul.perez@capstonelawyers.com

               - and -

          Neil Michael Larsen, Esq.
          Thomas Alistair Segal, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888 7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888 0109
          E-mail: neil@setarehlaw.com
                  thomas@setarehlaw.com

               - and -

          Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          2274 E. Maple Ave.
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292 2353
          Facsimile: (424) 292 2355
          E-mail: tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Donna Marie Mezias, Esq.
          Joel M. Cohn, Esq.
          Liz Kathryn Bertko, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS
          HAUER & FELD LLP
          580 California Street, Suite 1500
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 765 9500
          Facsimile: (415) 765 9501
          E-mail: dmezias@akingump.com
                  jcohn@akingump.com
                  lbertko@akingump.com



HOME TEAM PEST: Garnica Seeks to Certify Customers Class
--------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled Jose Garnica, Cora Potter,
individuals; on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly
situated consumers v. Home Team Pest Defense, Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:14-cv-05243-VC (N.D. Cal.), move the Court to grant class
certification in favor of this class of persons:

     All individuals who lived in a home with a tube-in-the-wall
     pest control system serviced by HomeTeam Pest Defense, Inc.
     ("HomeTeam") at any time from November 26, 2010 to the date
     of trial of this action.

The claims in the Case are each based upon the Defendants' alleged
monopolization and attempt to monopolize in violation of the
Sherman Antitrust Act.  As a result of HomeTeam's monopolistic
behavior, Plaintiffs argue that they and members of the Class paid
more for serving of tube-in-the-wall pest control systems.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint R. Rex Parris Law
Firm, Howarth & Smith, and Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt &
Penfield LLP as Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on November 17, 2016, at 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=g0iYqPGw

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          R. Rex Parris, Esq.
          Alexander R. Wheeler, Esq.
          Patricia K. Oliver, Esq.
          R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM
          43364 10th Street West
          Lancaster, CA 93534
          Telephone: (661) 949-2595
          Facsimile: (661) 949-7524
          E-mail: rrparris@rrexparris.com
                  awheeler@rrexparris.com
                  poliver@rrexparris.com

               - and -

          Don Howarth, Esq.
          Suzelle M. Smith, Esq.
          Elizabeth Skorcz Anthony, Esq.
          HOWARTH & SMITH
          523 West Sixth Street, Suite 728
          Los Angeles, CA, 90014
          Telephone: (213) 955-9400
          Facsimile: (213) 622-0791
          E-mail: dhowarth@howarth-smith.com
                  ssmith@howarth-smith.com
                  eanthony@howarth-smith.com

               - and -

          David S. Casey, Jr., Esq.
          Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
          Jeremy Robinson, Esq.
          CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP
          110 Laurel Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-1811
          Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
          E-mail: dcasey@cglaw.com
                  gmb@cglaw.com
                  jrobinson@cglaw.com


INSTALLATIONS INC: "Somers" Suit Minimum Pay Under Wage Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD (CHIP) SOMERS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. INSTALLATIONS, INC. d/b/a
GOCONFIGURE, the Defendant, Case No. 16-2530 (Mass. Super. Ct.,
Sep. 2, 2016), seeks damages sustained by Plaintiff and the Class
Members as a result of the Defendants' unlawful conduct, and for
the Court to award those damages, trebled for those representing
violations of the Massachusetts Wage Act and the Massachusetts
Minimum Wage Statute, against the Defendants and in favor of the
Plaintiff and the Class Members.

According to the complaint, all of GoConfigure's installers,
service and repair personnel have been/are misclassified as
independent contractors, have been denied minimum wages, and have
had unlawful deductions taken from their compensation.

Specifically, the Defendant allegedly failed to pay the minimum
wage rate to Plaintiff and the Class Members for all of their work
time.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip J. Gordon, Esq.
          Kristen M. Hurley, Esq.
          GORDON LAW GROUP LLP
          585 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 536 1800


IPAWN RODNEY: "Jones" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to E.D. Ark.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vincient Jones, Individually and o/b/o a class of similarly
situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. iPawn Rodney Parham LLC, iPawn
Baseline LLC, iPawn Arkansas LLC, and Steven Landers, Jr., the
Defendant, Case No. 60-CV-16-03326, was removed from the Pulaski
County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas (Little Rock). The Eastern District clerk
assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00644-KGB (Sep. 6, 2016) to the
proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. Kristine G. Baker.

iPawn provides quick and easy loans to customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John W. Walker, Esq.
          Omavi Shukur, Esq.
          John W. Walker, P.A.
          1723 Broadway
          Little Rock, AR 72206-1220
          Telephone: (501) 374 3758
          E-mail: johnwalkeratty@aol.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel R. Carter, Esq.
          JAMES & CARTER
          Post Office Box 907
          Little Rock, AR 72203
          Telephone: (501) 372 1414
          Facsimile: (501) 372 1659
          E-mail: dcarter@jamescarterlaw.com


JACKSONVILLE, FL: 11th Cir. Affirms Dissolution of Consent Decree
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq., and Alex W. Karasik, Esq., of
Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that after
the City of Jacksonville stopped following a class action consent
decree that required it to hire a proportionate number of black
and white firefighters, the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Eleventh
Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the motion and
dissolution of the consent decree on the grounds that the
plaintiffs waiting fifteen years to bring their show cause motion.

Following a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of all past,
present and future black firefighters in in the City of
Jacksonville, Florida ("the City") in 1971, the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida entered a consent decree
that required the City to hire a proportionate number of black and
white firefighters.  The consent decree was modified in 1982 and
effective until 1992, when the City unilaterally and without legal
authorization stopped following the decree.  Fifteen years later,
in 2007, the plaintiffs brought a motion to show cause as to why
the City should not be held in contempt for violation of the 1982
consent decree.  The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion
on grounds of laches, and dissolved the consent decree.  On
appeal, in Coffey, et al. v. Braddy, et al., No. 15-11112 (11th
Cir. Aug. 23, 2016), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district
court's order denying the plaintiffs' motion to show cause and
dissolving the consent decree.

This ruling illustrates that if an employer abandons its
obligations under a consent decree, legal inaction by plaintiffs
over a long period of time could potentially render the consent
decree dissolved.

Case Background

In 1982, the district court modified a 1971 consent decree
requiring the City of Jacksonville to hire in its fire department
"an equal number of blacks and whites until the ratio of black
fire fighters to white fire fighters reflects the ratio of black
citizens to white citizens in the City of Jacksonville." Id. at 2.
The City complied for ten years until it unilaterally and without
the district court's approval stopped following the decree in
1992. Id. In 2007, fifteen years after the City had stopped
complying with the consent decree, the plaintiffs brought a motion
to show cause as to why the City should not be held in contempt
for violation of the 1982 consent decree.

The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion on grounds of
laches and dissolved the decree. Id. at 2-3.  Further, the
district court explained that if the plaintiffs had sued in 1992
or the years immediately following, "the City would have had a lot
of explaining to do." Id. at 10.  Citing incomplete memories, the
fact that several key City personnel had passed away or moved, the
spottiness of the paper trail, ambiguities in the documents that
were in the record, and the fact that the City had been operating
under a different hiring procedure since 1999, the district court
concluded that the "plaintiffs['] waiting until fifteen years
later is simply too prejudicial to the City." Id.

In addition, the district court granted the City's motion to
dissolve the consent decree. Id.  The district court refused to
reinstate the consent decree as written because its racial quotas
were not constitutional under the modern standard for affirmative
action, and because adapting the 1982 decree to the new hiring
practices that began in 1999 "could be problematic." Id.  The
district court also cited a different successor lawsuit in support
of its decision to decline to modify the consent decree.

The Decision

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's
order denying the plaintiffs' motion to show cause and dissolving
the consent decree.  In support of its holding that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in holding that laches barred
the plaintiffs' motion, the Eleventh Circuit noted that the
plaintiffs' fifteen-year delay in bringing their motion to show
cause was not excusable and unduly prejudiced the City's ability
to defend itself. Id. at 11.  The Eleventh Circuit instructed that
to assert a successful defense of laches, a defendant must show a
delay in asserting a right or claim, that the delay was not
excusable, and that there was undue prejudice to the party against
whom the claim is asserted. Id.

The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in finding that the plaintiffs' inexcusable delay
unduly prejudiced the City's ability to defend itself, because
unclear memories and incomplete documents made it impossible to
determine whether the City was, in fact, in contempt when it ended
compliance in 1992.  The Court opined that due to "undeniable
ambiguities in the record, the district court was well within its
discretion in holding that the City was unduly prejudiced by the
delay because the passage of time has made it impossible to make
the required findings to determine whether or not the City was in
contempt of the decree." Id. at 15.  The Court rejected the
plaintiffs argument that the City was at fault for failing to
maintain records that would show that the terms of the decree had
been met, noting that plaintiffs produced no evidence that the
City destroyed the records in bad faith, and that "[u]ltimately,
the fact that records were lost or destroyed in the interim
fifteen years is more a product of the plaintiffs' delay than of
the City's malfeasance." Id. at 17.

Finally, the Eleventh Circuit held that the district court's
dissolving of the consent decree (as opposed to leaving the decree
in place or modifying the decree) was not an abuse of discretion.
The Court found that "the district court correctly reasoned that
the consent decree as written could not be reinstated, because, as
the Supreme Court has explained, '[a] consent decree must of
course be modified if, as it later turns out, one or more of the
obligations placed upon the parties has become impermissible under
federal law.'" Id. at 20 (quoting Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cty.
Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 388 (1992)). Finally, the Court found that it
was in the public's interest to allow a currently pending lawsuit
regarding the same issue to address the situation. Id.

Accordingly, because the plaintiffs' fifteen-year delay prejudiced
the City's ability to defend itself and because a new lawsuit had
taken up the cause of fighting racial discrimination in the City's
firefighting department, the Eleventh Circuit held that neither
the district court's application of laches nor its dissolution of
the 1982 consent decree was an abuse of discretion.  Therefore,
the Court affirmed the district court's dissolution of the consent
decree.

Implication For Employers

Employers should not view this ruling as a license to abandon
their obligations under a consent decree that resolves a workplace
class action.  Rather, this ruling serves as a wake-up call to
plaintiffs who obtain consent decrees against employers for
discriminatory practices, and thereafter sleep on the rights they
expended resources to obtain.  Should an employer choose to
abandon its duties under a consent decree, and the plaintiffs
thereafter fail to address this abandonment for an extended period
of time, employers can use this ruling to argue how such
inactivity by the allegedly aggrieved plaintiffs nullifies the
employer's obligation to abide by the dated consent decree.


JERSEY SHORE: Sued in N.J. Super. Ct. Over Race-Based Harassment
----------------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA SCOTT, RENEE PRINCE and LINDA RICE, the Plaintiffs, v.
JERSEY SHORE UNIVERSITY MEDICA CENTER FOUNDATION, INC., MERIDIAN
HEALTH SYSTEM ASSISTANCE CORPORATION and JOHN DOES 1-5 AND 6-10,
the Defendants, Case No. L3224-16 (N.J. Super. Ct., Sep. 2, 2016),
seeks to recover compensatory damages, including for emotional
distress and personal hardship, punitive damages, interest, cost
of suit, attorneys' fees, enhanced attorneys' fees, equitable back
pay, equitable front pay, equitable instatement or promotion, and
any other relief the Court deems equitable and just resulting from
Defendants' violations of the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination's (LAD) prohibition against race-based harassment.

Specifically, starting as early as 2012, the Assistant Nurse
Manager, Kim Aufiero, who is white, began making racially
discriminatory comments toward and about non-white employees,
and non-white individuals who visited the medical center.

Furthermore, Lori Messer, a Nurse Educator, and Colleen Berner,
who were also white, made racially discriminatory comments about
non-white employees and individuals who used the medical center's
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JOHN PAUL MITCHELL: Gerard Seeks Review of C.D. Cal. Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Claire Gerard, Frances Handcock, Melody Northrop,
Berenisa Cortes Palominos and Dylan Thomas filed an appeal from a
court ruling in their lawsuit styled Claire Gerard, et al. v. John
Paul Mitchell Systems, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-04999-DSF-JC, in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Defendant
John Paul Mitchell Systems removed the class action lawsuit titled
Gerard, et al. v. John Paul Mitchell Systems, et al., Case No.
BC543275, from the Superior Court of California for the County of
Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Los Angeles).

The Case seeks unpaid wages and interest thereon for the
Defendants' alleged failure to pay for all hours worked at least
at minimum wage and failure to pay overtime premium wages for
overtime hours worked, among other allegations.  The Plaintiffs
brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Claire Gerard, et al. v. John
Paul Mitchell Systems, et al., Case No. 16-56281, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by October 6, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on January 4, 2017;

   -- Opening brief of Appellants Claire Gerard, Frances
      Handcock, Melody Northrop, Berenisa Cortes Palominos and
      Dylan Thomas is due on February 13, 2017;

   -- Answering brief of Appellees Winn Claybaugh, John Paul
      DeJoria, Does, D'Ann Evans, John Paul Mitchell Systems,
      Paul Mantea, P.M. Advanced Education Inc., P2W Learning
      Systems LLC, PMCA Bakersfield LLC, PMHBW LLC, PMV Las Vegas
      LLC, Paul Mitchell Advanced Education LLC, Paul Mitchell
      The School, Ann Marie Safadi and Von Curtis, Inc., is due
      on March 15, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.

Plaintiffs-Appellants CLAIRE GERARD, MELODY NORTHROP, BERENISA
CORTES PALOMINOS, DYLAN THOMAS and FRANCES HANDCOCK are
represented by:

          Lee R. Feldman, Esq.
          Leonard H. Sansanowicz, Esq.

          Alicia Olivares, Esq.
          FELDMAN BROWNE OLIVARES, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          12400 Wilshire Boulvard, Suite 1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 207-8500
          E-mail: lee@leefeldmanlaw.com
                  leonard@leefeldmanlaw.com

                  alicia@leefeldmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Leon Greenberg, Esq.
          Dana Sniegocki, Esq.
          2965 S. Jones Boulevard, E-4
          Las Vegas, NV 89146
          Telephone: (702) 383-6085
          Facsimile: (702) 385-1827
          E-mail: leongreenberg@overtimelaw.com
                  dana@overtimelaw.com

               - and -

          David A. Lowe, Esq.
          Chaya M. Mandelbaum, Esq.
          RUDY, EXELROD, ZIEFF& LOWE, LLP
          351 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 434-9800
          Facsimile: (415) 434-0513
          E-mail: dal@rezlaw.com
                  cmm@rezlaw.com

               - and -

          Bryan Jeffrey Schwartz, Esq.
          BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW
          1330 Broadway
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 444-9300
          Facsimile: (510) 444-9301
          E-mail: bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees JOHN PAUL MITCHELL SYSTEMS, a California
Corporation; PAUL MITCHELL THE SCHOOL, a business entity of
unknown form; VON CURTIS, INC., a Utah corporation; P.M. ADVANCED
EDUCATION INC.; PAUL MITCHELL ADVANCED EDUCATION LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; PMV LAS VEGAS LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; PMCA BAKERSFIELD LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; PMHBW LLC, a Delaware limited liability; D'ANN
EVANS; ANN MARIE SAFADI; WINN CLAYBAUGH; and JOHN PAUL DEJORIA,
doing business as Paul Mitchell The School, are represented by:

          Courtney L. Baird, Esq.
          Julie A. Vogelzang, Esq.
          Bryce A. Young, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          750 B Street
          San Diego, CA 92101-4681
          Telephone: (619) 744-2200
          Facsimile: (619) 923-3115
          E-mail: CLBaird@duanemorris.com
                  jvogelzang@duanemorris.com
                  byoung@duanemorris.com

Defendant-Appellee PAUL MANTEA is represented by:

          Courtney L. Baird, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          750 B Street
          San Diego, CA 92101-4681
          Telephone: (619) 744-2200
          Facsimile: (619) 923-3115
          E-mail: CLBaird@duanemorris.com

               - and -

          Gina Haggerty Lindell, Esq.
          Susanna Ryan Matingou, Esq.
          GORDON & REES LLP
          101 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 696-6700
          Facsimile: (619) 696-7124
          E-mail: glindell@gordonrees.com
                  smatingou@gordonrees.com

Defendant-Appellee P2W LEARNING SYSTEMS LLC is represented by:

          Gina Haggerty Lindell, Esq.
          Susanna Ryan Matingou, Esq.
          GORDON & REES LLP
          101 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 696-6700
          Facsimile: (619) 696-7124
          E-mail: glindell@gordonrees.com
                  smatingou@gordonrees.com

               - and -

          Julie A. Vogelzang, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          750 B Street
          San Diego, CA 92101-4681
          Telephone: (619) 744-2200
          Facsimile: (619) 923-3115
          E-mail: jvogelzang@duanemorris.com


JOHNSTON & ARENTZ: Faces Class Action Over Robocalls
----------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that the blessing and
curse of automated dialing is that robocallers operate without
human assistance.  That's great if the goal of the call is, say,
to tell parents of schoolkids about a snow day.  But a new class
action in federal court in Ft. Worth, Texas, suggests that
robocalls just might not be the best way to drum up clients in
mass tort litigation.

The lead plaintiff in the class action, a Texan named John
"Scotty" MacLean, alleges that he received a phone call on July 16
from a number identified as belonging to the "IVC Claims Center."
When Mr. MacLean answered the call, according to the complaint, an
automated voice advised him to push a particular button if he or
anyone he knew had been harmed by an IVC filter. (IVC stands for
inferior vena cava; IVC filters are tiny cone-shaped medical
devices intended to prevent blood clots from reaching a patient's
heart or lungs.)

Scotty MacLean, as you shall see, had a particular interest in
personal injuries caused by IVC filters.  He pushed the designated
button and was connected to a live representative.
Mr. MacLean asked some questions and was eventually informed that
if he wanted to file a lawsuit, his claim would be handled by
Christopher Johnston of the Johnston Law Group.  According to his
complaint, Mr. MacLean told the live rep that he wanted to talk to
his wife before moving forward.  He requested a callback number,
and was given an 800 number for the Arentz Law Group, a law firm
that specializes in generating personal injury cases through
advertising.

Unfortunately for the Johnston and Arentz firms, Scotty MacLean
just happens to be one of the plaintiffs' lawyers on the steering
committee in multidistrict litigation against Cook Medical, one of
the makers of IVC filters. (Lead plaintiffs' counsel in the case
are Ben Martin, David Matthews and Matthew Heaviside.)
Mr. MacLean was none too pleased about what he considered to be
improper solicitation in a high-profile case he is helping to
direct.  And as a Texas resident, he had a powerful way to express
his displeasure: State laws entitle the recipients of improper
solicitations to file a lawsuit -- otherwise known as barratry --
to $10,000 for every violation.

So Mr. MacLean filed a class action on behalf of all Texans who
received robocalls from the marketers working on behalf of
Johnston and Arentz.  "The marketing cost associated with 'mass
tort' litigation is significant but most attorneys and firms abide
by the rules and laws established by the courts, their bar
associations and state statutes regarding barratry," his complaint
said.  "Sadly, there are attorneys and law firms that ignore
ethical rules and barratry laws and use any means necessary in the
mad dash to grab as many clients as they can. These firms
blatantly and with complete disregard for the law (and at any
cost) unethically and illegally solicit clients."

Mass torts case generation has increasingly become the province of
professional marketers who use tactics developed outside of the
litigation arena.  Occasionally that leads to incidents that are,
at best, embarrassing for the marketers, such as when the wife of
a defense lawyer for Johnson & Johnson received an unsolicited
phone call asking if she had been implanted with pelvic mesh and
wanted to file a suit.  Johnson & Johnson cited that call and
other solicitations in a 2015 motion for discovery on the origin
of cases in the sprawling transvaginal mesh litigation; the
company subsequently withdrew the motion when leading plaintiffs'
lawyers in the case pointed out that they had previously cited
their own concerns about improper solicitation to the West
Virginia federal judge overseeing the multidistrict mesh
litigation.


KAPRAUN P.C.: "Wilburn" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned LOLITA A. WILBURN, D.C., P.C. d/b/a BACK
TO HEALTH CHIROPRACTIC MEDICAL CENTER, an Illinois Professional
Corporation, and RUSSELL HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTER, S.C.,
individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly-
situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. KAPRAUN, P.C. and DR. MICHAEL
KAPRAUN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-08816 (N.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify this class:

     "all persons successfully sent one or more facsimiles on
     March 2 or 3, 2006 or September 23, 2006 advertising "The
     World's Most Powerful Anti-Aging Supplement" Eniva Vibe and
     listing a phone number of 612-382-1628 or 612-605-4477."

The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to appoint themselves as the
class representatives, and appoint Plaintiffs' attorneys as class
counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EuRFbrQ2

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          James M. Smith, Esq.
          Kimberly M. Watt, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS
          & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658 5500

               - and -

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008


KIA MOTORS: Faces "Leong" Suit in Eastern District of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Kia Motors America, Inc. The case
is styled Sean Leong, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Kia Motors America, Inc.,
and Kia Motors Corporation, Case No. 2:16-cv-04953-JFB-AKT
(E.D.N.Y., Sep. 6, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Joseph F.
Bianco.

Kia Motors markets and distributes vehicles. It offers mid-size
and luxury sedans, crossovers and minivans, and compact vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq.
          SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
          32 East 57 Street, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 421 6492
          Facsimile: (212) 421 6553
          E-mail: stephen@sfclasslaw.com


KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Faces "Ramos" Suit in District of Arizona
------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Kohl's Department Stores
Incorporated. The case is entitled Jennifer Ramos, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Kohl's
Department Stores Incorporated, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-
02965-DLR (D. Ariz., Sep. 2, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon.
Douglas L. Rayes.

Kohl's operates department stores in the United States. The
company offers apparel, footwear, accessories, and home products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L Greenwald, Esq.
          Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC
5550 des Rd., Ste. 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826 5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961 5684
          E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com


KWICK RENTALS: Class Cert. in "Blankenship" Suit Partly Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DYLAN BLANKENSHIP, MARCO GONZALEZ, and
ARMANDO VEGA, Individually and On Behalf of Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. KWICK RENTALS, LLC and K&L RENTALS,
LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 5:15-cv-01057-D (W.D. Okla.), the
Hon. Judge Timothy DeGiusti granted in part and denied in part
Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of:

     "all current and former employees of K&L Rentals, LLC and
     Kwick Rentals, LLC, employed during the past three (3) years
     who received a salary or a salary plus mileage and/or a per
     diem, and who were employed as "Field Hands" (collectively,
     "Putative Class Members."

The Plaintiffs shall submit for the Court's approval within 21
days from the date of the order, a jointly proposed order granting
conditional class certification and approving a notice and opt-in
consent forms.

If an agreement cannot be reached, Plaintiffs shall file a motion
by that same date seeking approval of their proposed forms and
informing the Court of the nature of the parties' disagreement. If
a motion is filed, Defendants shall respond within 14 days
thereafter.

The Plaintiffs brought suit against their former employers to
recover unpaid overtime wages allegedly due under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=olg7mXPc


LA ENTERTAINMENT: Florida Court Certifies FLSA Collective Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie L. Adler-Paindiris, Esq. -- Stephanie.Adler-
Paindiris@jacksonlewis.com -- of Jackson Lewis PC, in an article
for Lexology, reports that in a case for overtime compensation,
the Middle District of Florida (Fort Myers Division) held that
plaintiffs' claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 were "mutually exclusive and
irreconcilable." Tamera Goers, et. al. v. L.A. Entertainment Group
and Amer Salameh, No. 15-cv-412-FtM-99CM (Aug. 25, 2016).

Contending they were due overtime pay, adult entertainers sought
certification of their FLSA claims as a collective action and
certification of their state claims under the Florida Minimum Wage
Act as a class action under Rule 23.  Rule 23 exists to determine
the propriety of bringing a matter as a class action and requires
such an action to be superior to other methods of adjudication.

By way of background, courts across the nation are split on
whether a representative plaintiff can bring a Rule 23 class
action concurrently with a collective action under the FLSA.  The
circuits that have permitted the claims to proceed together have
found that the underlying factual bases for the claims are
identical and thus it would be neither convenient nor economical
to relitigate the state law claims in state court.  The Middle
District of Florida even recognized that some district courts
within the Eleventh Circuit adopt this philosophy.

The plaintiffs in this case relied on a recent U.S. Supreme Court
decision in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036
(2016), which addressed a dual certified class from an Iowa
District Court dealing with an Iowa wage payment statute along
with the FLSA.  The Middle District of Florida, however,
interpreted the Supreme Court decision as limiting its ruling so
as to not rule on the propriety of a Rule 23 class proceeding
simultaneously with a FLSA collective action when it stated:

The parties do not dispute that the standard for certifying a
collective action under the FLSA is no more stringent than the
standard for certifying a class under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  This opinion assumes, without deciding, that this is
correct.  For purposes of this case then, if certification of
respondents' class action under the Federal Rules was proper,
certification of the collective action was proper as well.

The Middle District dismissed this as mere dicta by the Supreme
Court. Instead, the Middle District ruled that until the Eleventh
Circuit holds otherwise, it would not permit class certification
of a Rule 23 class action based on state wage statutes as well as
a collective action based on overlapping FLSA claims, because the
two were "mutually exclusive and irreconcilable" and would create
confusion.

The future of dual filed class and collective actions is
uncertain.  Nevertheless, it appears that circuits around the
country will start pushing the Supreme Court to review a decision
on this issue and resolve the split among the circuits.


LANCASTER SCHOOL DISTRICT: Appeals From Ruling in "Issa" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Lancaster School District in District filed an appeal
from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Khadidja Issa, et al. v.
Lancaster School District, Case No. 5-16-cv-03881, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Khadidja
Issa, Q.M.H., a minor, individually by and through his parent
Faisa Ahmed Abdalla, Alembe Dunia, V.N.L. a minor individually by
and through her parent, Mar Ki, Sui Hnem Sung and all others
similarly situated, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated sued the Defendant over alleged discrimination
and violation of civil rights.

The School District of Lancaster allegedly refused to enroll older
immigrant students with limited English proficiency rather than
allowing them to attend the district's regular high school.  The
Plaintiffs include six refugees aged 17-21 from Somalia, Sudan,
Democratic Republic of Congo and Burma.

The appellate case is captioned as Khadidja Issa, et al. v.
Lancaster School District, Case No. 16-3528, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Appellees KHADIDJA ISSA; Q. M. H, A MINOR, INDIVIDUALLY
BY AND THROUGH HIS PARENT, FAISA AHMED ABDALLA; ALEMBE DUNIA;
ANYEMU DUNIA; V. N. L.; and SUI HNEM SUNG, AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, are represented by:

          Hedya Aryani, Esq.
          Eric J. Rothschild, Esq.
          PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
          18th & Arch Streets
          3000 Two Logan Square
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 981-4011
          Facsimile: (215) 981-4750
          E-mail: aryanih@pepperlaw.com
                  rothsche@pepperlaw.com

               - and -

          Kathleen A. Mullen, Esq.
          PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
          100 Market Street, Suite 200
          P.O. Box 1181
          Harrisburg, PA 17108
          Telephone: (717) 255-1162
          E-mail: mullenk@pepperlaw.com

               - and -

          Seth Kreimer, Esq.
          UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
          3400 Chestnut Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19104
          Telephone: (215) 898-7447
          Facsimile: (215) 573-2025
          E-mail: skreimer@law.upenn.edu

               - and -

          Maura I. McInerney, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          30 South 17th Street
          United Plaza
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 979-1188
          E-mail: mmcinerney@elc-pa.org

               - and -

          Kristina Moon, Esq.
          EDUCATION LAW CENTER
          1315 Walnut Street, Suite 400
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238-6970
          E-mail: kmoon@elc-pa.org

               - and -

          Molly M. Tack-Hooper, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF PENNSYLVANIA
          P.O. Box 60173
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1513
          E-mail: mtack-hooper@aclupa.org

               - and -

          Witold J. Walczak, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          313 Atwood Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15213
          Telephone: (412) 681-7864
          E-mail: vwalczak@aclupa.org

Defendant-Appellant LANCASTER SCHOOL DISTRICT is represented by:

          Sharon M. O'Donnell, Esq.
          MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN
          4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B
          Harrisburg, PA 17112
          Telephone: (717) 651-3503
          Facsimile: (717) 651-3707
          E-mail: smodonnell@mdwcg.com


LEBO AUTOMOTIVE: Calif. Supreme Court Affirms Sandquist Decision
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey S. Ranen, Esq. -- Jeffrey.Ranen@lewisbrisbois.com -- and
Catherine Blumenfield, Esq. --
Catherine.Blumenfeld@lewisbrisbois.com -- of Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that
companies and other business entities often use arbitration
agreements to protect themselves from class action liability.
While these agreements may contain explicit class action waivers
that state the parties agree not to pursue class claims in
arbitration, an arbitration agreement may also contain an implicit
or "silent" class action waiver.  When presented with an agreement
that contains such a provision, case law supports granting a
motion to compel individual arbitration and dismissal of the class
claims. See Kinecta Alternative Fin. Solutions, Inc. v. Super.
Ct., 205 Cal.App.4th 506, 517 (2012) (dismissing class action
allegations from complaint in light of bilateral arbitration
agreement, which identified only two parties to the agreement and
referred specifically to those parties).

However, an additional wrinkle to this analysis is the question of
whether the court or the arbitrator decides whether the matter is
subject to class arbitration when an arbitration agreement does
not contain an express waiver of class claims.  Prior case law has
fluctuated on this issue. In Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, Inc.
(2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 65 (Sandquist I), the Court of Appeal held
that whether the parties to an arbitration agreed to class
arbitration is a question for the arbitrator, not the trial court.
The court relied on the U.S. Supreme Court's plurality opinion in
Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. Bazzle (2003) 539 U.S. 444, and reasoned
that whether parties could pursue class claims in arbitration was
a controversy arising from or relating to the subject arbitration
agreement, which is within the arbitrator's purview to decide.  On
November 10, 2014, the California Supreme Court granted the
petition for review filed in Sandquist I, which meant that the
Court of Appeal's decision was de-published and no longer citable.

This left a contrasting Court of Appeal decision as the sole
citable authority on this issue.  In Garden Fresh Restaurant Corp.
v. Superior Court (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 678, the Court of Appeal
reasoned that the determination of which forum decides if class
arbitration may be had when the subject agreement does not contain
an express waiver of class claims is a gateway question for a
court to decide.  The court further explained that if this issue
was left for an arbitrator to decide, unwilling parties might too
often be forced to arbitrate a matter they had not agreed to
arbitrate.

However, on July 28, 2016, in a 4-3 decision the California
Supreme Court affirmed the Sandquist I Court of Appeal's decision
and held that, in this particular instance whether class-wide
arbitration is permitted was a question for the arbitrator.
Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, Inc., et al. (July 28, 2016) No.
S220812, 2016 Cal. LEXIS 6246, at *1.

The California Supreme Court's Decision

The Court began its analysis by assessing the terms of the
arbitration agreements at issue, which the Court reasoned
indicated that the parties intended for an arbitrator to decide
the class arbitration issue because:

   -- The agreement to submit any claim, dispute, or controversy
to an arbitrator suggested a choice to have an arbitrator decide
the class arbitration issue;

   -- The potential class arbitration involved claims that were
specifically included in the definition of arbitrable disputes;
and

  -- Other types of disputes were specifically excluded from the
arbitration agreement.

The Court then cited two state-law rules of contractual
interpretation that further suggested that the arbitrator should
decide class-wide arbitrability: (1) any ambiguities in the
arbitration agreements should be construed against the drafter;
and (2) uncertainties regarding the allocation of a matter to
arbitration or the court, should be resolved in favor of
arbitration.

Once it determined that the arbitration agreements, interpreted
under state law, designated the class-arbitration question to an
arbitrator, the Court considered whether the Federal Arbitration
Act ("FAA") altered the conclusion state law would otherwise reach
here.  The Court reasoned that the FAA supported a presumption
that the arbitrator has the power to decide procedural questions
arising from the dispute.  The Court determined that the question
at issue is one such procedural matter to be decided by the
arbitrator after resolution of the much narrower gateway question
of arbitrability, which is reserved for the court.

Consequently, although the Court determined that there was no
universally applicable rule of who should decide the issue of
whether or not class arbitration is available, the Court's
rationale for its decision makes it difficult to imagine a
scenario where a court would be given the authority to decide this
issue absent express contractual language.  This presents a
significant risk to employer-defendants, as there is a strong
chance that, if a defendant successfully compels a class action
matter to arbitration, it will proceed therein on a class-wide
basis rather than an individual basis.

First, there are fewer checks and balances on arbitrators, which
mean that an arbitrator's decision regarding individual versus
class-wide arbitration may not be entirely consistent with the law
on silent class action waivers, and the defendant likely would not
be able to appeal that decision until after the conclusion of a
class-wide arbitration.  Second, judicial review of arbitration
awards are extremely limited.  The California Arbitration Act
("CAA") provides only limited grounds for judicial review of an
arbitration award, such as fraud, corruption, misconduct, or that
the award exceeded the arbitrators' powers. Cal. Civ. Proc. Sec.
1286.2.  Third, class-wide arbitration does not include the same
procedural protections afforded to defendants in class action
litigation.

Next Steps

Employers should review and consider revising their arbitration
agreements to specify that the court decides whether class
arbitration is permissible, particularly if they do not include an
express class action waiver.


LEE N' EDDIES: Urban Elevator Seeks Certification of Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned URBAN ELEVATOR SERVICE, LLC, an Illinois
Limited Liability Company, individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. LEE N'
EDDIES LLC, JOHN KENNEY, and JOHN DOES 1-12, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:15-cv-07788 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for
entry of an order certifying the following class:

     "all persons who were sent one or more telephone facsimile
     messages on or after four years prior to the filing of the
     action, that advertised the commercial availability of
     property, goods, or services offered by "Lee n' Eddies",
     that did not contain an opt-out notice that complied with
     federal law."

Lee N Eddies provides catering services. The Company offers
breakfast, church, corporate, holiday, bbq, lunch, school,
wedding, and special events catering services.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kCaK3Y60

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James M. Smith, Esq.
          Christopher P.T. Tourek, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658 5500


LEROY D. BACA: Amador et al. Seek Certification of Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MARY AMADOR et al., individually and as
class representatives, the Plaintiffs, v. SHERIFF LEROY D. BACA,
Individually and in his official capacity, et al, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:10-cv-01649-SVW-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs move
the Court to certify a class and subclasses.

The class is defined as:

     "Female LASD inmates, who, upon their admission or return to
     CRDF, were visual body cavity searched in groups, and
     without individual privacy, between March 2008 and January
     1, 2015."

The subclasses are defined as:

Subclass No. 1 (Bus Bay, 3/5/08 - 1/31/14)

     "Female LASD inmates who, upon their admission or return to
     CRDF, were visual body cavity searched in groups in Bus Bay
     3, without individual privacy in the search conditions that
     existed commonly between March 2008 and January 1, 2014."

Weather Subclass No. 1:

     "Members of Subclass No. 1 searched in temperatures below 77
     degrees Celsius, or such other temperature as is determined
     to be unreasonably cold, or in precipitation."

Subclass No. 2 (Bus Bay, 3/5/08 - 3/31/13)

     "Female LASD inmates who, upon their admission or return to
     CRDF, were visual body cavity searched in groups in Bus Bay
     3, without individual privacy in the search conditions that
     existed commonly between March 2008 and March 31, 2013."

Weather Subclass No. 2:

     No. Members of Subclass No. 2 searched in temperatures below
     77 degrees Celsius, or such other temperature as is
     determined to be unreasonably cold, or in precipitation."

Subclass No. 3 (Bus Bay, 3/5/08 - 6/30/11)

     "Female LASD inmates who, upon their admission or return to
     CRDF, were visual body cavity searched in groups in Bus Bay
     3, without individual privacy in the search conditions that
     existed commonly between March 2008 and June 30, 2011.

Weather Subclass No. 3

     "Members of Subclass No. 3 searched in temperatures below 77
     degrees Celsius, or such other temperature as is determined
     to be unreasonably cold, or in precipitation."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KLVvi6zS

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Barrett S. Litt, Esq.
          Lindsay Battles, Esq.
          E-mail: blitt@kmbllaw.com
          KAYE, MCLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT, LLP
          234 COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 230
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 844 7660
          Facsimile: (626) 844 7670

               - and -

          Donald W. Cook, Esq.
          3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2910
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (213) 252-9444
          Facsimile: (213) 252-0091
          E-mail: manncook@earthlink.net

               - and -

          Cynthia Anderson-Barker, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CYNTHIA ANDERSON - BARKER
          3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2910
          Los Angeles, California 90010
          Telephone: (213) 252 9444
          Facsimile: (213) 252 0091
          E-mail: cablaw@hotmail.com


LINCOLN PARK CITY, MI: "Coulter" Suit Seeks Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Charles N. Kaminski, Lincoln Park Police
And Fire Retirees Association, Inc., Michael J. Moulios, Lincoln
Park Municipal Employees Retirees Association, Inc., the
Plaintiffs, v. Brad L. Coulter, R. Kevin Clinton, Nick A. Khouri,
Thomas E. Karnes, Mark Kandes, Frank Vaslo, Lisa Griggs, Elliot
Zelenak, Mario Desanto, Christopher Dardzinski, The City Of
Lincoln Park, Michigan, Joint And Several, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:15-cv-12810-GAD-RSW (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to:

     1. certify a class of members and dependents of the
        Lincoln Park Police and Fire Retirees Association, and
        the Lincoln Park Municipal Employees-Retirees
        Association;

     2. declare lead Plaintiffs Charles N. Kaminski [Police-Fire
        retirees], and Michael J. Moulios [retired Municipal
        Employees] as representatives of their respective
        subclasses;

     3. appoint attorney Mark A. Porter as lead class counsel,
        with attorney Jamil Akhtar as co-counsel; and

     4. take other actions at law, equity, and by Court Rule
        as the Court deems appropriate.

According to the complaint, the relief sought by retirees is the
reinstatement of health insurance. Although the current and
individual, out-of-pocket expenses are severe to each retiree --
the remedy is for the Defendants to simply return to an insurance
carrier-based coverage through either group policies or third
party administration.

The payments for that insurance are to an outside entity,
restoring the retirees as third party beneficiaries to the
insurance coverage. The remedy is simple and straightforward --
and far superior to individual claims from well over 200 retirees,
plus spouses and dependents.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=C5LLMPdD

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark A. Porter, Esq.
          MARK A. PORTER & ASSOCIATES PLLC
          551 East 11-Mile Road, Suite 3-D
          P. O. Box 71527
          Madison Heights, Michigan
          Telephone: (248) 071 0527
          Facsimile: (248) 547-1911
          E-mail: mporter@map-law.com

               - and -

          Jamil Akhtar, Esq.
          JAMIL AKHTAR P.C.
          7577 US Highway 12 - Suite B
          Onsted, MI 49265-9834
          Telephone: (517) 467 7373
          Facsimile: (517) 858 0190
          E-mail: jimakhtar@att.net

Attorneys for Defendants Brad Coulter Thomas Murphy, Elliott
Zelenak, Mario DeSanto, Christopher Dardzinski Lisa Griggs and
City of Lincoln Park:

          John C. Clark, Esq.
          John T. Mihelick, Esq.
          Stephen J. Hitchcock, Esq.
          GIAMARCO MULLINS & HORTON P.C.
          101 West Big Beaver Road - Floor 10
          Troy, MI 48084-5253
          Telephone: (248) 457 7023
          Facsimile: (248) 404 6323
          E-mail: jclark@gmhlaw.com
                  tmihelick@gmhlaw.com
                  sjh@gmhlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendants Frank Vaslo and Mark Kandes:

          Thomas J McGraw, Esq.
          Stacy J. Belisle, Esq.
          MCGRAW MORRIS P.C.
          2075 West Big Beaver Road, Suite 750
          Troy, Michigan 48084-3433
          Telephone: (248) 502 4000
          Facsimile: (248) 502 4001
          E-mail: tmcgraw@mcgrawmorris.com
                  sbelisle@mcgrawmorris.com

Attorneys for Defendants Nick A. Khouri and R. Kevin Clinton:

          Erik A. Graney, Esq.
          Michael F. Murphy, Esq.
          MICHIGAN DEPT. OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
          STATE OPERATIONS DIVISION
          P. O. Box 30754
          Lansing, Michigan 48933-1067
          Telephone: (517) 373 1162
          Facsimile: (517) 373 2060
          E-mail: Graneye@michigan.gov
                  Murphym2@michigan.gov


LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: Class Cert. in "Roy" Suit Partly Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled DUNCAN ROY ET AL. V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
ET AL. GERARDO GONZALEZ, the Plaintiff v. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT ET AL., the Defendant, Case No. 2:12-cv-09012-BRO-FFM
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell entered an
order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion for
class certification.

Specifically, the Court certifies these Roy Plaintiffs' classes:

     (1) false imprisonment equitable relief class;

     (2) gerstein equitable relief class;

     (3) false imprisonment damages class (and the included state
         law subclass);

     (4) post-48 hour Gerstein subclass (and the included state
         law subclass);

     (5) investigative detainer class (and the included state law
         subclass);

     (6) no-bail notation class (and the included state law
         subclass); and,

     (7) no-money bail subclass (and the included state law
         subclass).

The Court certifies these Gonzalez Plaintiffs' proposed classes:

     (1) judicial determination class (limited to those who were
         detained for more than forty-eight hours without
         receiving a judicial determination of probable cause);

     (2) probable cause subclass; and

     (3) statutory subclass.

The Court declines to certify the proposed Gerstein class.

There were two Motions in this case: one arises from Duncan Roy et
al. v. County of Los Angeles et al., No. 12-cv-09012-BRO-FFM,
while the other arises from the related action Gonzalez v.
Immigration & Customs Enforcement et al., No. 13-cv-04416-BRO-FFM.
On July 28, 2015, the two cases were consolidated.

The Plaintiffs are a group of individuals who were or are
currently in the custody of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department and who were denied either bail or release from custody
on the basis of an immigration hold.  Plaintiffs challenge the
legality of the LASD's practice of detaining individuals solely on
the basis of immigration holds placed by ICE.

The named Plaintiffs in the Roy action are Duncan Roy, Alain
Martinez-Perez, Annika Alliksoo, and Clemente De La Cerda.  The
named Plaintiffs in the Gonzalez action are Geraldo Gonzalez and
Simon Chinivizyan.

Defendants in the Roy action are the County of Los Angeles and
Leroy Baca, the Sheriff of Los Angeles County.  Defendants in the
Gonzalez action are Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Thomas
Winkowski, Acting Director of ICE, David Marin, Acting Field
Office Director for the Los Angeles District of ICE, and David
Palmatier, the Unit Chief for the Law Enforcement Service Center
of ICE.

The Roy Defendants argued that the Roy Plaintiffs "have not
articulated how this case can manageably be litigated while
preserving County Defendants' due process and fair trial rights."
According to the Roy Defendants, the only way in which the Roy
Plaintiffs will be able to proceed is to put on evidence from a
certain number of inmates to allow the jury to extrapolate
liability to the rest of the class. The Court is not persuaded by
the Roy Defendants' argument.

The Court agrees with the Gonzalez Plaintiffs that their claims
are suitable to be decided on a class-wide basis as the policies
challenged equally affected all members of the class.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cTKiBQk1


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Myers" Suit in C.D. of California
------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Lumber Liquidators Inc. The case
is titled Allen Myers, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Lumber Liquidators
Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-06698-
PSG-AJW (C.D. Cal., Sep. 6, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon.
Philip S. Gutierrez.

Lumber Liquidators is specialty retailer of hardwood flooring
including shop laminate flooring, handscraped and engineered
hardwood.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark J. Uyeno, Esq.
          Alexander Robertson, IV, Esq.
          ROBERTSON AND ASSOCIATES LLP
          32121 Lindero Canyon Road Suite 200
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (818) 851 3850
          Facsimile: (818) 851 3851
          E-mail: muyeno@arobertsonlaw.com
                  arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          AHDOOT AND WOLFSON PC
          1016 Palm Avenue
          West Hollywood, CA 90069
          Telephone: (310) 474 9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474 8585
          E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com


MANHERTZ BAIL: "Yearby" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shatisha Yearby, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Manhertz Bail Bonds Inc., a Florida profit corporation, Oniel E.
Manhertz, and Carrie E. Manhertz, Case No. 16-019513 CA 01, was
removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The
Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-23820-JAL
to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. Joan A. Lenard.

Manhertz Bail is doing business in bail bonding services.
The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gary Andrew Costales, Esq.
          GARY A. COSTALES
          1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1230
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 375 9510
          Facsimile: (305) 375 9511
          E-mail: costalesgary@hotmail.com


MASTERCARD: Hearing in U.K. Class Action Scheduled This Year
------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Johnson, writing for Law.com, reports that the U.K.'s
largest ever damages claim was filed on Sept. 8 in the first step
of a landmark class action.  The 14 billion pound ($18.6 billion)
claim was brought against MasterCard on behalf of 46 million
British debit and credit card holders over the company's charging
of illegal payment fees.  It is the first major U.S.-style class
action in the English courts following the U.K.'s introduction of
new legislation allowing "opt out" collective damages claims last
year.

It's a fascinating case. MasterCard, which has hired magic circle
firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, has over the past decade been
embroiled in a series of legal battles over the level of
so-called "interchange" fees it charged businesses on transactions
between 1992 and 2007, which were found by European authorities to
be unlawfully high.  The plaintiffs, represented by Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, argue that part of the cost of these fees
were passed on to consumers in the form of increased prices for
goods and services.

Because MasterCard's interchange fees have already been found to
be illegal -- the company's long-running challenge to the European
Commission's decision was finally put to bed by the Europe's
highest court in 2014 -- Quinn Emanuel only need to prove that
consumers suffered damages as a result.  This is where it gets
really interesting.

Earlier this summer, U.K. retailer J Sainsbury successfully sued
MasterCard over its interchange fees and was awarded 68.5 million
pounds ($91 million) in damages.  MasterCard said in a statement
that while it "disappointed to see liability as part of the
finding," it noted that "the court concluded that Sainsbury's did
not pass through interchange costs to consumers in the form of
higher prices."

That finding appears prejudicial to the consumer claim.  It is
therefore perhaps unsurprising that Sainsbury's appears to have
chosen not to appeal the Sainsbury's decision, despite it facing
more than 1.2 billion pounds ($1.6 billion) of similar claims from
other retailers, which it will surely now have to settle.
But Quinn Emmanuel's U.K. head of EU and competition litigation
Boris Bronfentrinker, who is handling the dispute for the firm,
says that MasterCard itself argued during the Sainsbury's case
that interchange costs were passed on to consumers.  "The consumer
claim is completely consistent with what MasterCard has been
saying about who paid those unlawful fees," he says.  "It is not
clear how MasterCard can now turn around and argue the opposite to
prevent our case from succeeding."

The new action also has a much broader claim period -- the
Sainsbury's claim looked at fees charged between 2006 and 2015,
whereas the consumer claim goes back to 1992 -- and with the
Sainsbury's findings a first instance decision, the consumer claim
tribunal can come to its own conclusion anyway.

Quinn Emmanuel will get paid either way.  The suit is backed by up
to 40 million pounds ($53 million) in financing from
Chicago-based commercial litigation funder Gerchen Keller Capital
-- its largest ever investment in non-U.S. litigation. (It isn't
the first time Quinn Emanuel has essentially had its hourly fees
underwritten by third-party funding: Australia-listed funder IMF
Bentham's European arm is covering the U.S. law firm's tab in a
$44 billion German investor claim against Volkswagen AG related to
"Dieselgate.")

A first hearing is expected to take place later this year, with
the case then heading to trial in mid-2018.  Unless it is settled,
of course.  Going to trial when there is almost $20 billion at
stake . . . There will no doubt be some sweaty palms in the
MasterCard board room.


MEDICAL BUSINESS: "Rhone" Suit Seeks Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DIANE RHONE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MEDICAL BUSINESS
BUREAU, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-05215 (N.D. Ill.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class:

     "(1) all persons in Illinois (2) from whom Defendant
     attempted to collect a debt (3) by placing 2 or more
     tradelines on a credit report provided by Experian, Equifax,
     or Transunion (the Credit Bureaus) (5) for a debt owed to
     the same medical provider (6) within 1 year of the filing of
     the complaint."

The Plaintiff further requests that the Court order that briefing
as to class certification be stayed pending discovery as to class
issues.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=T9Gj2YRE

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Wood, Esq.
          Celetha Chatman, Esq.
          COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD.
          73 W. Monroe Street, Suite 502
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 757 1880
          Facsimile: (312) 476 1362
          E-mail: mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com
                  cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com


MY-TRE GLAMMA: Certification of Class Sought in "Heuberger" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled JASON HEUBERGER, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HARRY L. SMITH d/b/a
"MY-TRE GLAMMA MANAGEMENT," DESTINY MGT, INC., and DIAMOND
PROPERTIES MGMT., INC., Case No. 3:16-cv-00386-JD-JEM (N.D. Ind.),
moves the Court for an order conditionally certifying Counts I and
II of his complaint as a collective action.

Mr. Heuberger also seeks an order authorizing notice under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and Indiana's Minimum Wage Law to all
current and former hourly-paid workers, who worked at the
Defendants' McDonald's restaurants within the prior three years.
He asks that the Court directs the Defendants to produce a
computer-readable data file containing the name, last known
address, social security numbers and dates of employment for each
such employee and to conspicuously post notice of the Case in the
break rooms of the Defendants' McDonald's restaurants.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EnmiQ1bP

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
          WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
          11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Telephone: (314) 997-9150
          Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
          E-mail: markp@wpattorneys.com

               - and -

          Eli Karsh, Esq.
          LIBERMAN, GOLDSTEIN & KARSH
          230 South Bemiston Ave., Suite 1200
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 862-3333
          Facsimile: (314) 862-0605
          E-mail: elikarsh@aol.com

               - and -

          Charles Hayes, Esq.
          SWEENEY HAYES LLC
          141 E. Washington St., Suite 225
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 491-1050
          Facsimile: (317) 491-1043
          E-mail: charleshayes.atty@gmail.com


NEW ZEALAND STEEL: Faces Class Action Over Steel Reinforcing Mesh
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Edmunds, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reports that a specialist
construction litigation law firm is hoping to deliver financial
compensation to the owners of recently-built buildings, with a new
class action suit.

Adina Thorn is inviting registrations of interest for what it
expects to be a fully-funded class action on behalf of the owners
of buildings that have been built in the past four years with
steel reinforcing mesh that does not meet earthquake standards.

The mesh is used in multi-storey buildings to make them more
resilient in an earthquake.

It is meant to be able to stretch by at least 10 per cent. The
standard was increased from 2 per cent after the Christchurch
earthquake.  Lack of stretch was a reason the CTV building
collapsed.

Adina Thorn, principal of the firm, said the Commerce Commission
investigation under way might result in fines for the companies
that supplied the non-complying mesh, but would not likely deliver
any financial reinstatement for the owners of affected buildings.

"This is a problem because, in the advent of a natural disaster,
the use of non-complying steel mesh could compromise insurance
claims, pose a risk to life and cause widespread financial losses.
Its existence could also affect the future and present market
value of the buildings concerned."

She said the issue emerged in March this year when it was revealed
that hundreds of thousands of non-complying steel mesh sheets had
been supplied to builders throughout New Zealand from mid-2012.

The Ministry then said it was investigating companies that had
supplied steel reinforcing mesh to builders and construction firms
that did not meet the grade 500E requirement, which relates to the
ductility or flexibility of the steel concerned.

One supplier, NZX-Listed New Zealand Steel & Tube, is being
investigated by the Commerce Commission for making claims that its
products had been certified as complying with standard 500E by
using the logo of an independent testing laboratory, which had in
fact not tested or certified the product.

It put supplies on hold in April. Importers Euro Corp and
Brilliance Steel also failed tests.

Ms. Thorn said a number of other companies might also named in the
proposed class action.  Four had supplies of the product put on
hold earlier in the year.

Ms. Thorn said the proposed class action was to be funded by funds
managed by London-based Harbour Litigation Funding, the UK's
largest litigation funder.  Harbour is also funding the current
$250 million class action against the James Hardie group of
companies in respect of plaster cladding products.  This action is
also being led by Adina Thorn Lawyers.

The existence of funding means owners of affected buildings can
join the class action without incurring any out-of-pocket
expenses, as Harbour will cover legal, expert, research,
litigation, communication and administration costs, in return for
a share of any proceeds recovered in the action.

The website to register is www.steelclassaction.co.nz

The class action will proceed if there is sufficient interest from
owners with viable claims.

Steel & Tube has been approached for comment.


NORTHLAND GROUP: Class Certification Bid in "Aguirre" Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
Honorable Amy J. St. Eve entered an order denying Plaintiff's
motion for class certification without prejudice as premature, in
the lawsuit captioned Carmen Aguirre, the Plaintiff, v. Northland
Group, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-05003 (N.D. Ill.),

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on September 13,
2016, the Defendant is on notice that the case is a putative class
action.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xQwE4lbC


OCWEN LOAN: "Beecroft" Suit Moved from D. Minn. to N.D. Ill.
------------------------------------------------------------
Tracee A. Beecroft, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 0:15-cv-00094, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois - (Chicago). The
Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-08677 to
the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. James B. Zagel.

Ocwen Loan offers and services residential mortgage loans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander Holmes Burke, Esq.
          BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
          155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 729 5288
          E-mail: ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com

               - and -

          Beth Ellen Terrell, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 N. 34th St., Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103-8869
          Telephone: (206) 816 6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319 5450
          E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com

              - and -

          Mark L Heaney, Esq.
          HEANEY LAW FIRM, LLC
          601 Carlson Parkway, Ste 1050
          Minnetonka, MN 55305
          Telephone: (952) 933 9655
          Facsimile: (952) 487 0189
          E-mail: mark@heaneylaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brian Melendez, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
          4000 Wells Fargo Center
          90 South Seventh Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
          Telephone: (612) 486 1589
          E-mail: bmelendez@dykema.com

               - and -

          Brian Vincent Otero, Esq.
          HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 309 1000
          E-mail: botero@hunton.com

               - and -

          Chethan G. Shetty, Esq.
          David F Standa, Esq.
          Simon A. Fleischmann, Esq.
          Thomas Justin Cunningham, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD LLP
          111th Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 443 1887
          E-mail: cshetty@lockelord.com
                  dstanda@lockelord.com
                  sfleischmann@lockelord.com
                  tcunningham@lockelord.com

               - and -

          Christina M Snow, Esq.
          Michael R Sauer, Esq.
          WILFORD, GESKE & COOK, PA
          7616 Currell Boulevard, Suite 200
          Woodbury, MN 55125
          Telephone: (651) 209 3337
          Facsimile: (651) 209 3339
          E-mail: csnow@wgcmn.com
                  msauer@wgcmn.com

               - and -

          Jared D Kemper, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT, PLLC
          4000 Wells Fargo Center
          90 South Seventh Street
          Mpls, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 486 1900
          Facsimile: (855) 230 2516
          E-mail: jkemper@dykema.com

               - and -

          Ryan Andrew Becker, Esq.
          Stephen Roy Blacklocks, Esq.
          HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 309 1000
          E-mail: rbecker@hunton.com
                  sblacklocks@hunton.com

PEPSICO INC: Faces Class Action Over False Claims on Izze Sodas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
California woman is suing PepsiCo, alleging false claims that a
soda did not contain preservatives.

Lisa Lindberg of Redlands, California, filed a class action
lawsuit, individually and on behalf of the Proposed Rule 23 class,
Aug. 19 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York against PepsiCo, Inc., and Izze Beverage Co., alleging
negligent misrepresentation and unfair competition.

According to the complaint, Ms. Lindberg suffered financial
damages from being misled into purchasing a falsely advertised
product. The plaintiff alleges the defendants said Izze sodas
contain no preservatives even though they contain citric acid or
absorbic acid, and that the defendants falsely allege each bottle
delivers two servings of fruit.

Lindberg seeks a trial by jury, injunctive and equitable relief,
enjoin the defendant from continuing false advertising, actual,
statutory and punitive damages, restitution and disgorgement, all
legal fees and interest, plus all relief the court deems just. She
is represented by attorneys Michele R. Fisher -- fisher@nka.com --
Anna P. Prakash and Eleanor E. Frisch of Nichols Kaster PLLP in
Minneapolis, and by Amanda M. Williams and Joseph C. Bourne --
jbourne@gustafsongluek.com -- of Gustafson Gluek PLLC, also in
Minneapolis.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Case
number 1:16-cv-06569-LAP


PMLRA PIZZA: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Reeves" Labor Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Henry Askew and PMLRA Pizza, Inc., filed an appeal from
a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Reeves v. PMLRA Pizza, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-10474-WGY, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, Boston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Tylor Reeves,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated sued the
Defendants on January 7, 2016, in the Superior Court of the State
of Massachusetts, County of Middlesex.  The State Case was
assigned Case No. 16-0047 (Mass. Super Ct.), and sought to recover
service charges, minimum wage, relief, statutory and trebling
damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant
Massachusetts General Laws.  The State Case was subsequently
removed from the State Court to the District Court.

PMLRA Pizza is a Massachusetts corporation.  PMLRA is a Domino's
franchisee and operates one or more Domino's restaurants in
Massachusetts.

The appellate case is captioned as Reeves v. PMLRA Pizza, Inc., et
al., Case No. 16-2126, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit.

The Appeals Court ordered that Docketing Statement, Transcript
Report/Order form, and Appearance form are due on September 16,
2016.

Plaintiff-Appellee TYLOR REEVES, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Brant Casavant, Esq.
          Stephen S. Churchill, Esq.
          FAIR WORK PC
          192 South St., Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 231-6777
          E-mail: brant@fairworklaw.com
                  steve@fairworklaw.com

Defendants-Appellants PMLRA PIZZA, INC., and HENRY ASKEW are
represented by:

          Todd J. Bennett, Esq.
          Eric Raymond LeBlanc, Esq.
          BENNETT & BELFORT PC
          24 Thorndike St., Suite 300
          Cambridge, MA 02141-0000
          Telephone: (617) 577-8800
          E-mail: tbennett@bennettandbelfort.com
                  eleblanc@bennettandbelfort.com


PRODUCTION TESTING: "Brown" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled SHELBY BROWN, Individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PRODUCTION TESTING
SERVICES INC. and ROBERT A. HOFF, the Defendants, Case No. 4:16-
cv-01152 (S.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a
class of:

     "all current and former employees of Defendant Production
     Testing Services, Inc. and/or predecessor companies of said
     entity, that held positions as field operators and field
     supervisors who performed surface well operations, including
     frack flowback and exploration well testing or similar job
     positions that included similar job duties, from April 28,
     2013, through the present."

The Plaintiffs ask the Court to appoint Mr. John David Hart as
counsel for the proposed Class, and appoint Brown and Tommy Britt
as the representatives for the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ov6BxOlR

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John David Hart, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOHN DAVID HART
          Wells Fargo Tower
          201 Main Street, Suite 1720
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 870 2102
          Facsimile: (817) 332 5858
          E-mail: johnhart@hartlaw.com


PRODUCTION TESTING: Brown Seeks Permission to Issue Notice
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SHELBY BROWN, Individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PRODUCTION TESTING
SERVICES INC. and ROBERT A. HOFF, the Defendants, Case No. 4:16-
cv-01152 (S.D. Tex.), Plaintiffs request the Court for permission
to issue notice to:

     "all current and former employees of Defendant Production
     Testing Services, Inc. and/or predecessor companies of the
     entity, that held positions as field operators and field
     supervisors who performed surface well operations, including
     frack flowback and exploration well testing or similar job
     positions that included similar job duties, from April 28,
     2013, through the present."

The Plaintiffs ask the Court to order the Defendants to produce
the information within ten days of granting the motion. The
Plaintiffs propose mailing and e-mailing of the notice and request
an opt-in period of 45 days.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oVUQz6OL

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John David Hart, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOHN DAVID HART
          Wells Fargo Tower
          201 Main Street, Suite 1720
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 870 2102
          Facsimile: (817) 332 5858
          E-mail: johnhart@hartlaw.com


PROFESSIONAL SERVICE: Hogen Seeks Certification of Three Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled Elise Hogen and Todd Hogen,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Professional Service Bureau, Inc., Mayo Clinic, and Mayo Clinic
Health System-Eau Claire Clinic, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00602-slc
(W.D. Wisc.), ask the Court to certify that the claims set forth
in their Complaint may proceed on behalf of the proposed classes,
appoint them as class representatives, appoint their lawyers as
counsel for the classes, and allow them to file a memorandum in
support of the Motion after discovery.

The Hogens bring the Action against the Defendants for violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiffs'
complaint defines the classes, subject to amendment, as follows:

     The PSB Class consists of:

     (1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular
     telephone number (3) PSB made a non-emergency telephone call
     (4) using substantially the same system(s) it used to call
     Plaintiffs (5) within four years of the original complaint
     filed in this matter (6) where PSB did not have consent to
     place such calls.

     The PSB Revocation Sub-Class consists of:

     (1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular
     telephone number (3) PSB made a non-emergency telephone call
     (4) using substantially the same system(s) it used to call
     Plaintiffs (5) within four years of the original complaint
     filed in this matter and (6) where the called person had
     revoked consent to receive such calls.

     The PSB Mayo Class consists of:

     (1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular
     telephone number (3) PSB made a non-emergency telephone call
     (4) using substantially the same system(s) it used to call
     Plaintiffs (5) within four years of the original complaint
     filed in this matter about a Mayo-related debt (6) where PSB
     did not have consent to place such calls.

     The PSB Mayo Revocation Sub-Class consists of:

     (1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular
     telephone number (3) PSB made a non-emergency telephone call
     (4) using substantially the same system(s) it used to call
     Plaintiffs (5) within four years of the original complaint
     filed in this matter about a Mayo-related debt and (6) where
     the called person had revoked consent to receive such calls.

     The Mayo Class consists of:

     (1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular
     telephone number (3) Mayo made a non-emergency telephone
     call (4) using substantially the same system(s) it used to
     call Plaintiffs (5) within four years of the original
     complaint filed in this matter and (6) where Mayo did not
     have consent to place such calls.

     The Mayo Revocation Sub-Class consists of:

     (1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular
     telephone number (3) Mayo made a non-emergency telephone
     call (4) using substantially the same system(s) it used to
     call Plaintiffs (5) within four years of the original
     complaint filed in this matter and (6) where the called
     person had revoked consent to receive such calls.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew C. Lein, Esq.
          LEIN LAW OFFICES
          15692 Highway 63 North
          P.O. Box 761
          Hayward, WI 54843
          Telephone: (715) 634-4273
          E-mail: mlein@leinlawoffices.com

               - and -

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          Michael Hilicki, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD.
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726-1092
          Facsimile: (312) 726-1093
          E-mail: Keith@KeoghLaw.com
                  MHilicki@KeoghLaw.com


QUEEN STUCCO: Hopson Seeks to Certify Class of Hourly Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shane Hopson moves the Court for an order conditionally certifying
the lawsuit captioned Shane Hopson, et al., for himself and others
similarly situated v. Queen Stucco, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:16-
cv-00782-JLG-EPD (S.D. Ohio), as a class action pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Hopson also seeks authority to implement a procedure whereby
Court-approved notice of his FLSA claims is sent to:

     All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of
     Defendants QSI and Queen who during the previous three (3)
     years worked over 40 hours in any workweek but were not
     properly paid time and a half for the hours they worked over
     40.

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to require the Defendants to,
within 14 days of the Court's order, identify all potential opt-in
plaintiffs by providing a list in electronic and importable
format, of the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of all
potential opt-in plaintiffs, who worked for the Defendants at any
time from approximately August 11, 2013, through the present.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=M8kPAYMN

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Peter A. Contreras, Esq.
          CONTRERAS LAW, LLC
          PO Box 215
          Amlin, OH 43002
          Telephone: (614) 787-4878
          Facsimile: (614) 923-7369
          E-mail: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com


RIVER ROCKS: Class Certification Bid in "Payne" Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned BRENDON PAYNE, the Plaintiff, v. RIVER
ROCKS LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 6:15-cv-01727-PGB-DAB
(M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order:

     1. sustaining in part and overruling in part Plaintiff's
        objections to the Magistrate's report and recommendation;

     2. adopting in part and rejecting in part the Magistrate
        Judge's May 18, 2016 report and recommendation (the
        report and recommendation is made a part of the Order to
        the extent it is adopted);

     3. denying Plaintiff's motion for certification of
        collective action and permission to send court supervised
        notice to employees of the Opt-In Rights; and

     4. denying Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

According to the complaint, while the evidence Payne presents may
indeed indicate that other employees exist who suffered the same
wage violations, there is no evidence demonstrating that any other
employee wishes to join the litigation.

Although Payne states that he knows other employees who would join
this action were the Court to grant conditional certification,
none of them have appeared in the case or have submitted
affidavits to Payne's counsel to file with the Court.

Moreover, Payne's statement takes the form of an unsworn
declaration not made under penalty of perjury. The Court therefore
affords Payne's assertion no weight, especially in the complete
absence of any other evidence to support his claim.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZkwnY09I


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Lam" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Alfredo Lam and Paula Leiato filed an appeal from a
court ruling relating to the lawsuit entitled Alfredo Lam, et al.
v. The City and County of San Francisco, et al., Case No. 4:10-cv-
04641-PJH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, Oakland.

The Case is brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and
of Asian Pacific American employees and representative of the
class of the same or similarly situated CCSF employees.

The appellate case is captioned as Alfredo Lam, et al. v. The City
and County of San Francisco, et al., Case No. 16-16559, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by October 3, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on November 1, 2016;

   -- Appellants' opening brief is due on December 12, 2016;

   -- Answering brief of Appellees Timothy Diestel, Dennis Doyle,
      Alfred Fleck, Charles Lewis, Toni Ratcliff Powell, John
      Radongo, Tamara Ratcliff, Mildred Singh, Robert Taylor, The
      City and County of San Francisco and Barry Young is due on
      January 10, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.

Defendant-Appellee THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO is
represented by:

          Jenica D. Maldonado, Esq.
          Boris Reznikov, Esq.
          SAN FRANCISCO CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          1390 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 554-3915
          E-mail: jenica.maldonado@sfgov.org
                  boris.reznikov@sfgov.org

Defendants-Appellees THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, TIMOTHY
DIESTEL, DENNIS DOYLE, ALFRED FLECK, CHARLES LEWIS, TONI RATCLIFF
POWELL, JOHN RADONGO, TAMARA RATCLIFF, ROBERT TAYLOR and BARRY
YOUNG are represented by:

          Rafal Ofierski, Esq.
          SAN FRANCISCO CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          1390 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 554-4244
          E-mail: rafal.ofierski@sfgov.org


SANTA CLARA, CA: Certification of Class & Subclass Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled BRIAN CHAVEZ and BRANDON BRACAMONTE, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, the Defendant, Case No.
1:15-cv-05277-NJV (N.D. Cal.), the parties request that the Court
enter an order certifying class and subclass defined as:

     "all people who are now, or in the future will be,
     incarcerated in the Santa Clara County jails"; and

     "all people who are now, or in the future will be,
     incarcerated in the Santa Clara County jails and who have a
     psychiatric and/or intellectual disability, as defined under
     the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Rehabilitation
     Act."

The Plaintiffs further request that they be certified as the
representatives of the class and subclass, and that their counsel
be certified as counsel for the class and subclass.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Donald Specter, Esq.
          Margot Mendelson, Esq.
          PRISON LAW OFFICE
          1917 Fifth Street
          Berkeley, California 94710
          Telephone: (510) 280-2621
          E-mail: dspecter@prisonlaw.com
                  mmendelson@prisonlaw.com

               - and -

          Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria, Esq.
          Jeffrey W. Walker, Esq.
          ADDISON M. LITTON (SBN 305374)
          COOLEY LLP
          3175 Hanover Street
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 843-5000
          E-mail: jsantamaria@cooley.com
                  jwalker@cooley.com
                  alitton@cooley.com

               and

          Kendall Dawson Wasley, Esq.
          PMB 233
          1520 E. Covell Blvd.
          Davis, CA 95615
          Telephone: (408) 827 5024
          E-mail: kendall@dawsonwasleylaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James R. Williams, Esq.
          Aryn Paige Harris, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL
          70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, Ninth Floor
          San Jose, CA 95110 1770
          Telephone: (408) 299 5900
          Facsimile: (408) 292 7240


SARATOGA DIAGNOSTICS: Dimensions' Bid to Certify Under Advisement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on September 8, 2016, in the case
entitled Dimensions Medical Center, Ltd., et al. v. Saratoga
Diagnostics, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-05608 (N.D. Ill.),
relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman.

The minute entry states that the Plaintiff's motion to certify
class is taken under advisement.  The Motion hearing set for
September 20, 2016, is stricken and no appearance is required.

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


SCOTTRADE INC: Seeks 8th Circuit Review of Ruling in "Kuhns" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scottrade, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Matthew Kuhns v. Scottrade, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-
01537-SPM, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri - St. Louis.

The appellate case is captioned as Matthew Kuhns v. Scottrade,
Inc., Case No. 16-3542, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Appendix is due on October 17, 2016;

   -- Brief of Appellant Matthew Kuhns is due on October 17,
      2016; and

   -- Appellee/Cross Appellant brief due 30 days from the date
      the Court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the
      appellant's brief.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Mr. Kuhns
filed an appeal in the Eighth Circuit from a court ruling in the
Case.  That appellate case is captioned as Matthew Kuhns v.
Scottrade, Inc., Case No. 16-3426.  In his original case, he
sought injunctive relief, declaratory relief, monetary damages,
statutory damages for the Defendant's alleged breach of express
contract, breach of implied contract, violations of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, bailment, and unjust
enrichment.

Plaintiff-Appellee Matthew Kuhns, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Paula R. Brown, Esq.
          Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP
          701 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1100
          Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
                  pbrown@bholaw.com
                  toreardon@bholaw.com

               - and -

          Anthony G. Simon, Esq.
          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: asimon@simonlawpc.com
                  jsimon@simonlawpc.com

               - and -

          Joseph Siprut, Esq.
          SIPRUT, P.C.
          17 N. State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 296-0000
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com

Defendant-Appellant Scottrade, Inc., a Missouri Corporation, is
represented by:

          Brandi L. Burke, Esq.
          Thomas Edward Douglass, Esq.
          Christopher Martin Hohn, Esq.
          David M. Mangian, Esq.
          THOMPSON & COBURN LLP
          One US Bank Plaza
          505 N. Seventh Street
          Saint Louis, MO 63101-1693
          Telephone: (314) 552-6000
          Facsimile: (314) 552-7000
          E-mail: bburke@thompsoncoburn.com
                  tdouglass@thompsoncoburn.com
                  chohn@thompsoncoburn.com
                  dmangian@thompsoncoburn.com


SEPTRAN INC: Gets Prelim. OK of Class Settlement in "Barker" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on September 7, 2016, in the case
captioned Sandra Barker, et al. v. Septran, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-09270 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Edmond E. Chang.

The minute entry states that as detailed during the hearing, the
Court grants the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary
approval of the collective and class action settlement.
Objections from class members are due by October 11, 2016.  The
fees and expenses motion is due by October 17, 2016.  A separate
order will be entered with other deadlines and the schedule moving
forward.

A fairness hearing will be held on October 24, 2016, at 10:00 a.m.

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


SIZMEK INC: Faces Class Action Over Vector Capital Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law
firm focused on representing shareholders nationwide, on Aug. 30
disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed by another
law firm on behalf of stockholders of Sizmek, Inc. ("Sizmek" or
the "Company") seeking to challenge the Company's recently
announced merger.

If you would like to join the class action, please visit our
website or contact Craig J. Springer, Esq. at
cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call toll free at 1-800-423-
6013. You may also follow us on LinkedIn -
www.linkedin.com/company/andrews-&-springer-llc, Twitter -
www.twitter.com/AndrewsSpringer or Facebook -
www.facebook.com/AndrewsSpringer for future updates.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

On August 3, 2016, Sizmek and private equity firm Vector Capital
("Vector Capital") announced the signing of a definitive merger
agreement pursuant to which Vector Capital will acquire Sizmek in
an all-cash merger worth approximately $122 million.  As a result
of the merger, Sizmek shareholders are only expected to receive
$3.90 per share.

In particular, our firm is investigating the inadequate
consideration that shareholders are anticipated to receive.  The
deal is $3.84 lower than Sizmek's 52-week high of $7.74. Notably,
the merger has been highly criticized by Sizmek shareholders.  For
example, on August 15, 2016, Sabra Capital Partners ("Sabra"),
wrote a letter to Sizmek's Board of Directors objecting to the
Company's merger with Vector Capital (which can be accessed here).
Specifically, Sabra believes that the "timing of the sales process
was ill-advised, poorly constructed and negligent in maximizing
shareholder value" and that "[w]e believe the stock could be worth
up to $8.00."

On August 11, 2016, a Sizmek shareholder represented by another
law firm filed a class action complaint challenging Sizmek's
merger with Vector Capital.  The complaint was filed in the County
Court for Dallas County, Texas captioned MSS 12-09 Trust v.
Sizmek, Inc., et al, Case No. CC-16-04043-D.

If you own shares of Sizmek and want to receive additional
information and protect your investments free of charge, please
visit us at http://www.andrewsspringer.com/cases-
investigations/sizmek-class-action-investigation or contact
Craig J. Springer, Esq. at cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call
toll free at 1-800-423-6013. You may also follow us on LinkedIn -
www.linkedin.com/company/andrews-&-springer-llc, Twitter -
www.twitter.com/AndrewsSpringer or Facebook -
www.facebook.com/AndrewsSpringer for future updates.

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


SIZMEK INC: "Penza" Sues Directors Over Merger with Vector
----------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN PENZA, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated stockholders of SIZMEK, INC., the Plaintiff, v. JOHN R.
HARRIS, NEIL H. NGUYEN, SCOTT K. GINSBURG, ADAM KLEIN, CECIL H.
MOORE JR. and STEPHEN E. RECHT, the Defendants, Case No. 12718
(Del. Chancery. Ct., Sep. 2, 2016), asks the Court to find the
Director Defendants in breach of their fiduciary duties.

On August 3, 2016, Vector Capital and Sizmek issued a joint press
release announcing that they had entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (Merger Agreement) whereby Vector Capital will
acquire Sizmek through an all-cash tender offer valued at
approximately $122 million (Tender Offer). The Tender Offer is
governed by Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL), permitting
the offer to close as early as twenty business days after it has
been commenced. The Tender Offer is expected to end on September
26, 2016 and the transaction is expected to close by the end of
2016.

The Director Defendants failed to fulfill their fiduciary duties
in connection with the Proposed Transaction by failing to disclose
all material information necessary to allow Sizmek stockholders to
make a fully informed decision whether to tender their shares of
stock in the Tender Offer.

Sizmek fuels digital advertising campaigns for advertisers and
agencies around the world with the most cutting-edge technology.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
          Craig J. Springer, Esq.
          David M. Sborz, Esq.
          ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
          3801 Kennett Pike
          Building C, Suite 305
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 504 4957


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Implanted Heart Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Blake, writing for The Washington Times, reports that
concerns raised by the release of a report highlighting supposed
security vulnerabilities affecting pacemakers, defibrillators and
other medical devices have prompted attorneys to pursue a
class-action lawsuit against their manufacturer, St. Jude Medical.

Lawyers for defibrillator patient Clinton W. Ross Jr. filed the
class-action complaint on Aug. 26 in Los Angeles federal court,
one day after short-selling firm Muddy Waters accused St. Jude of
selling implanted heart devices that are vulnerable to
cyberattack.

Mr. Ross would not have undergone surgery last November to be
implanted with a St. Jude device had he been aware of the "severe
security vulnerabilities" detailed in the recent report, his
attorneys wrote in the Aug. 26 court filing.

The complaint lists 30 different St. Jude devices that are
believed to have serious security flaws and claims that
potentially hundreds of thousands of similarly situated heart
patients have grounds to sue the manufacturer for fraud and
negligence, among other charges.

In its report, Muddy Waters said researchers at cybersecurity firm
MedSec Holdings demonstrated how attackers could hijack home-
monitored cardiac devices made by St. Jude with potentially
catastrophic consequences.

Notably, the firm claimed that implanted devices that use
radiofrequency ("RF") telemetry to broadcast personal medical data
from the insides of patients to in-home transmitters were prone to
attack because standard security defenses such as strong
authentication and encryption were largely absent.  As a result,
hackers could potentially force an implanted cardiac device to
"pace" at a dangerous rate, or rapidly drain power from an
implanted device's battery, the report said.

"The lack of even the most basic security defenses allowed MedSec
-- with relatively little effort -- to develop and demonstrate two
types of potentially catastrophic attacks that could be used
against St. Jude's cardiac devices with RF telemetry
capabilities," attorneys for Mr. Ross wrote in the court filing.

"Given the lack of even the most basic security defenses . . . it
is doubtless that a malicious attacker could find numerous other
attacks."

St. Jude's chief technology officer, Phil Ebeling, denounced the
short-selling firm's allegations as "absolutely untrue" and said
his company has several layers of security in place, such as
conducting routine assessments on all of its devices.

Nonetheless, attorneys for Mr. Ross said in the Aug. 26 filing
that St. Jude patients should be allowed to sue the manufacturer
for breach of expressed warranty, fraudulent concealment,
negligence and unjust enrichment.

Mr. Ross' lead attorney, Mike Arias, did not immediately respond
to a request for comment when contacted by Courthouse News, where
the complaint was first reported.  The case has been assigned to
District Judge Dolly M. Gee and Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick
in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.


STATE STREET: Nov. 2 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT SYSTEM, et al. v. STATE STREET BANK
AND TRUST COMPANY
No. 11-cv-10230 MLW

ARNOLD HENRIQUEZ, et al. v. STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMPANY,
et al.
No. 11-cv-12049 MLW

THE ANDOVER COMPANIES EMPLOYEE SAVINGS AND PROFIT SHARING PLAN, et
al. v. STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMPANY
No. 12-cv-11698 MLW

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTIONS, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT,
SETTLEMENT HEARING, PLAN OF ALLOCATION, AND ANY MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS' FEES, LITIGATION EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS

TO: ALL CUSTODY AND TRUST CUSTOMERS OF STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST
COMPANY ("SSBT") (INCLUDING CUSTOMERS FOR WHICH SSBT SERVED AS
DIRECTED TRUSTEE, ERISA PLANS, AND GROUP TRUSTS), REFLECTED IN
SSBT'S RECORDS AS HAVING A UNITED STATES TAX ADDRESS AT ANY TIME
DURING THE PERIOD FROM JANUARY 2, 1998 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2009,
INCLUSIVE, AND THAT EXECUTED ONE OR MORE INDIRECT FX TRANSACTIONS
WITH SSBT AND/OR ITS SUBCUSTODIANS DURING THE PERIOD FROM JANUARY
2, 1998 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2009, INCLUSIVE (THE "SETTLEMENT
CLASS")

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, that Plaintiffs Arkansas
Teacher Retirement System, Arnold Henriquez, Michael T. Cohn,
William R. Taylor, Richard A. Sutherland, The Andover Companies
Employees Savings and Profit Sharing Plan, and James Pehoushek-
Stangeland (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves
and each Settlement Class Member, by and through their counsel,
and State Street Bank and Trust Company have reached a proposed
settlement of the above-captioned actions (the "Class Actions") in
the amount of $300,000,000 in cash (the "Class Settlement Amount")
that, if approved by the Court, will resolve the Class Actions in
their entirety (the "Class Settlement").

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Mark L. Wolf of the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
Eastern Division in Courtroom 10 of the John Joseph Moakley United
States Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston, Massachusetts 02210
at 2:00 p.m. on November 2, 2016 to, among other things, determine
whether: (1) the proposed Class Settlement should be approved by
the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Class Actions
should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement, dated as of July 26, 2016; (3) the
proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Class
Settlement Amount, and any accrued interest, less Court-awarded
attorneys' fees, Litigation Expenses, Service Awards, Notice and
Administration Expenses, Taxes, Tax Expenses and any other costs,
fees, or expenses approved by the Court (the "Net Class Settlement
Fund") should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (4) Lead
Counsel's application, on behalf of ERISA Counsel and Customer
Counsel, for an award of attorneys' fees and payment of Litigation
Expenses and Service Awards should be approved.  The Court may
change the date and/or time of the Final Approval Hearing without
providing another notice.  You do NOT need to attend the hearing
in order to receive a distribution from the Net Class Settlement
Fund.  Additionally, the Court has the authority to change any of
the deadlines below for good cause shown.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO
SHARE IN THE NET CLASS SETTLEMENT FUND.  If you have not yet
received the full mailed Notice of Pendency of Class Actions,
Proposed Class Settlement, Settlement Hearing, Plan of Allocation,
and any Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Litigation Expenses, and
Service Awards (the "Notice"), you may obtain a copy by contacting
the Claims Administrator or visiting the settlement website:

          State Street Indirect FX Trading Class Action
          Claims Administrator
          c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
          P.O. Box 173000
          Milwaukee, WI 53217
          877-240-3540
          www.StateStreetIndirectFXClassSettlement.com
          info@StateStreetIndirectFXClassSettlement.com

Inquiries may also be made to Lead Counsel:

          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          Lawrence A. Sucharow, Esq.
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Tel: (888) 219-6877
          www.labaton.com
          settlementquestions@labaton.com

Settlement Class Members do not need to submit a claim form in
order to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Class
Settlement Fund.  Your recovery will be calculated by the Claims
Administrator as part of the implementation of the Class
Settlement, and will be based on information obtained from SSBT.
However, as explained in the Notice, if you represent a Group
Trust, you must provide a certification postmarked or received on
or before December 20, 2016 in order to receive a portion of the
ERISA Settlement Allocation, rather than a portion of the balance
of the Net Class Settlement Fund.

To exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a
written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions
in the Notice such that it is received on or before October 7,
2016.  If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you will be bound by all
judgments and orders entered in the Class Actions.

Any objection to the proposed Class Settlement, Plan of
Allocation, and/or application for attorneys' fees and payment of
Litigation Expenses and/or Service Awards must be filed with the
Court in accordance with the instructions in the Notice such that
it is received on or before October 7, 2016.  If you submit an
objection, you have the right, but are not required, to attend the
Final Approval Hearing; if you wish to speak at the Final Approval
Hearing, you must include in your written objection a statement
that you intend to appear and speak at the Final Approval Hearing.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR DEFENDANTS REGARDING THIS
NOTICE.

Dated:  September 6, 2016

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
MASSACHUSETTS


SWIFTSHIPS LLC: Class Certification Bid in "Panzer" Suit Dropped
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned PAUL PANZER, the Plaintiff v. SWIFTSHIPS,
LLC, ET AL., the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-02257-CJB-JVM (E.D.
La.), the Hon. Judge Carl J. Barbier entered an order:

     1. granting joint motion to dismiss & withdraw motion for
        class certification;

     2. dismissing Plaintiff Paul Panzer's individual claims with
        prejudice; and

     3. denying Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as moot.

The Court shall retain jurisdiction over the above-referenced
matter for a period of 60 days. Should the parties need an
extension of the period of time they may file a motion
accordingly.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3Fyzppxl


SYRACUSE, NY: Court Refuses to Junk All Claims in "Winston" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Thomas J. McAvoy entered an order in the lawsuit titled
JAQUELINE WINSTON, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CITY OF SYRACUSE, and DEBORAH SOMERS in her
official capacity as the Commissioner of Water, Case No. 5:16-cv-
00235-TJM-ATB (N.D.N.Y.), granting in part and denying in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss.

The Motion is denied as to the Plaintiff's as applied equal
protection claim based on the contention that the City denies
restoration of water services even when a tenant agrees to pay the
arrears and the restoration fee, and as to the Plaintiff's as-
applied substantive due process claim, Judge McAvoy explains.
Judge McAvoy adds that the Motion is granted in all other
respects.

Because this decision dismisses many of the claims upon which the
Plaintiff's class certification motion is based, that motion is
denied with leave to renew, Judge McAvoy ruled.

Ms. Winston commenced the Action asserting that the City of
Syracuse's "policy and practice of terminating water service to
blameless tenants based upon their landlord's failure to pay the
water bill" violates her rights to equal protection and
substantive due process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2VtTbeK1


T-MOBILE USA: Faces "Rahmany" Suit in W.D. of Washington
--------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against T-Mobile USA, Inc. The case is
captioned David Moshe Rahmany and Yehuda Rahmany, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. T-
Mobile USA, Inc. and Subway Sandwich Shops, Inc., the Defendants,
Case No. 2:16-cv-01416-JCC (W.D. Wash., Sep. 6, 2016). The
assigned Judge is Hon. John C Coughenour.

T-Mobile is a major wireless network operator in the United
States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          1546 Nw 56th Street
          Seattle, WA 98107
          Telephone: (800) 400 6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520 5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Loses Bid to Derail Former Students' Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Larson, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Donald J.
Trump and his now-defunct real-estate university lost another
legal attempt to block former students from suing as a group in a
California case accusing the Republican presidential candidate of
fraud.

Trump University is accused of cheating students by persuading
them to pay tens of thousands of dollars for real-estate seminars
that turned out to be "infomercials" for buying more classes.  The
former students also claim workshops were led by instructors who
hadn't been "hand-picked" by Trump as promised.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel in San Diego on Aug. 29
rejected Mr. Trump's argument that one of the lead plaintiffs in
the case, Sonny Low, wasn't actually concerned with whether Trump
University was an accredited institution.  One of the key claims
in the class-action suit is that the students had relied on their
belief that the school was accredited when they paid to attend.
The former students from California, New York and Florida seek
compensation under consumer-fraud and elder-abuse laws.  The case
has dogged Mr. Trump as he battles Democrat Hillary Clinton ahead
of the Nov. 8 general election, while Judge Curiel's Mexican
heritage earlier prompted Trump to say that negative rulings in
the case were retribution for his pledge to build a wall between
the U.S. and Mexico.  Judge Curiel has scheduled a trial in the
case for Nov. 28.

Judge Curiel said the billionaire's lawyers were relying on a
"selective interpretation" of Low's deposition, in which the
former student said that accreditation "was not even a
consideration for me," according to the ruling.  "I went there
because it was Trump University, that he created."

The judge pointed to other portions of the deposition that
suggested the former student believed Trump University was
legitimate due to its association with Mr. Trump, regardless of
whether it was accredited.  "Besides being a multi-billionaire in
real estate, he set up Trump University, which I would presume
that he took all the steps necessary to set up a proper
institution that he could call a university, with his name next to
it," Low said in the deposition.

Mr. Trump's lawyer in the case, Daniel Petrocelli, didn't
immediately respond to a phone call seeking comment on the ruling.

Trump University's lawyers have argued that sales pitches touting
"secrets" and "hand-picked instructors" are mere "puffery" common
to advertising, and that they can't be used to argue there was
fraud.  Mr. Trump also believed the students were receiving a
high-quality education, the defense has said, while arguing there
was no intent to defraud anyone.

Mr. Trump is also asking Judge Curiel to undo class-action status
in a second Trump University class action in San Diego in which
the Republican presidential nominee is accused of racketeering.
The consumer fraud case is Low v. Trump University LLC, 10-cv-
00940, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California (San
Diego).  The racketeering case is Cohen v. Trump, 13-cv-02519,
U.S. District Court, Southern District of California (San Diego).


UNITED STATES: Bid for Class Certification in "Allen" Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled SHAUN C. ALLEN, the Plaintiff, v. USA et al.
the Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00484-JM-PSH (E.D. Ark.), the
Hon. Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris entered an order denying
Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order, motion for
certification, and motion to supplement his motion for restraining
order.

As Judge Harris noted, the incidents underlying Allen's motion for
a restraining order are not the same as the incidents alleged in
Allen's complaint and amended complaint and, therefore, are not
relevant in the case. The Plaintiff has also failed to provide any
evidence in his objections to support class certification.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VZ0Rf5Rt


UNITED STATES: Appeal Filed From Ruling in "Gonzalez-Aviles" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Pablo Gonzalez-Aviles and Heleodoro Pena-Gonzalez filed
an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Pablo
Gonzalez-Aviles, et al. v. Thomas Perez, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-
03463-JFM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
at Baltimore.

Thomas E. Perez is sued in his official capacity as United States
Secretary of Labor.

The appellate case is captioned as Pablo Gonzalez-Aviles v. Thomas
Perez, Case No. 16-2007, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Pablo Gonzalez-Aviles and Heleodoro Pena-
Gonzalez are represented by:

          Alfred Darwin Holder, Jr., Esq.
          HOLDER LAW GROUP LLC
          P.O. Box 10509
          Towson, MD 21285-0509
          Telephone: (410) 296-9550
          E-mail: darholder@holderlaw.com.

               - and -

          Meredith B. Stewart, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          1055 Charles Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 486-8982
          Facsimile: (504) 486-8947
          E-mail: meredith.stewart@splcenter.org

               - and -

          Edward John Tuddenham, Esq.
          MIGRANT LEGAL ACTION PROGRAM, INC
          2001 S Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20009-0000
          Telephone: (512) 413-4863
          E-mail: etudden@prismnet.com

Defendants-Appellees THOMAS E. PEREZ, in his official capacity as
United States Secretary of Labor; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR; and PORTIA WU, in her official capacity as Assistant
Secretary, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department
of Labor, are represented by:

          Vinita Andrapalliyal, Esq.
          U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          P. O. Box 868
          Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044
          Telephone: (202) 598-8085
          Facsimile: (202) 305-7000
          E-mail: vinita.b.andrapalliyal@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Erez Reuveni, Esq.
          U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          Liberty Square Building
          450 5th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 307-4293
          E-mail: erez.r.reuveni@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Sarah Stevens Wilson
          U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          P. O. Box 868
          Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044
          Telephone: (202) 532-4700
          E-mail: sarah.s.wilson@usdoj.gov

Defendants-Appellees OUTSIDE UNLIMITED, INC.; A.R. STAR SERVICES,
INC.; AKEHURST LANDSCAPE SERVICES, INC.; BOB JACKSON LANDSCAPES,
INC.; CEDAR RIDGE LANDSCAPE, INC.; COLUMBIA GROUNDS MANAGEMENT
CORP.; CONTINENTAL LANDSCAPING, INC.; CREATIVE LANDSCAPES BY
GREGORY, INC.; CUSTOM GROUND MAINTENANCE, INC.; DENISON
LANDSCAPING, INC.; EASTON ICE COMPANY, INC.; EDS PLANT WORLD,
INC.; EXCELL LAWN CARE INC.; EXEC-U-LAWN LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT,
INC.; FACILITY SERVICES CO.; FRANK JOSEPH AND SONS, INC.; GOSHEN
ENTERPRISES, INC.; GREEN ANGELS LANDSCAPING LLC; HARTSOE PROPERTY
SERVICES, LLC; IVY HILL NURSERY CO., INC.; LARSONS TREE SERVICE
AND LANDSCAPING, LTD.; LAYTONSVILLE TURF FARM, LLC; LEES LAWN
SERVICE; MARYLAND NATIVES NURSERY, INC.; MEAD TREE AND TURF CARE,
INC.; M.J.M. LAWN AND LANDSCAPING, INC.; OAK HILL LAWN CARE AND
LANDSCAPING, INC.; P. STADLER AND SONS CO.; PAUL SCHWARTZ
LANDSCAPING, LLC; PGC LANDSCAPE LLC; PINEHURST LANDSCAPE CO.,
INC.; POOLE LANDSCAPING, INC.; QUALITY ONE, INC.; SOUTH FORTY,
INC.; STRATES FINE FOODS, INC.; TDH LANDSCAPING, LLC; TERRACE TURF
LAWN SERVICES, INC.; W.H. BOYER, INC.; WOODFIELD LANDSCAPING INC.;
ALPHA LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS, INC.; KCS LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT, INC.;
LAWNS UNLIMITED, LLC; MANOR VIEW FARMS, INC.; PORTER LANDSCAPING,
INC.; LANDCARE USA LLC; WENTWORTH NURSERY, INC.; WILLIAM T. KING,
INC.; A OF R SERVICES, INC.; CLIPPERS INC.; DEGGELLER ATTRACTIONS,
INC.; FAIRPLAY GAMES, INC.; GIBSON LANDSCAPES INC.; HYDRO-TECH
IRRIGATION CO.; KANE LANDSCAPES, INC.; LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT CO.,
INC.; SURROUNDS INC.; WHATEVER ENTERPRISES, LLC; CHALLENGER SPORTS
CORP.; CLIPPERS INC.- NOVA; INNERS AMUSEMENT CO.; KELLY-MILLER
BROS. CIRCUS, LTD.; and SPOSATO LANDSCAPE CO., INC., are
represented by:

          Wendel V. Hall, Esq.
          HALL LAW OFFICE
          1200 G Street NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 661-2173
          Facsimile: (202) 744-3250
          E-mail: wendel@halllawoffice.net

               - and -

          Robert Wayne Pierce, Esq.
          PIERCE LAW FIRM, LLC
          133 Defense Highway
          Annapolis, MD 21401
          Telephone: (410) 573-9955
          E-mail: pearce@rwpearce.com

Defendant-Appellee DEGGELLER ATTRACTIONS, INC., is represented by:

          Terrance Wayne Anderson, Jr., Esq.
          GRAYROBINSON, PA
          333 South East 2nd Avenue
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 416-6880
          Facsimile: (305) 416-6887
          E-mail: terrance.anderson@gray-robinson.com

               - and -

          Paul McDermott Finamore, Esq.
          NILES, BARTON & WILMER, LLP
          111 South Calvert Street
          Baltimore, MD 21202-6185
          Telephone: (410) 783-6349
          Facsimile: (410) 783-6455
          E-mail: pmfinamore@nilesbarton.com

               - and -

          John Teigen Hall, Esq.
          DISCEPOLO LLP
          111 South Calvert Street
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 296-0780
          Facsimile: (410) 296-2263
          E-mail: teigen@discepolollp.com

Defendant-Appellee TOLL BROTHERS, LLC-VA, is represented by:

          George Eugene Brown, Esq.
          KRAMON & GRAHAM, PA
          Commerce Place
          1 South Street
          Baltimore, MD 21202-0000
          Telephone: (410) 752-6030
          Facsimile: (410) 361-8205
          E-mail: gbrown@kg-law.com

Defendant-Appellee VALLEYCREST COMPANIES is represented by:

          Noam Barak Fischman, Esq.
          MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY & POPEO, PC
          701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20004-0000
          Telephone: (202) 434-7401
          Facsimile: (202) 434-7400
          E-mail: nbfischman@mintz.com


UV LOGISTICS: Class Certification Sought in "Griffis" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled APRIL GRIFFIS, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. UV LOGISTICS, LLC,
the Defendants, Case No. 6:15-cv-02740-RFD-CBW (W.D. La.), the
Parties ask the Court for a motion for conditional collective
action certification and notice.

After conferring in good faith, the Plaintiff and Defendant have
agreed to stipulate to conditional certification of a class
consisting of:

     "all current and former Terminal Fleet Managers who were
     employed by Defendant dating back three years from the date
     of the entry of an Order of conditional class
     certification."

The class would exclude any individuals who previously signed a
severance agreement that included a waiver of any right to proceed
against UV Logistics for FLSA claims. The Defendant continues to
deny that it has violated the FLSA in any respect. Defendant does
not concede that Plaintiff and the putative class members are
"similarly situated" under or that the case is appropriate for
collective action treatment.

The Defendant specifically reserves its right to seek
decertification of the conditionally certified class at a later
time, and its right to fully defend this matter on the merits,
once the putative class members are identified. The parties have
further agreed that the issuance of an approved notice is
appropriate.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KZ95UsPm

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jody Forester Jackson, Esq.
          Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON & JACKSON
          201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 599 5953
          Facsimile: (888) 988 6499
          E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net
                  mjackson@jackson-law.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Greg Guidry, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH
          SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          603 Silverstone Road, Suite 102A
          Lafayette, LA 70508
          Telephone: (337) 769 6583
          Facsimile: (337) 989 0441
          E-mail: greg.guidry@ogletreedeakins.com


VALERO MARKETING: Case Management Scheduling Order Set
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard Seeborg entered the Case Management
Scheduling Order in the case, FAITH BAUTISTA, Plaintiff, v. VALERO
MARKETING AND SUPPLY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-05557-RS
(N.D. Cal.).

Judge Seeborg outlined that all non-expert discovery shall be
completed by the parties on or before August 7, 2017. Discovery
shall be limited to (a) 10 non-expert depositions per party; (b)
25 interrogatories per party, including all discrete subparts; (c)
a reasonable number of requests for production of documents or for
inspection per party; and (d) a reasonable number of requests for
admission per party.

The disclosure and discovery of expert witnesses shall proceed on
these dates:

     a. On or before August 7, 2017, parties will designate
        experts in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil
        Procedure 26(a)(2).

     b. On or before September 4, 2017, parties will designate
        their supplemental and rebuttal experts in accordance
        with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2).

     c. On or before November 6, 2017, all discovery of expert
        witnesses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
        26(b)(4) shall be completed.

The schedules for Class Certification are likewise set for these
dates:

     a. On or before May 26, 2017, plaintiff will file his motion
        for class certification.

     b. On or before July 24, 2017, defendant will file its
        opposition to class certification.

     c. On or before September 5, 2017, plaintiff will file his
        reply, if any, to defendant's opposition.

     d. Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be heard
        on September 28, 2017.

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

Faith Bautista, Plaintiff, represented by Rafael Bernardino, Jr.
-- rbernardino@hbdlegal.com -- Hobson, Bernardino Davis, LLP.

Faith Bautista, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Chagas
Martins -- cmartins@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP,
pro hac vice, Jason Henry Alperstein -- jalperstein@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Jason A. Hobson --
jhobson@hbdlegal.com -- Hobson Bernardino Davis LLP, Patrick W.
Daniels -- patrickd@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Roxana Miller Pierce -- rpierce@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice & Stuart Andrew Davidson --
SDavidson@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice.

Valero Marketing and Supply Company, Defendant, represented by
Adam Friedenberg -- afriedenberg@glynnfinley.com -- Glynn &
Finley, LLP, Lauren Elizabeth Wood -- lwood@glynnfinley.com --
Glynn & Finley LLP & Robert Charles Phelps --
bphelps@glynnfinley.com -- Glynn & Finley LLP.


VERIZON WIRELESS: Faces "Menichiello" Suit in C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Verizon Wireless Services LLC.
The case is styled Denise Menichiello, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Verizon
Wireless Services LLC, Verizon Winback Group LLC, and Does 1-10,
the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-01635-CJC-KES (C.D. Cal., Sep. 6,
2016). The assigned Judge is hon. Cormac J. Carney.

Verizon Wireless provides wireless telecommunication services. The
company was incorporated in 1999 and is based in Basking Ridge,
New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan Elisabeth George, Esq.
          Todd M Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD FRIEDMAN PC
          324 S Beverly Drive No. 725
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 206 4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633 0228
          E-mail: abacon@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  tfriedman@toddflaw.com


VISION FINANCIAL: $2,529 in Fees Awarded to Dolemba
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thomas M. Durkin revised the total fees and costs
to $2,529.98 in the case styled, SCOTT DOLEMBA, individually, and
HERMINIA DOLEMBA, individually and on behalf of the class
described herein, Plaintiffs, v. VISION FINANCIAL CORP.,
Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-3567 (N.D. Ill.).

The Plaintiffs in the case sought redress from collection
practices of the Defendant, alleging violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act. Plaintiffs requested for a total amount of $14,069.61 in
statutory damages and attorney's fees and costs.

The Court concluded, however, that fees incurred after Plaintiff
accepted the Offer of Judgment should be excluded. Rule 68
provides only for the recovery of "costs then accrued," that is,
the costs incurred up to the point that the Offer of Judgment is
made.

The Court calculated the fees and costs to be awarded to
Plaintiffs:

          Plaintiffs total fees and costs: $4,011.53

          Less: JOL Time 330.00

                MRT Time 160.00

                CMC Time 110.00

                Time incurred after offer was made (4/19/12)
                878.00

                Costs incurred after offer was made (4/19/12)
                3.55

          Revised total fees and costs $2,529.98

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 2, 2016 is available
at http://goo.gl/hn9nZjfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiff Scott Dolemba is represented by:

         Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
         Cassandra P. Miller, Esq.
         Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
         James O. Latturner, Esq.
         Michelle A. Alyea, Esq.
         EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN LLC.
         20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Tel: 312-739-4200


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Yousey" Suit Moved from W.D. Ark. to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Yousey and Geneva Yousey, On behalf of themselves and for all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Volkswagen Group of
America Inc., A New Jersey Corporation, and Volkswagen A.G., the
Defendant, Case No. 5:15-cv-05236, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco). The Northern District assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-05087-
CRB to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. Charles R.
Breyer.

Volkswagen Group is a German multinational automotive
manufacturing company headquartered in Wolfsburg, Lower Saxony,
Germany.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          E. Kent Hirsch, Esq.
          HIRSCH LAW FIRM, P. A.
          107 W. Emma Avenue
          Springdale, AR 72764
          Telephone: (479) 751 0251
          Facsimile: (479) 751 0490
          E-mail: kent@hirschlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Marshall Dale Evans, Esq.
          THE EVANS LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 1986
          Fayetteville, AR 72702-1986
          Telephone: (479) 521 9998
          Facsimile: (479) 521 9995
          E-mail: dale@evans-law-firm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gail Ponder Gaines, Esq.
          BARBER LAW FIRM PLLC
          425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 372 6175
          Facsimile: (501) 375 2802
          E-mail: ggaines@barberlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Michael E. Hale, Esq.
          BARBER LAW FIRM PLLC
          425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 707 6136
          Facsimile: (501) 375 2802
          E-mail: mhale@barberlawfirm.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Consent Decree Entered in California Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff, v.
VOLKSWAGEN AG, VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., VOLKSWAGEN GROUP
OF AMERICA CHATTANOOGA OPERATIONS LLC, AUDI AG, DR. ING. H.C. F.
PORSCHE AG, and PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 3:16-CV-03620 (N.D. Cal.), a partial Consent Decree is entered
between and among the United States Department of Justice (DOJ),
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the
People, by and through the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
and the California Attorney General, and Volkswagen to resolve
Unfair Competition Claims related to the marketing and sale of
certain diesel vehicles of Volkswagen and Porsche.

The monetary provision of the Consent Decree provides that
Volkswagen shall pay to the California Attorney General a total
aggregate amount of US$86,000,000.

Volkswagen's and Porsche's agreement to satisfy all the
requirements of the Consent Decree shall resolve and settle all of
the People's Unfair Competition Claims, as well as all potentially
applicable civil claims under California Business and Professions
Code sections 17200, 17500, and 17580.5, and 12 USC Sec. 5531 et
seq., or under any other consumer protection, unfair trade and
deceptive acts and practices laws, as well as common law or equity
(Consumer Protection Laws), including claims brought in the
California Attorney General's sovereign enforcement capacity.

The Consent Decree constitutes the final, complete, and exclusive
agreement and understanding among the Parties with respect to the
settlement embodied in the Decree and supersedes all prior
agreements and understandings, whether oral or written, concerning
the settlement embodied herein, with the exception of the DOJ
Consent Decree.

Upon approval and entry of the Consent Decree by the Court, the
Consent Decree shall constitute a final judgment of the Court as
to the California Attorney General and the Defendants.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 1, 2016 is available
at http://goo.gl/z0mbVhfrom Leagle.com.

People of the State of California, Plaintiff, represented by Jon
F. Worm -- jon.worm@doj.ca.gov -- Office of the Attorney General.

People of the State of California, Plaintiff, represented by Amos
Erik Hartston -- amos.hartston@doj.ca.gov -- California Department
of Justice, David Alexander Zonana -- david.zonana@doj.ca.gov --
California Department of Justice, Judith Aurora Yosepha Fiorentini
-- judith.fiorentini@doj.ca.gov -- Office of the Attorney General,
Nicklas A. Akers -- nioklas.akers@doj.ca.gov -- California
Department of Justice & William Raabe Pletcher, California
Department of Justice.

Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft (AG), et al., Defendants,
represented by Michael Howard Steinberg -- steinbergm@sullcrom.com
-- Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP.


YAHOO: Judge Approves E-mail Scanning class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Kravets, writing for Ars Technica, reports that in 2013,
Yahoo announced that it would begin scanning its users' e-mail for
targeted advertising purposes -- just as Google does.  As is par
for the course, class-action lawsuits were filed.  The Silicon
Valley media giant, according to one of the lawsuits, was
violating the "personal liberties" of non-Yahoo Mail users. That's
because non-Yahoo Mail users, who have sent mail to Yahoo mail
users, were having their e-mail scanned without their permission.

"Plaintiff and the Class are among the multitude of U.S. residents
who have sent electronic communications or emails to a Yahoo Mail
user or users, and whose personal liberties have been, and
continue to be, intruded upon when these private communications
are read or, in the alternative, eavesdropped upon by Yahoo," the
lawsuit read.  The suit said that Yahoo's new scanning policies
adopted under Yahoo chief Marissa Mayer violated federal and state
privacy laws and that Yahoo's e-mail scanning regime "seriously
threatens the free exercise of personal liberties, and is of the
type of behavior that the U.S. Congress and the California
Legislature has declared should not be tolerated in a free and
civilized society."

The suit, which was one of six that were co-mingled as a single
class action, demanded that a judge halt the scanning and award
each victim "$5,000 or three times actual damages" in addition to
"reasonable attorneys' fees and costs."

Fast forward three years.  The case is now closed.  Days ago, a
Silicon Valley federal judge signed off on a settlement.  The
lawyers won, they were awarded $4 million (GBP3 million), and the
public got nothing.  What's more, the settlement allows Yahoo to
continue to scan e-mails without non-Yahoo users' consent. (Yahoo
Mail customers have granted consent to the scanning as a condition
of using the service.) The major change the lawsuit produced was
that Yahoo is agreeing to scan the e-mail while it's at rest on
its servers instead of while the mail is in transit. This,
according to the settlement, satisfies the California Invasion of
Privacy Act (CIPA) claims.  The deal spells out that Yahoo only
has to do this for three years, but Yahoo said it would continue
with the new scanning protocol after the three years expire.

Let the e-mail scanning continue

In September 2015, plaintiffs' lawyers argued that CIPA was
breached even when the e-mail was being scanned at rest.  "The
plain language of the statute, however, prohibits the interception
of communications both while they are in transit and while they
are being received".  The judge clearly didn't agree.

The agreement, however, does require Yahoo to be a tad more
transparent.  It requires Yahoo to beef up its "Yahoo Privacy
Center Webpage" to clearly state that "Yahoo analyzes and stores
all communications content, including email content from incoming
and outgoing mail."  And on the "Yahoo Mail Webpage," the heading
"Personally Relevant Experiences" must be replaced with the
heading "Information Collection and Use Practices."

In the end, we'll add this case to the list of other so-called
"privacy lawsuits" that essentially enrich a cottage industry of
plaintiffs' lawyers, do little to protect or compensate consumers,
and don't change the tech sector's behavior in any real,
meaningful way.

But reading US District Judge Lucy Koh's settlement approval
order, you'd be left thinking the public was served.  Judge Koh, a
well-known Silicon Valley federal judge whom President Barack
Obama has nominated to the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, wrote
that "Class Counsel achieved a result that was beneficial to the
Class.  Yahoo now no longer scans or analyzes Yahoo Mail content
that is in transit in violation of CIPA," Judge Koh wrote.

And in explaining why she signed the deal, Judge Koh's order
highlights how the case has mutated over the year, from wanting
the interception blocked outright to demanding consent, and:

As to the strength of Plaintiffs' case, Plaintiffs have achieved
their stated goal in this litigation: Yahoo will no longer
intercept and analyze emails in transit for advertising purposes.
Instead, for the next three years, Yahoo may only analyze incoming
email after the email reaches a Yahoo Mail users' inbox, and Yahoo
may only analyze outgoing email after the email is in a Yahoo Mail
users' sent email folder.  These changes, according to Yahoo's
Senior Manager of Engineering, will require "a considerable
investment of time, money, and resources."
The four named plaintiffs in the case will each receive $5,000.

In September, the plaintiffs' lawyers were demanding that Judge
Koh issue a declaration that Yahoo was violating CIPA and the
federal Stored Communications Act, which generally prohibits
spying on stored communications on servers without consent.

The law is the law

"A declaration as to the lawfulness of Yahoo's conduct under these
circumstances will be based on actual facts and provide a
conclusive finding that will guide not only Yahoo's future conduct
but that of other similar companies," one of the lead plaintiffs'
lawyers, Daniel Girard, wrote Judge Koh.  The judge, whose
appellate court nomination is pending, did not issue such a
declaration.

In a telephone interview, Mr. Girard said Yahoo gets to continue
to scan e-mail.  But Yahoo will do it lawfully -- when the e-mail
communications are at rest on Yahoo servers -- instead of
unlawfully, while the e-mails are in transit.

"We just enforced the law that was available to us," Mr. Girard
said.  "Unless you got some other law, that's all you can do."

At this juncture.  We might be wondering about Google, the pioneer
of e-mail scanning.  Google is being sued under a similar class
action representing people with non-Gmail accounts who have had
their messages scanned without consent.  That case is pending
before Judge Koh.


* Class Action Firm Slater & Gordon Incurs $1-Bil. Loss
-------------------------------------------------------
LawFuel reports that Australian law firm Slater and Gordon was the
first law firm to be listed on the stock exchange, but it is also
the first to post a very public $1 billion loss.

The personal injury and class action law firm, which extended to
the UK under an aggressive growth plan, has suffered significant
reversals in the UK in particular.  The total loss was $1.02
billion.

The firm's woes have been the subject of much media reportage,
including here on LawFuel.

The Herald Sun reported that the loss was due to writedowns
totalling $879.5 million, mostly related to the UK division of the
firm, which also obtained lower resolutions for noise-induced
hearing loss cases.

Case settlements exceeded the number of new files opened in both
Australia and in the UK, with a negative movement in work in
progress of $41.3 million -- two thirds of it in Australia.

Negative cash flow slowed from $83.3 million in the first half to
$20.9 million, and the company said significant improvement is
still required to turn that around.

The firm also raised the total impairment charge from the $876.4
million announced in its first-half results and announced $33.3
million in restructuring costs related to the UK legal business it
bought in May 2015.

"We are confident we have the strategy and people in place to
stabilize financial performance during the 2017 financial year,"
managing director Andrew Grech said.


* Electronic Class Action Settlement Notices Proposed
-----------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that those postcards
you get about a class action settlement might be on their way out
under a new proposed rule that would allow class notices to be
sent via email and other electronic means rather than U.S. mail.

The proposal, introduced on Aug. 12, is a sea change for lawyers
who historically have relied on mailing addresses to send notices
about a class action settlement. For most, the new rule, if
approved, would be a welcome bump into the 21st century.

"More recently, particularly on the West Coast, courts have been
more comfortable with email notices," said Andrew McGuinness, an
attorney in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and author of the blog
www.topclasslaw.com.  "You have a lot of class actions against
everything from Uber to high-tech online services in which almost
everything is done with email."

The proposal is part of a package of changes drafted by a civil
rules committee of the U.S. Judicial Conference's Committee on
Rules of Practice and Procedure that impact class actions, or Rule
23, which hasn't been amended since 2003.  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.

Lawyers say the change is long overdue.

"Many people in the class action bar have been talking about that
for a long time," Mr. McGuinness said, adding that the cost of
sending notices by U.S. mail can run tens of thousands of dollars.
But he admitted that the change might do little to persuade
judges, who have increasingly been focused on claims rates in
class action settlements.  "Whether it's going to radically change
response rates remains to be seen."

The current rules don't actually mandate that notices be sent by
U.S. mail.  But judges have interpreted such a requirement based
on the U.S. Supreme Court's 1974 holding in Eisen v. Carlisle &
Jacquelin, which found that individual notice was required in
order to achieve the "best notice that is practicable" under
Rule 23.  The new rule specifies that such notice may include
"electronic means, or other appropriate means."

The proposal has its critics.  Todd Hilsee of The Hilsee Group LLC
in Philadelphia, who has advised the Federal Judicial Center for
14 years on notice standards, said the move is driven by a rising
number of vendors who promise lawyers high response rates at
cheaper prices.

In a public comment he made to the committee, Mr. Hilsee noted
that a "scant fraction" of people actually click onto
advertisements posted through internet banners and social media,
and that response rates provided by some claims vendors are
inflated.  Notices sent by U.S. mail, by contrast, don't face spam
filters and can be forwarded if someone moves, he added.

Some judges have raised similar concerns.

On June 23, California's Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed
approval of a class action settlement of about 500,000 consumers
of diet supplements after finding that only 895 people made
claims.  The notices were sent by email for more than half the
class members, and through an online site and publication in USA
Today to those remaining.  In its order, the panel told the
lawyers to come up with a better reason why U.S. mail wasn't used.

Last year, a federal judge rejected a class action settlement
involving an allegedly rigged arcade game in part due to concerns
that the notice plan's banner ads wouldn't reach enough people.
But the plaintiffs attorney in the case, Fred Isquith --
Isquith@whafh.com -- a partner at Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz, said lawyers often don't have mailing addresses,
particularly when consumers buy online.  Such was the case here,
where the defendant, Sega Amusements USA Inc., just had emails and
telephone numbers.

"If the defendant says this is good enough notice for me, I'm
willing to take the risk it should be good enough for the judge,"
he said.  "There are always going to be people who don't get
notices."


* Recall of Faulty Products Proposed Under New Draft Bill
---------------------------------------------------------
Zia Haq, writing for Hindustan Times, reports that a draft bill
aimed at strengthening consumer rights provides for a powerful new
tool called class-action suits, which can be invoked to recall an
entire batch of faulty products based on a single complaint.

These are among new measures in the draft bill being vetted by an
inter-ministerial panel to bring consumer laws in line with a
rapidly evolving economy.

If one lot of a consumer item, such as mobile phones, has a common
defect, a single complaint can trigger a recall of the whole range
by invoking "class action".  Class-action suits, a legal tool,
enable one individual complaint of a faulty product or service to
be treated as an "interest group" of other people in similar
circumstances.

India has witnessed mass product recall, such as faulty cars, but
it has been mostly voluntary.  The new bill will provide class-
action suits specifically as a consumer right.

The draft seeks to punish celebrities who endorse dubious products
or appear in ads that make trumped-up claims.  It proposes a fine
of Rs 10 lakh and jail of up to two years for a first offence by
celebrities.  For subsequent offences, the proposed fine is Rs 50
lakh and maximum five years in jail.
The bill provides for a National Consumer Authority, which will
act as a regulator to ensure compliance with the new provisions.


* Role of Judges in MDL Cases Faces Increasing Scrutiny
-------------------------------------------------------
Andrew J. Trask, Esq. -- atrask@mcguirewoods.com -- of
McGuireWoods LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that class
actions are not the only form of aggregate litigation.  Multi-
district litigation ("MDL"), the process by which large numbers of
smaller lawsuits are consolidated before a single judge for
pretrial purposes, without requiring any kind of certification
process, has been around since 1968.  And, as courts have demanded
more rigor for Rule 23 certification, MDLs have become more
popular, particularly for mass torts.

With that increasing popularity comes increasing scrutiny.  To
take just one example, a new paper on the proper role of the judge
in MDL cases by professors Andrew Bradt and D. Theodore Rave has
received press coverage only days after its posting on SSRN.

The paper deserves the recognition.  It's a good summary of the
problems with MDLs, and contains an interesting solution to at
least one of the issues scholars and lawyers have confronted.

As the authors write:

Despite its transfer-and-remand structure, judges, lawyers, and
scholars all recognize that the goal of MDL is not merely
centralized discovery followed by thousands of trials scattered
around the country.  The goal is mass settlement.  By centralizing
nationwide proceedings in mass tort cases --essentially gathering
all of the relevant players into same forum before the same judge
-- MDL creates a perfect environment for the parties to negotiate
a global resolution of the defendant's liability to potentially
thousands of claimants in one fell swoop.  And, as MDL has begun
to take center stage in both the federal courts and procedure
scholarship, perhaps the most controversial issue is clarifying
the proper role of the judge in achieving these mass settlements -
- in particular whether the MDL judge should review settlements,
and reject them if they are unfair, as a judge in a class action
would be obliged to do under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(e).

MDLs, of course, are not class actions.  There are no absentee
members, and consolidation is supposed to only be for pretrial
proceedings. (In reality, there are often just a few "bellwether"
trials held in front of the MDL court.)

Faced with the question of how to keep aggregate settlements fair
without the protections of Rule 23(e), Professors Bradt & Rave
suggest a novel solution:

the judge in an MDL ought to conceive of her role as acting in an
"information forcing" capacity; that is, the judge should use the
MDL process to force the disclosure of information to allows the
parties in MDL cases to make informed decision about whether to
accept proposed settlements.  And often, the single most useful
piece of information that the MDL judge can communicate to
claimants will be a simple and frank assessment of the fairness of
deal, even if that assessment will have no binding force.
Their argument is straightforward.  Aggregate litigation of any
type faces a governance problem, because there are always a large
number of claimants represented by a small number of lawyers.  As
a result, no individual claimant will exert much control over the
litigation.  Moreover, the lawyers will be tempted to cut corners,
and may not reconcile the conflicts between their interests and
their clients'.

Class actions resolve this dilemma through certification under
Rule 23.  But MDL cases don't have that kind of structural
protection.  Instead, litigants remain dependent on their lawyers
and the steering committee to watch out for their interest.

Some judges have addressed this concern by appointing themselves
fiduciaries of the small claimants, and treating the MDL as a
"quasi-class action."  This role is controversial, and possibly in
violation of the Rules Enabling Act.

But, the authors note, judges don't need formal authority to
register their opinion of MDL settlements.  And, based on the
reactions of one set of litigants to a judge's declaration that a
settlement was "unfair" (instead of seeking mandamus, they
re-negotiated to address the judge's concerns), they believe MDL
judges may simply need to be more aggressive in sharing their
thoughts about the progress of the litigation.

It's an intriguing idea, though not without its flaws.  As Bradt &
Rave note, some judges may not have the bandwidth to monitor the
MDLs in front of them this closely; and some may be biased toward
any settlement so long as it clears their docket or provides some
relief to many claimants.

The fact is, however, that aggregation by MDL is not going away.
And lawyers concerned with mass torts will be grappling with these
issues for some time to come.  Professors Bradt & Rave have
provided a concise, thought-provoking summary that is sure to have
influence in this area.



                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Groupon's Bid to Amend CMO in "Mosley" Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned WILLIAM MOSLEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
GROUPON, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-01205-BLF (N.D.
Calif.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division,
denied Groupon, Inc.'s request for a modification of the August
13, 2015 Case Management Order, which required the parties in the
case to file dispositive motions by September 1, 2016.

Groupon argues that there is good cause to amend the order given
its pending motion to dismiss and because fact discovery will not
be completed until November or December 2016.  Groupon also argues
that amending the case management order would not prejudice
Plaintiffs.

Judge Freeman pointed out that Groupon seeks to modify the Court's
scheduling order by postponing the deadline for dispositive
motions and the trial by approximately four months.  Groupon first
argues that there is good cause because discovery remains ongoing.
This is unconvincing in light of the parties' failure to comply
with the Court's August 13, 2015 order to set, among other things,
a discovery cut-off date, Judge Freeman said.  The parties have
been aware of the deadline for filing dispositive motions for more
than a year and could have made efforts to ensure the completion
of discovery prior to the deadline or extend the deadline for
dispositive motions before the day the motions were due, but they
did not, the judge held.  This plainly demonstrates a lack of
diligence, the judge concluded.

A full-text copy of Judge Freeman's Memorandum and Order is
available at https://is.gd/EuGd01 from Leagle.com.

William Mosley, Plaintiff, represented by Mani Sheik, Sheik Law,
Inc..

Frances Mosley, Plaintiff, represented by Mani Sheik, Sheik Law,
Inc..

Groupon, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dean N. Panos, Esq. --
dpanos@jenner.com -- Jenner And Block LLP, Kenneth Kiyul Lee, Esq.
-- KLee@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, Stephen Earl Carlson,
Imai, Tadlock, Keeney & Cordery, LLP, Elizabeth Abbene Coleman,
Esq. -- ecoleman@jenner.com -- Jenner and Block LLP, pro hac vice,
Kelly Marie Morrison, Esq. -- kmorrison@jenner.com -- Jenner and
Block LLP & Theodore Thomas Cordery, Imai Tadlock Keeney &
Cordery, LLP.

Imai Tadlock may be reached at:

     100 Bush Street, Suite 1300
     San Francisco, California 94104
     Tel:(415) 675-7000
     Fax:(415) 675-7008
     Email: admin@itkc.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Amend Suit to Add Asbestos Claim Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge William E. Smith of the United States District Court
for the District of Rhode Island denied High Rock Westminster
Street, LLC's motion to amend its complaint against Bank of
America, N.A., to add a claim that BOA breached a lease by not
removing friable asbestos from the building at 111 Westminster
Street, in Providence, Rhode Island.

According to Judge Smith, it is clear that at nearly every stage
in the litigation, which centers on BOA's obligations under a 10-
year lease for the Building, High Rock knew or should have known
about the facts underlying its asbestos claim, but, by its own
admission, waited at least two and half years to bring it.  This
is, perhaps, the definition of "undue delay," Judge Smith said.

A full-text copy of Judge Smith's Memorandum and Order dated
September 7, 2016, is available at https://is.gd/RmRlN1 from
Leagle.com.

High Rock Westminster Street, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by
Cheryl B. Pinarchick, Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels LLP.

High Rock Westminster Street, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by
Daniel J. Lyne, Murphy & King, P.C., pro hac vice, Mary C. Dunn,
Esq. -- mcd@blishcavlaw.com -- Blish & Cavanagh, LLP, Robert J.
Cavanagh, Jr., Esq. -- jvc@blishcavlaw.com -- Blish & Cavanagh,
Shawn Lu, Esq. -- slu@murphyking.com -- Murphy & King, P.C., pro
hac vice & Thomas J. Alves, Esq. -- ela@blishcavlaw.com -- Blish &
Cavanagh, LLP.

Bank of America, N.A., Defendant, represented by Robert Clark
Corrente, Esq. -- rcorrente@whelancorrente.com -- Whelan,
Corrente, Flanders, Kinder & Siket LLP, Christopher N. Dawson,
Esq. -- cdawson@whelancorrente.com -- Whelan, Corrente, Flanders,
Kinder & Siket LLP, pro hac vice, Jennifer G. Roma, Nelson Mullins
Riley & Scarborough LLP, pro hac vice, Kate J. Bergeron, Nelson
Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew G.
Lindenbaum, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, PC, pro hac vice &
Matthew H. Parker, Esq. -- mparker@whelancorrente.com -- Whelan,
Corrente, Flanders, Kinder & Siket LLP.

CBRE, Inc., Respondent, represented by Doreen M. Zankowski, Saul
Ewing LLP, pro hac vice & Zachary W. Berk, Saul Ewing LLP.

Jeffrey Petzgold, Respondent, represented by Zachary W. Berk, Esq.
-- zberk@saul.com -- Saul Ewing LLP.

Clinton Craig, Respondent, represented by Zachary W. Berk, Saul
Ewing LLP.

Bank of America, N.A., Counter Claimant, represented by Robert
Clark Corrente, Whelan, Corrente, Flanders, Kinder & Siket LLP,
Christopher N. Dawson, Whelan, Corrente, Flanders, Kinder & Siket
LLP, pro hac vice, Jennifer G. Roma, Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough LLP, pro hac vice, Kate J. Bergeron, Nelson Mullins
Riley & Scarborough LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew G. Lindenbaum,
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, PC, pro hac vice & Matthew H.
Parker, Whelan, Corrente, Flanders, Kinder & Siket LLP.

High Rock Westminster Street, LLC, Counter Defendant, represented
by Cheryl B. Pinarchick, Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels LLP, Daniel
J. Lyne, Murphy & King, P.C., pro hac vice, Mary C. Dunn, Blish &
Cavanagh, LLP, Michael K. O'Neil, Murphy & King, P.C., Robert J.
Cavanagh, Jr., Blish & Cavanagh, Shawn Lu, Murphy & King, P.C.,
pro hac vice & Thomas J. Alves, Blish & Cavanagh, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wrongful Death Suit Remanded to NJ State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jose L. Linares of the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, in an opinion dated September 6, 2016,
said he will grant the motion seeking remand to New Jersey state
court of the asbestos-related action styled GILBERT PAUL
HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, v. BRENNTAG NORTH AMERICA, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-4038 (JLL)(D.N.J.).

The motion to remand was filed by the plaintiff who, through the
lawsuit, sought to recover damages for, among other things,
wrongful death.  Removal, according to the Plaintiff, was barred
by the forum-defendant rule because two of the defendants --
Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc., and Brenntag Specialities, Inc.
-- are deemed to be citizens of, among other states, New Jersey.

Judge Linares found that the Plaintiff has not fraudulently joined
WCD, in contrast to the Defendants' arguments, because the claims
asserted against WCD are not wholly insubstantial and frivolous.
The complaint, Judge Linares, pointed out presents a
straightforward claim based on products liability against WCD,
i.e., that the decedent was harmed by the asbestos content of the
talc allegedly supplied by WCD for the manufacturer of the talcum
powder used by decedent.  Judge Linares further found that the
claims against BSI are not wholly insubstantial and frivolous,
because it is properly named in its status as a successor in
interest to WCD.  CPC cannot reasonably argue that New Jersey law,
or the law of any state, would bar these types of claims, the
judge said.

A full-text copy of Judge Linares's Opinion is available at
https://is.gd/EEGXCc from Leagle.com.

GILBERT PAUL HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, represented by ROBERT E. LYTLE,
Esq. -- RLytle@szaferman.com -- SZAFERMAN, LAKIND, BLUMSTEIN &
BLADER, PC.

COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by GARY D. VAN
LIEU, Esq. -- gvanlieu@ofwvlaw.com -- O'TOOLE FERNANDEZ WEINER VAN
LIEU, LLC, JOSHUA S. LICHTENSTEIN, Esq. -- jsl@ofwvlaw.com -- &
STEVEN ALLEN WEINER, Esq. -- sweiner@ofwvlaw.com -- O'TOOLE
FERNANDEZ WEINER VAN LIEU LLC.

CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS COMPANY, Defendant, represented by ANDREW N.
KESSLER, Esq. -- akessler@hoaglandlongo.com -- HOAGLAND, LONGO,
MORAN, DUNST & DOUKAS, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: City Not Entitled to Coverage for Defense Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
From 1981 to 1985, First State Insurance Company; Twin City Fire
Insurance Company; New England Reinsurance Corporation; Nutmeg
Insurance Company (collectively, the Defendants), insured the City
of Phoenix against liability for bodily injury occurring during
that time.  The insurance applied only to liability incurred above
the City's $500,000 self-insured retention.  In 2013, a third
party sued the City for bodily injury caused by asbestos exposure
that occurred from 1967 to 1993.  The City settled the lawsuit for
$500,000 and spent more than $1,400,000 in defense costs.  The
Defendants denied coverage for these expenses.  The City claims
the Defendants violated their policy terms and acted in bad faith.

In an order dated September 2, 2016, Judge Neil V. Wake of the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted
the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and denied the City's
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.  Judge Wake further ordered
that the Clerk enter judgment against the Plaintiff and in favor
of the Defendants that the Plaintiff take nothing, and terminate
the case.

Judge Wake noted that the parties agree that the asbestos exposure
was an "occurrence" that triggered The Hartford's policies.  The
question is whether the City's $500,000 settlement payment and
$1,400,000 in defense costs are covered and therefore reimbursable
under any of the policies.

Judge Wake held that because the parties have not presented
evidence of negotiations or other communications between the City
and The Hartford when the City purchased the policies, resolution
of the disputes turns on the policy terms, the nature of the
coverages, the relation among the coverages, and the reasonable
expectations of sophisticated participants in the insurance
industry.

Judge Wake further held that even when an excess policy is silent
on whether underlying defense costs satisfy the underlying policy
limit, it is unreasonable for a sophisticated insured, such as the
Plaintiff, to assume they do.  Judge Wake added that the excess
policies do not merely exclude defense costs form satisfying the
retained limit.  They also speak explicitly to how defense costs
are to treated.

The case is City of Phoenix, Plaintiff, v. First State Insurance
Company; Twin City Fire Insurance Company; New England Reinsurance
Corporation; Nutmeg Insurance Company, Defendants, No. CV-15-
00511-PHX-NVW (D. Ariz.).  A full-text copy of the Order is
available at https://is.gd/7Ao0Jq from Leagle.com.

City of Phoenix, Plaintiff, represented by Emil John Kotalik, Jr.,
Esq. -- ejk@pklawyers.com -- Peshkin & Kotalik PC.

City of Phoenix, Plaintiff, represented by Tracy R. Nadzieja, Esq.
-- trn@pklawyers.com -- Peshkin & Kotalik PC.

First State Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by James P.
Ruggeri, Esq. -- jruggeri@goodwin.com -- Shipman & Goodwin LLP,
Joshua Philip Mayer, Esq. -- jmayer@goodwin.com -- Shipman &
Goodwin LLP & Robert Anthony Justman, Esq. -- rjustman@meagher.com
-- Meagher & Geer PLLP.

Twin City Fire Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by James
P. Ruggeri, Shipman & Goodwin LLP, Joshua Philip Mayer, Shipman &
Goodwin LLP & Robert Anthony Justman, Meagher & Geer PLLP.

New England Reinsurance Corporation, Defendant, represented by
James P. Ruggeri, Shipman & Goodwin LLP, Joshua Philip Mayer,
Shipman & Goodwin LLP & Robert Anthony Justman, Meagher & Geer
PLLP.

Nutmeg Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by James P.
Ruggeri, Shipman & Goodwin LLP, Joshua Philip Mayer, Shipman &
Goodwin LLP & Robert Anthony Justman, Meagher & Geer PLLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NYCHA's Claims vs. G-I Holdings Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Rosemary Gambardella of the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the District of New Jersey granted in its entirety G-I
Holdings, Inc., et al.'s motion for summary judgment against the
New York City Housing Authority on its indemnity and restitution
claims, and denied NYCHA's cross-motion for partial summary
judgment as to liability.

G-I Holdings is the successor-in-interest to GAF Corporation, an
entity named in approximately 500,000 asbestos-related lawsuits.

NYCHA filed its proof of claim on October 13, 2008, for asbestos
property damage in the amount of $500 million to pay for the
remediation of NYCHA owned housing complexes and buildings where,
it was alleged, asbestos-containing products originally
manufactured, mined, distributed, and sold by the debtors or its
predecessors-in-interest were installed.  NYCHA further alleged
that it incurred costs necessary to abate the hazards by replacing
such products with non-toxic substitutes.

On December 10, 2008, G-I objected to NYCHA's Proof of Claim on
the basis that NYCHA's claims have long since been time-barred,
and NYCHA was aware of the purported damage to its buildings from
the asbestos containing materials long before January 5, 2008, the
cutoff date for such claims.

On December 14, 2010, the court entered a decision on G-I's
objection and determined that NYCHA's tort based claims, including
negligence, personal injury, and/or property damage, were time-
barred.

On December 15, 2014, G-I filed a motion for summary judgment on
NYCHA's causes of action for indemnity and restitution, making
three main arguments in support of its position:

     1) NYCHA cannot make the factual or legal showing necessary
        to sustain claims for equitable indemnity and restitution;

     2) NYCHA's causes of action for equitable indemnity and
        restitution are recast time-barred tort claims; and

     3) NYCHA's equitable claims are precluded by laches and
        should be dismissed.

On February 9, 2014, NYCHA also filed a cross motion for partial
summary judgment as to liability on its restitution and indemnity
claims, asserting that it has "provided more than sufficient
evidence to prove the material facts of each" of the elements that
the court identified in its 2010 opinion to establish claims for
true restitution and indemnity and that on the "significant"
question whether the asbestos containing materials at issue are
"inherently dangerous," that G-I has demonstrated that it has no
scientific and evidence-based proof that the products of its
predecessors in NYCHA buildings are not hazardous to human health.

Judge Gambardella held that, as a matter of law, summary judgment
must be granted in favor of G-I and against NYCHA with respect to
NYCHA's common law indemnity claim because, although NYCHA owes a
duty to its tenants, that duty does not extend, as a matter of
law, to G-I to indemnify NYCHA for its own activities.

Judge Gambardella also concluded that G-I is entitled to summary
judgment on NYCHA's restitution claims.  The judge held that an
award for restitution damages to NYCHA is not appropriate because
to do so would make damages recoverable from a party who supplied
any potentially hazardous materials or substances.  The judge
found that, NYCHA in essence, has failed to show it fulfilled a
duty also owed by G-I in response to action that was "immediately
necessary" to protect "public decency, health, or safety."  Judge
Gambardella found no genuine dispute as to any material fact
regarding the lack of urgency as it pertains to NYCHA's
restitution claims.

Lastly, Judge Gambardella found that NYCHA's indemnity and
restitution claims are recast time-barred tort claims and as such
must be dismissed.

A full-text copy of Judge Gambardella's September 9, 2016 opinion
is available at http://bankrupt.com/misc/njb01-30135-11004.pdf

Reorganized Debtors, G-I Holdings, Inc., et al are represented by:

          Dennis J. O'Grady, Esq.
          Mark E. Hall, Esq.
          RIKER, DANZIG, SCHERER, HYLAND & PERRETTI, LLP
          Headquarters Plaza
          One Speedwell Avenue
          Morristown, NJ 07962-1901
          Tel: (973)538-0800
          Fax: (973)538-1984
          Email: dogrady@riker.com
                 mhall@riker.com

            -- and --

          Andrew Rossman, Esq.
          Scott C. Shelley, Esq.
          Jacob J. Waldman, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL, URQUHART & SULLIVAN, L.P.
          51 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10010
          Tel: (212)849-7000
          Fax: (212)849-7100
          Email: andrewrossman@quinnemanuel.com
                 scottshelley@quinnemanuel.com
                 jacobwaldman@quinnemanuel.com

            -- and --

          Marc J. Kurzman, Esq.
          SANDAK, HENNESSEY & GRECO, LLP
          707 Summer Avenue
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Tel: (203)425-4200
          Fax: (203)325-8608
          Email: mkurzman@carmodylaw.com

New York City Housing Authority is represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Pollock, Esq.
          FOX ROTHSCHILD, LLP
          Princeton Pike Corporate Center
          997 Lenox Drive -- Building 3
          Lawrenceville, NJ 08648-2311
          Tel: (609)896-3600
          Fax: (609)896-1469
          Email: jmpollock@foxrothschild.com

            -- and --

          Philip J. Goodman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. GOODMAN, P.C.
          280 North Old Woodward Avenue -- Suite 407
          Birmingham, MI 48009

            -- and --

          Christopher M. Placitella, Esq.
          Jared M. Placitella, Esq.
          Joel Rosen, Esq.
          Stewart L. Cohen, Esq.
          Harry M. Roth, Esq.
          COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH. P.C.
          2001 Market Street -- Suite 2900
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Tel: (866)291-7088
          Fax: (215)567-6019


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Remand "Angus" to State Court Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California granted the Motion to Remand to
the San Francisco Superior Court of the case captioned JAMES
ANGUS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOHN CRANE INC., Defendant, Case No.
16-cv-03532-JST (N.D. Calif.).

Judge Tigar also granted the Plaintiffs' request for an award of
attorneys' fees and costs is also granted.

The Plaintiffs are citizens of Virginia.  The Defendant, a
business organized under the laws of Delaware, has its principal
place of business in Illinois.

The Plaintiffs filed the asbestos action in San Francisco Superior
Court.  Nearly two years later, on June 23, 2016, Defendant John
Crane Inc. removed this case to federal court on the basis of
diversity jurisdiction.  The Defendant's Notice of Removal was
filed four days before trial was set to begin on June 27, 2016.
On June 30, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand.

Judge Tigar held that the Defendant's theory of removal was so
flawed as to be objectively unreasonable.  Moreover, the Defendant
appears to have acted in bad faith, waiting until four days before
trial was to commence before filing its Notice of Removal, Judge
Tigar further held.

A full-text copy of the Order dated August 22, 2016 is available
at https://is.gd/h1zQqq from Leagle.com.

James Angus, Plaintiff, is represented by Alan R. Brayton, Esq. --
Brayton Purcell LLP, David R. Donadio, Esq. -- Brayton Purcell
LLP, James Patrick Nevin, Jr., Esq. -- Brayton Purcell, Nancy
Teresa Williams, Esq. -- Brayton-Purcell & Richard Martin Grant,
Esq. -- Brayton Purcell LLP.

Juana Angus, Plaintiff, is represented by Alan R. Brayton, Brayton
Purcell LLP, David R. Donadio, Brayton Purcell LLP, James Patrick
Nevin, Jr., Brayton Purcell, Nancy Teresa Williams, Brayton-
Purcell & Richard Martin Grant, Brayton Purcell LLP.

John Crane Inc., Defendant, is represented by Alex G. Taheri, Esq.
-- Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP, Bill D. Fountain, Esq. -
- bfountain@hptylaw.com -- Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP &
Claire Christine Weglarz, Esq. -- cweglarz@hptylaw.com -- Hawkins
Parnell Thackston Young LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Loses Summary Judgment Bid in "Vega"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned GASPAR HERNANDEZ-VEGA, Plaintiff, v. AIR &
LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP. (as Successor to Buffalo Pumps, Inc.) et al.,
Defendants, Docket No. 190367/2014, Motion Seq. No. 009, 2016 NY
Slip Op 31607(U)(N.Y. Sup.), Judge Peter H. Moulton of the Supreme
Court, New York County, denied defendant Flowserve's motion for
summary judgment in its entirety, except as to plaintiff's claims
relating to Rockwell pumps, which are dismissed as it is
undisputed that the defendant never manufactured Rockwell pumps.

This action arises out of claims by plaintiff Gaspar Hernandez-
Vega that he developed mesothelioma as a result of his alleged
exposure to asbestos-containing products while working as a
pipefitter. The plaintiff alleges that during his deposition, he
testified interchangeably to the fact that he worked with "Edward
valves," "Vogt valves," and "Edward-Vogt valves" (collectively,
"Flowserve valves") that exposed him to asbestos through his
changing of the packing and gaskets applied to those valves.  The
Plaintiff further asserts that he knew he worked with Flowserve
valves because the name was on a tag on the side of the valve's
body.  Additionally, the plaintiff states that he knew that he was
exposed to asbestos from working on packing and gaskets within
Flowserve valves.  While performing work on Flowserve valves, the
plaintiff states that he breathed in visible asbestos dust created
by his work.  The Plaintiff emphasizes that he identified
Flowserve valves both as Edward valves and as Vogt valves at
various points in his deposition.

Flowserve's argument in support of it motion for summary judgment
stems from its emphasis on the fact that the plaintiff
specifically identified "Edward-Vogt" valves at his discovery
deposition and video deposition.  Additionally, Flowserve submits
that the plaintiff testified during his discovery deposition to
working with "Rockwell pumps," which it would be responsible for
as a successor to the Rockwell Manufacturing Company.  Flowserve
states that the plaintiff's testimony represents a
misidentification, since Edward-Vogt valves did not come into
existence until 1998 and Flowserve and its predecessor (Rockwell
Manufacturing Company) never manufactured, distributed or sold
pumps of any kind.  In further support of its motion, Flowserve
submits the affidavit of David Osbourne, who worked for the
company for forty-three years in various engineering, sales, and
marketing positions.  Osbourne states that he is fully familiar
with Flowserve's historic valve products, although he does not
specify which business records, if any, he reviewed to gain his
knowledge, particularly for the time period prior to his
employment.  He states that the Edward-Vogt valve line did not
come into existence until 1998 after a merger between the Vogt
Valve Company and Edward Valves, Inc.  Osbourne further submits
that prior to 1998, there was no valve manufactured, labeled, or
branded "Edward-Vogt."  As such, Flowserve argues that the
plaintiff could not have worked with any Edward-Vogt valves during
his career as a pipefitter in the 1960s and 1970s, as they did not
exist.

Judge Moulton held that, here, Flowserve has failed to meet its
initial burden.  Flowserve proffers no evidentiary proofs
demonstrating that its valves were not at the sites that the
plaintiff worked at, did not contain asbestos, and did not
otherwise require the use of asbestos "as a matter of design,
mechanics or economic necessity."  Rather, Flowserve points to the
plaintiff's equivocal testimony with respect to whether he was
exposed to "Edward valves," "Vogt valves," or "Edward-Vogt
valves."  Such evidence "pointing to gaps in an opponent's
evidence is insufficient to demonstrate a movant's entitlement to
summary judgment," Judge Moulton said.  By not proffering
affirmative evidence that its products could not have contributed
to the plaintiff's injury, Flowserve has failed to meet its
burden, Judge Moulton concluded.

A full-text copy of the Decision and Order dated August 22, 2016,
is available at https://is.gd/8PGywz from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment OK in "Malone" Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------
In the asbestos-related case captioned CHARLES D. MALONE and
ELIZABETH MALONE, Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION,
et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 14-406-GMS-SRF (D. Del.),
there are three motions for summary judgment before the court in
this asbestos-related personal injury action. The motions were
filed by Defendants Cummins, Inc., Foster Wheeler Corporation, and
CBS Corporation.

Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware recommended granting Cummins'
motion for summary judgment as there is no genuine issue of
material fact in dispute as to whether Mr. Malone was exposed to
an asbestos-containing Cummins product with sufficient frequency,
regularity, and proximity to meet Mississippi's product nexus
requirement.

Magistrate Fallon also recommended granting CBS' motion for
summary judgment as there is no genuine issue of material fact in
dispute regarding whether Mr. Malone was exposed to an asbestos-
containing product manufactured or distributed by Westinghouse.

Magistrate Fallon recommended granting Foster Wheeler's motion for
summary judgment as there is no issue of material fact in dispute
as to whether exposure to an asbestos-containing Foster Wheeler
product caused Mr. Malone's alleged injury.

A full-text copy of the Report and Recommendation dated August 29,
2016 is available at https://is.gd/xkudba from Leagle.com.

Charles D. Malone, Plaintiff, is represented by David W. deBruin,
The deBruin Firm LLC & Charles E. Soechting, Jr., pro hac vice.

Elizabeth Malone, Plaintiff, is represented by David W. deBruin,
The deBruin Firm LLC.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, is represented by
Barbara Anne Fruehauf, Esq. -- Wilbraham Lawler & Buba.

Armstrong International Inc., Defendant, is represented by Robert
Alexander Ranieri, Esq. -- rranieri@dmclaw.com -- Dickie McCamey &
Chilcote, P.C..

Blackmer Pump Company, Defendant, is represented by Krista Reale
Samis, Esq. -- ksamis@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin &
Mellott, LLC.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Beth E. Valocchi,
Esq. -- bvalocchi@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell LLC &
Shawn Edward Martyniak, Esq. -- smartyniak@swartzcampbell.com --
Swartz Campbell LLC.

Crane Co., Defendant, is represented by Nicholas E. Skiles, Esq. -
- nskiles@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward
Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Crown Cork & Seal Company Inc., Defendant, is represented by
Andrew G. Ahern, III, Esq., Joseph W. Benson, Esq..

Cummins Inc., Defendant, is represented by Barbara Anne Fruehauf,
Esq. -- Wilbraham Lawler & Buba.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, is represented by
Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak,
Swartz Campbell LLC.

General Electric Company, Defendant, is represented by Beth E.
Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Ingersoll Rand Company, Defendant, is represented by Jessica Lee
Tyler, Esq. -- JLTyler@mdwcg.com -- Marshall, Dennehey, Warner,
Coleman & Goggin.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by
Sally J. Daugherty, Esq. -- Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP.

Nash Engineering Company, Defendant, is represented by Eric Scott
Thompson, Esq. -- ethompson@fandpnet.com -- Franklin & Prokopik.

Pfizer Inc., Defendant, is represented by Daniel Partick Daly,
Esq. -- Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Velan Valve Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Donald
Robert Kinsley, Esq. -- drk@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel
Bradley & Anderson LLC & Paul A. Bradley, Esq. --
pab@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC.

William Powell Company, Defendant, is represented by Anne Kai
Seelaus, Esq. -- Barnard, Mezzanotte, Pinnie and Seelaus.

Zurn Industries LLC, Defendant, is represented by Daniel Partick
Daly, Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Trane US Inc., Defendant, is represented by Armand J. Della Porta,
Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin & Jessica Lee
Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Atwood & Morrill Company Inc., Defendant, is represented by Eric
Scott Thompson, Franklin & Prokopik.

Flowserve US Inc. Solely as Successor to Edward Valves, Inc.,
Defendant, is represented by Willard F. Preston, III, Goldfein &
Joseph.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Circ. Remands "Jefferson" to District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated
the order of the district court and remanded to the district court
for further proceedings the case JOANNIE L. JEFFERSON; ADRAINE J.
GEORGES; DERRIE K. JEFFERSON; RYAN F. JEFFERSON; THOMAS H.
JEFFERSON, IV; KEVIN L. JEFFERSON; BRAD A. JEFFERSON; LISA M.
WILLIAMS, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S
LONDON, Defendant-Appellant, No. 15-30211, Summary Calendar (5th
Cir.).

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London appeals the district
court's remand of this case to state court.  Arguing that complete
diversity existed at the time of remand between the plaintiffs and
Lloyd's, the only remaining defendant, Lloyd's contends that the
court was without discretion to remand the case.

Joannie Jefferson and other plaintiffs sued various defendants in
Louisiana state court for various state-law claims related to
asbestos exposure.  The plaintiffs eventually amended their
complaint to name Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London as an
additional defendant on the theory that it was liable as an excess
insurer.  Subsequently, one of the original defendants named the
Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa, Ltd. (IDC) and
another entity as third-party defendants.  IDC removed the case to
federal district court under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act,
asserting that it was a "political subdivision, agency or
instrumentality" of the South African government.  The propriety
of that removal is not in question.

Once in federal court, the case was transferred to the court
overseeing the multidistrict litigation on asbestos.  That court
granted summary judgment in favor of the South African entities
and, exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining
claims, transferred the case back to the Eastern District of
Louisiana.  After more defendants were dismissed pursuant to a
settlement, Lloyd's was the sole remaining defendant in the case.
The district court then, sua sponte, remanded the matter back to
Louisiana state court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(c)
after asserting that "the remaining parties in the matter are not
diverse." Lloyd's timely appealed, arguing that the remaining
parties were in fact diverse and the district court thus had no
discretion to remand the case.

The Fifth Circuit held that due to the absence of allegations or
evidence that would allow it to conclusively address this claim,
it vacates the district court's remand order and remands the case
to district court for further proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated August 25, 2016 is available
at https://is.gd/P46FVD from Leagle.com.

Paula Marcello Wellons, Esq. for Defendant-Appellant.

Jody Edward Anderman, Esq. for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jules Burton LeBlanc, IV, Esq. for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Cameron Ray Waddell, Esq. for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Denyse Finn Clancy, Esq. for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Deborah Ashbrooke Tullis, Esq. for Defendant-Appellant.

Renee Melancon, Esq. for Plaintiff-Appellee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Property Owners Win Summary Judgment Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARCI JONES Plaintiff, v. ANDY ANDERSON and
NANCY ANDERSON d/b/a BAR LO KENNELS GROOMING Defendants, Case No.
4:14CV366 (E.D. Tex.), Magistrate Judge Don D. Bush of the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman
Division granted the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.

Plaintiff was employed by Noble Finance.  Noble Finance rented a
commercial building from Defendants Andy and Nancy Anderson.  The
Plaintiff claims that, during the course of her employment, she
suffered personal injuries from being exposed to asbestos, mold
and dead animals.  The Plaintiff's suit against the Defendants
includes claims for her personal injuries as well as loss of
earning capacity and the cost of medical treatment.

In their motion, the Defendants argue that they are entitled to
summary judgment as a matter of law because they were not the
possessor of the property and thus owed no duty to the Plaintiff.
The Defendants further argue that, even if they owed a duty to the
Plaintiff, the Plaintiff's claims fail because she cannot meet her
burden regarding causation and damages as they relate to her
asbestosis claim as well as her claim involving mold and other
toxins.  The Defendants also argue that they are entitled to
judgment as a matter of law because all of the Plaintiff's claims
fail for the reason that limitations had passed.  Finally, the
Defendants argue that the Plaintiff cannot produce any evidence
that the Defendants are liable in their capacity as the
proprietors of "Bar Lo Kennels Grooming."

Judge Bush pointed out that the Plaintiff's suit was filed on June
6, 2014.  Therefore, if her claims accrued prior to June 6, 2012,
they are time barred.  Judge Bush noted that the Defendants have
shown through the summary judgment record that the Plaintiff had
"access to information that would lead a reasonable person to
believe that [s]he likely suffers from a work-related injury"
before June 6, 2012.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August
31, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/xuxwON from Leagle.com.

Marci Jones, Plaintiff, is represented by Jack F. Tracy, Esq. --
Jack Tracy Attorney.

Marci Jones, Plaintiff, is represented by Weldon E. Nesbitt, Esq.
-- Weldon E. Nesbitt, PC.

Andy Anderson, Defendant, is represented by Ronald Wesley Tidwell,
Esq. -- Ellis & Tidwell.

Nancy Anderson, Defendant, is represented by Ronald Wesley
Tidwell, Ellis & Tidwell.

Bar Lo Kennels Grooming, Defendant, is represented by Ronald
Wesley Tidwell, Ellis & Tidwell.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Atwood, Carrier Win Summary Ruling in "Mitchell"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JIMMY R. MITCHELL AND CONNIE MITCHELL, his
wife Plaintiffs, v. ATWOOD & MORILL CO., et al., Defendants, Civil
Action No. 15-958-SLR-SRF (D. Del.), Magistrate Judge Sherry R.
Fallon of the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware recommended granting the Defendants' motions for summary
judgment.

Jimmy and Connie Mitchell filed the asbestos action in the
Delaware Superior Court against multiple defendants on July 30,
2015, asserting personal injury claims arising from Mr. Mitchell's
alleged exposure to asbestos.  Defendant Foster Wheeler removed
the action to this court on October 22, 2015.

Atwood filed its motion for summary judgment on June 10, 2016.
Carrier filed its motion on June 24, 2016.  The Plaintiffs did not
respond to Defendants' motions.  On July 27, 2016, Counsel for
Carrier filed a letter with the court seeking dismissal given the
Plaintiffs' failure to oppose its summary judgment motion.

Atwood represents that there is no evidence in the record
regarding exposure to an Atwood product.  The Plaintiffs have not
responded with any evidence in the record of product
identification as to the moving Defendant.

Carrier argues that the evidence does not show that it
manufactured or supplied the insulation from which Mr. Mitchell
alleges exposure.

Magistrate Fallon held that Atwood's motion for summary judgment
should be granted.  Atwood asserts that there is "a complete
absence of evidence" regarding exposure to an asbestos-containing
Atwood product "because there are no facts on the record relative
to Atwood."  Because the Plaintiffs have not set forth any
evidence to refute this assertion, there is no evidence to
establish that exposure to an Atwood product was a substantial
factor in causing Mr. Mitchell's alleged injury, Magistrate Fallon
concluded.

Magistrate Fallon also concluded that Carrier's motion for summary
judgment should be granted.  Carrier argues that the evidence does
not show that it manufactured or supplied the insulation from
which Mr. Mitchell alleges exposure.  Magistrate Fallon held that
under maritime law, a manufacturer has no liability for harms
caused by a product it did not manufacture or distribute.  Mr.
Mitchell only associates asbestos with external insulation on
Carrier blowers.  However, Carrier submitted an affidavit from
Allen Hopkins, Contract Manger-Marine Systems Group for Carrier,
indicating that Carrier did not manufacture such asbestos-
containing insulation.  The Plaintiffs do not submit any evidence
to dispute this sworn testimony.  Accordingly, there is no
evidence to establish that exposure to an asbestos-containing
Carrier product was a substantial factor in causing Mr. Mitchell's
alleged injury, Magistrate Fallon concluded.

A full-text copy of the Report and Recommendation dated August 29,
2016 is available at https://is.gd/e0wOuB from Leagle.com.

Jimmy R. Mitchell, Plaintiff, is represented by Allen Dale Bowers,
II, Esq. -- Law Office of A. Dale Bowers.

Connie Mitchell, Plaintiff, is represented by Allen Dale Bowers,
II, Esq. -- Law Office of A. Dale Bowers.

Atwood & Morrill Co., Defendant, is represented by Eric Scott
Thompson, Esq. -- Franklin & Prokopik & Paul D. Sunshine, McGivney
& Kluger, P.C..

Carrier Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Armand J. Della
Porta, Jr., Esq. -- ajdellaporta@mdwcg.com -- Marshall, Dennehey,
Warner, Coleman & Goggin & Jessica Lee Tyler, Esq. -- Marshall,
Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Foster Wheeler LLC, Defendant, is represented by Beth E. Valocchi,
Esq. -- bvalocchi@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell LLC,
Allison L. Texter, Esq. -- atexter@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz
Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Esq. --
smartyniak@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell LLC.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Kelly A.
Costello, Esq. --  kelly.costello@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis
& Bockius LLP.

Nash Engineering Company, Defendant, is represented by Eric Scott
Thompson, Esq. -- ethompson@fandpnet.com -- Franklin & Prokopik &
Paul D. Sunshine, Esq. -- psunshine@mklaw.us.com -- McGivney &
Kluger, P.C..

Foster Wheeler LLC, Defendant, is represented by Beth E. Valocchi,
Swartz Campbell LLC, Allison L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC &
Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AT&T Wins Summary Judgment in "Jones"
------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DANIELLE TETTEH, Individually and as
Administrator of the Estate of DANIEL L. JONES, deceased,
Plaintiff, v. ALCATEL-LUCENT USA, INC., et al., Defendants, C.A.
No. N14C-08-023 ASB (Del. Sup.), Judge Vivian L. Medinilla of the
Superior Court of Delaware granted Defendant AT&T Corp.'s bid for
summary judgment, holding that the Plaintiff fails to provide any
evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact with respect to
whether AT&T could be held liable for Jones' work-place injury
based on the "negligent performance of an undertaking" under
Section 324A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts.

Daniel Jones was an employee of Western Electric Company.
Defendant AT&T Corp. is the former corporate parent of Western
Electric Company. Plaintiff Danielle Tetteh, individually and as
administrator of the Estate of Daniel Jones, seeks to hold AT&T
liable under the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 324A, for
Daniel Jones' alleged asbestos-related work injury. AT&T moves for
summary judgment.

AT&T did not undertake to render services to WECO which it should
have recognized as necessary for the protection of WECO's
employees, including Jones, Judge Medinilla said.  The Plaintiff
has not presented evidence from which a jury could reasonably
infer, without undue speculation, that AT&T assumed, and then
negligently breached, WECO's duty to Jones while he was working
for WECO, the judge added.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August
31, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/cva5Gm from Leagle.com

Beverly L. Bove, Esquire, Esq. -- Law Office of Beverly L. Bove,
Wilmington, Delaware, and Jackalyn A. Olinger, Esquire --
jolinger@mrhfmlaw.com -- Maune, Raichle, Hartley, French & Mudd
LLC, St. Louis, MO, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

John C. Phillips, Jr., Esquire -- jcp@pgmhlaw.com -- Phillips,
Goldman & Spence, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney for
Defendant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Silver's Bid to Continue Bail Partly Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. SHELDON SILVER,
Defendant, No. 15-CR-093 (VEC)(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Valerie Caproni of
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted in part and denied in part Silver's motion to
continue bail pending appeal and to stay the fine and forfeiture
orders pending appeal.

On November 30, 2015, Sheldon Silver, former Speaker of the New
York State Assembly, was convicted on two counts of honest
services mail fraud, two counts of honest services wire fraud, two
counts of extortion under color of official right, and one count
of money laundering.  On May 3, 2016, Silver was sentenced to
imprisonment and to pay a financial penalty and ordered to forfeit
the proceeds of the crimes. Silver moves to continue bail and to
stay the fine and forfeiture orders pending appeal.

Silver orchestrated two criminal schemes in which he abused his
position as the Speaker of the New York State Assembly and as an
elected Assemblyman for unlawful personal gain. The two schemes
follow the same basic model: Silver received bribes and kickbacks
in the form of referral fees from third party law firms in
exchange for actual and promised official actions. Silver also
engaged in money laundering pursuant to which he invested the
proceeds of his unlawful schemes into private, exclusive
investment vehicles.

In support of his motion to continue bail, Silver primarily argues
that the scope of "official action" in a quid pro quo -- an
element of both honest services fraud and extortion under color of
official right -- has changed dramatically due to the Supreme
Court's decision in McDonnell v. United States, No. 15-474.
According to Silver, the jury charge defining official action was
deficient under McDonnell, and many of the alleged official acts
introduced at trial do not rise to the level of official action
after McDonnell. Thus, there was an error in the jury charge, and
the error was not harmless because the jury may have improperly
convicted Silver based on conduct that is not illegal under
McDonnell, which would require reversal of the conviction or a new
trial as to all counts. Silver contends that there is therefore a
substantial question of law and fact likely to result in reversal
or an order for a new trial, thereby requiring that Silver's bail
be continued pending his appeal. Silver also moves pursuant to
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 38(c) and 32.2(d) to stay the
financial penalty and forfeiture order pending appeal. He asserts
that he has a meritorious appeal and that imposing the penalties
now would irreparably harm him and his wife because they would
need to sell their homes in order to pay the fine.  The Court
agrees that, in light of McDonnell, the continuation of bail
pending appeal and a stay of certain of the financial penalties
are warranted.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August
25, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/XKS4qf from Leagle.com.

Dr. Robert Taub, Interested Party, is represented by Lisa R.
Zornberg, Esq. -- lzornberg@lswlaw.com --Lankler Siffert & Wohl
LLP.

The New York Times Company, Intervenor, is represented by David
Edward McCraw, Esq. -- The New York Times Company.

NBC Universal Media, LLC, Intervenor, is represented by Daniel M.
Kummer, Esq. -- NBC Universal Media LLC.

USA, Plaintiff, is represented by Andrew Daniel Goldstein, United
States Attorney's Office, SDNY, Carrie Heather Cohen, U.S.
Attorney's Office, SDNY, Howard Seth Master, U.S. Attorney's
Office, SDNY & James M. McDonald, Us Doj, pro hac vice.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Still Defends Suits at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois Group, Inc., has determined that it is a named
defendant in asbestos lawsuits and claims involving approximately
2,000 plaintiffs and claimants, 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, "OI Inc. is a defendant in numerous lawsuits
alleging bodily injury and death as a result of exposure to
asbestos.  From 1948 to 1958, one of OI Inc.'s former business
units commercially produced and sold approximately $40 million of
a high-temperature, calcium-silicate based insulation material
containing asbestos.  OI Inc. sold its insulation business unit at
the end of April 1958.  The typical asbestos personal injury
lawsuit alleges various theories of liability, including
negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and seeks
compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages in various
amounts (herein referred to as "asbestos claims").

"As of June 30, 2016, OI Inc. has determined that it is a named
defendant in asbestos lawsuits and claims involving approximately
2,000 plaintiffs and claimants.  Based on an analysis of the
lawsuits pending as of December 31, 2015, approximately 82% of
plaintiffs either do not specify the monetary damages sought, or
in the case of court filings, claim an amount sufficient to invoke
the jurisdictional minimum of the trial court.  Approximately 11%
of plaintiffs specifically plead damages above the jurisdictional
minimum up to, and including, $15 million or less, and 7% of
plaintiffs specifically plead damages greater than $15 million but
less than or equal to $100 million.

"As indicated by the foregoing summary, current pleading practice
permits considerable variation in the assertion of monetary
damages.  OI Inc.'s experience resolving hundreds of thousands of
asbestos claims and lawsuits over an extended period demonstrates
that the monetary relief alleged in a complaint bears little
relevance to a claim's merits or disposition value.  Rather, the
amount potentially recoverable is determined by such factors as
the type and severity of the plaintiff's asbestos disease, the
plaintiff's medical history and exposure to other disease-causing
agents, the product identification evidence against OI Inc. and
other co-defendants, the defenses available to OI Inc. and other
co-defendants, the specific jurisdiction in which the claim is
made, and the plaintiff's firm representing the claimant.

"In addition to the pending claims set forth above, OI Inc. has
claims-handling agreements in place with many plaintiffs' counsel
throughout the country.  These agreements require evaluation and
negotiation regarding whether particular claimants qualify under
the criteria established by such agreements. The criteria for such
claims include verification of a compensable illness and a
reasonable probability of exposure to a product manufactured by OI
Inc.'s former business unit during its manufacturing period ending
in 1958."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Disposed 396K Claims at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc., disposed approximately 396,000 asbestos
claims, 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.

"OI Inc. has also been a defendant in other asbestos-related
lawsuits or claims involving maritime workers, medical monitoring
claimants, co-defendants and property damage claimants.  Based
upon its past experience, OI Inc. believes that these categories
of lawsuits and claims will not involve any material liability and
they are not included in the above description of pending matters
or in the following description of disposed matters.

"Since receiving its first asbestos claim, OI Inc. as of June 30,
2016, has disposed of the asbestos claims of approximately 396,000
plaintiffs and claimants at an average indemnity payment per claim
of approximately $9,200.  OI Inc.'s asbestos indemnity payments
have varied on a per claim basis, and are expected to continue to
vary considerably over time.  Asbestos-related cash payments for
2015, 2014 and 2013 were $138 million, $148 million, and $158
million, respectively.  The OI Inc.'s cash payments per claim
disposed (inclusive of legal costs) were approximately $95,000,
$81,000 and $93,000 for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014
and 2013, respectively."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Units Had 4,000 Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------
There were 4,000 claims outstanding against Pentair PLC's
subsidiaries, 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, "Our subsidiaries and numerous other companies
are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. These cases
typically involve product liability claims based primarily on
allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial
products that either contained asbestos or were attached to or
used with asbestos-containing components manufactured by third-
parties. Each case typically names between dozens to hundreds of
corporate defendants. While we have observed an increase in the
number of these lawsuits over the past several years, including
lawsuits by plaintiffs with mesothelioma-related claims, a large
percentage of these suits have not presented viable legal claims
and, as a result, have been dismissed by the courts. Our
historical strategy has been to mount a vigorous defense aimed at
having unsubstantiated suits dismissed, and, where appropriate,
settling suits before trial. Although a large percentage of
litigated suits have been dismissed, we cannot predict the extent
to which we will be successful in resolving lawsuits in the
future.

"As of June 30, 2016, there were approximately 4,000 claims
outstanding against our subsidiaries. This amount includes
adjustments for claims that are not actively being prosecuted.
This amount is not adjusted for claims that identify incorrect
defendants or duplicate other actions. In addition, the amount
does not include certain claims pending against third parties for
which we have been provided an indemnification.
Periodically, we perform an analysis with the assistance of
outside counsel and other experts to update our estimated
asbestos-related assets and liabilities. Our estimate of the
liability and corresponding insurance recovery for pending and
future claims and defense costs is based on our historical claim
experience and estimates of the number and resolution cost of
potential future claims that may be filed. Our legal strategy for
resolving claims also impacts these estimates.
Our estimate of asbestos-related insurance recoveries represents
estimated amounts due to us for previously paid and settled claims
and the probable reimbursements relating to our estimated
liability for pending and future claims. In determining the amount
of insurance recoverable, we consider a number of factors,
including available insurance, allocation methodologies and the
solvency and creditworthiness of insurers.

"Our estimated liability for asbestos-related claims was $233.0
million and $237.9 million as of June 30, 2016 and December 31,
2015, respectively, and was recorded in Other non-current
liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for
pending and future claims and related defense costs. Our estimated
receivable for insurance recoveries was $109.0 million and $111.0
million as of June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively,
and was recorded in Other non-current assets in the Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets.

"The amounts recorded by us for asbestos-related liabilities and
insurance-related assets are based on our strategies for resolving
our asbestos claims and currently available information as well as
estimates and assumptions. Key variables and assumptions include
the number and type of new claims filed each year, the average
cost of resolution of claims, the resolution of coverage issues
with insurance carriers, the amounts of insurance and the related
solvency risk with respect to our insurance carriers, and the
indemnifications we have provided to and received from third
parties. Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables
are subject to greater uncertainty in the latter portion of the
projection period. Other factors that may affect our liability and
cash payments for asbestos-related matters include uncertainties
surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms of state or federal
tort legislation and the applicability of insurance policies among
subsidiaries. As a result, actual liabilities or insurance
recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than those
recorded if assumptions used in our calculations vary
significantly from actual results."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Claims Pursued Against Quaker Chemical
----------------------------------------------------------
Quaker Chemical Corporation had no asbestos claims have been
actively pursued, 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, "An inactive subsidiary of AC Products, Inc.,
that was acquired in 1978 sold certain products containing
asbestos, primarily on an installed basis, and is among the
defendants in numerous lawsuits alleging injury due to exposure to
asbestos.  The subsidiary discontinued operations in 1991 and has
no remaining assets other than the proceeds received from
insurance settlements. The overwhelming majority of these claims
have been disposed of without payment and there have been no
adverse judgments against the subsidiary.  Based on a continued
analysis of the existing and anticipated future claims against
this subsidiary, it is currently projected that the subsidiary's
total liability over the next 50 years for these claims is less
than $3.0 million (excluding costs of defense).  Although the
Company has also been named as a defendant in certain of these
cases, no claims have been actively pursued against the Company,
and the Company has not contributed to the defense or settlement
of any of these cases pursued against the subsidiary.  These cases
were handled by the subsidiary's primary and excess insurers who
had agreed in 1997 to pay all defense costs and be responsible for
all damages assessed against the subsidiary arising out of
existing and future asbestos claims up to the aggregate limits of
their policies.  A significant portion of this primary insurance
coverage was provided by an insurer that is insolvent, and the
other primary insurers asserted that the aggregate limits of their
policies have been exhausted.  The subsidiary challenged the
applicability of these limits to the claims being brought against
the subsidiary.  In response, two of the three carriers entered
into separate settlement and release agreements with the
subsidiary in 2005 and 2007 for $15.0 million and $20.0 million,
respectively.  The proceeds of both settlements are restricted and
can only be used to pay claims and costs of defense associated
with the subsidiary's asbestos litigation.  In 2007, the
subsidiary and the remaining primary insurance carrier entered
into a Claim Handling and Funding Agreement, under which the
carrier is paying 27% of defense and indemnity costs incurred by
or on behalf of the subsidiary in connection with asbestos bodily
injury claims.  The agreement continues until terminated and can
only be terminated by either party by providing a minimum of two
years prior written notice.  As of June 30, 2016, no notice of
termination has been given under this agreement.  At the end of
the term of the agreement, the subsidiary may choose to again
pursue its claim against this insurer regarding the application of
the policy limits.  The Company believes that, if the coverage
issues under the primary policies with the remaining carrier are
resolved adversely to the subsidiary and all settlement proceeds
were used, the subsidiary may have limited additional coverage
from a state guarantee fund established following the insolvency
of one of the subsidiary's primary insurers.  Nevertheless,
liabilities in respect of claims may exceed the assets and
coverage available to the subsidiary."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Had 805 Active Cases at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation was a defendant in approximately
805 active cases involving approximately 3,300 plaintiffs,
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, "As of June 30, 2016, U. S. Steel was a
defendant in approximately 805 active cases involving
approximately 3,300 plaintiffs. The vast majority of these cases
involve multiple defendants. At December 31, 2015, U. S. Steel was
a defendant in approximately 820 active cases involving
approximately 3,315 plaintiffs. About 2,500, or approximately 76
percent, of these plaintiff claims are currently pending in
jurisdictions which permit filings with massive numbers of
plaintiffs. Based upon U. S. Steel's experience in such cases, it
believes that the actual number of plaintiffs who ultimately
assert claims against U. S. Steel will likely be a small fraction
of the total number of plaintiffs. During the six months ended
June 30, 2016, dismissals, settlements and other dispositions
resolved approximately 145 cases, and new case filings added
approximately 130 cases. During 2015, settlements and other
dispositions resolved approximately 415 cases, and new case
filings added approximately 275 cases.

"Historically, asbestos-related claims against U. S. Steel fall
into three major groups: (1) claims made by persons who allegedly
were exposed to asbestos on the premises of U. S. Steel
facilities; (2) claims made by persons allegedly exposed to
products manufactured by U. S. Steel; and (3) claims made under
certain federal and maritime laws by employees of former
operations of U. S. Steel.

"The amount U. S. Steel accrues for pending asbestos claims is not
material to U. S. Steel's financial condition. However, U. S.
Steel is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of asbestos-
related claims due to a number of uncertainties, including (1) the
rates at which new claims are filed, (2) the number of and effect
of bankruptcies of other companies traditionally defending
asbestos claims, (3) uncertainties associated with the variations
in the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, (4)
uncertainties regarding the facts, circumstances and disease
process with each claim, and (5) any new legislation enacted to
address asbestos-related claims. Despite these uncertainties,
management believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters
will not have a material adverse effect on U. S. Steel's financial
condition, although the resolution of such matters could
significantly impact results of operations for a particular
quarter."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Had $407MM Liability at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation had $407 million asbestos-related
liability for pending and future claims, 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, "The Corporation is and has been involved in a
large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state
courts during the past four decades. These suits principally
allege personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-
containing products and frequently seek both actual and punitive
damages. The alleged claims primarily relate to products that UCC
sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products
located on UCC's premises and UCC's responsibility for asbestos
suits filed against a former UCC subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc.
("Amchem"). In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate
that they have suffered any compensable loss as a result of such
exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure
to the Corporation's products.

"The Corporation expects more asbestos-related suits to be filed
against UCC and Amchem in the future, and will aggressively defend
or reasonably resolve, as appropriate, both pending and future
claims.

"Based on a study completed in January 2003 by Analysis, Research
& Planning Corporation (now known as Ankura Consulting Group, LLC
("Ankura") as a result of the March 2016 merger of Analysis,
Research & Planning Corporation and Ankura), the Corporation
increased its December 31, 2002 asbestos-related liability for
pending and future claims for the 15-year period ending in 2017 to
$2.2 billion, excluding future defense and processing costs. Since
then, the Corporation has compared current asbestos claim and
resolution activity to the results of the most recent Ankura study
at each balance sheet date to determine whether the accrual
continues to be appropriate. In addition, the Corporation has
requested Ankura to review the Corporation's historical asbestos
claim and resolution activity each year since 2004 to determine
the appropriateness of updating the most recent Ankura study.

"In October 2015, the Corporation requested Ankura to review its
historical asbestos claim and resolution activity and determine
the appropriateness of updating its December 2014 study. In
response to that request, Ankura reviewed and analyzed data
through September 30, 2015. In December 2015, Ankura stated that
an update of its study would not provide a more likely estimate of
future events than the estimate reflected in the December 2014
study and, therefore, the estimate in that study remained
applicable. Based on the Corporation's own review of the asbestos
claim and resolution activity and Ankura's response, the
Corporation determined that no change to the accrual was required.
The Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending and
future claims was $437 million at December 31, 2015, and
approximately 21 percent of the recorded liability related to
pending claims and approximately 79 percent related to future
claims.

"Based on the Corporation's review of 2016 activity, it was
determined that no adjustment to the accrual was required at June
30, 2016. The Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending
and future claims was $407 million at June 30, 2016. Approximately
22 percent of the recorded liability related to pending claims and
approximately 78 percent related to future claims.

"The Corporation has receivables for insurance recoveries related
to its asbestos liability as well as receivables for defense and
resolution costs submitted to insurance carriers that have
settlement agreements in place regarding their asbestos-related
insurance coverage. The Corporation continues to believe that its
recorded receivable for insurance recoveries from all insurance
carriers is probable of collection. At June 30, 2016, the
Corporation's receivable for insurance recoveries related to its
asbestos liability and defense and resolution costs was $44
million ($61 million at December 31, 2015).

"The Corporation expenses defense costs as incurred. The pretax
impact for defense and resolution costs, net of insurance, was $18
million for the second quarter of 2016 ($21 million in the second
quarter of 2015) and $35 million in the first six months of 2016
($45 million in the first six months of 2015), and reflected in
"Cost of sales" in the consolidated statements of income."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trimas Corp. Had 950 Pending Cases at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trimas Corporation had 950 pending cases involving an aggregate of
6,031 claimants alleging personal injury from exposure to
asbestos, 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, "As of June 30, 2016, the Company was a party
to 950 pending cases involving an aggregate of 6,031 claimants
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos containing
materials formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated and
otherwise) manufactured or distributed by certain of the Company's
subsidiaries for use primarily in the petrochemical refining and
exploration industries.

"In addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute
its products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers
prior to acquisition. The Company believes that many of its
pending cases relate to locations at which none of its gaskets
were distributed or used.

"The Company may be subjected to significant additional asbestos-
related claims in the future, the cost of settling cases in which
product identification can be made may increase, and the Company
may be subjected to further claims in respect of the former
activities of its acquired gasket distributors. The Company is
unable to make a meaningful statement concerning the monetary
claims made in the asbestos cases given that, among other things,
claims may be initially made in some jurisdictions without
specifying the amount sought or by simply stating the requisite or
maximum permissible monetary relief, and may be amended to alter
the amount sought. The large majority of claims do not specify the
amount sought. Of the 6,031 claims pending at June 30, 2016, 101
set forth specific amounts of damages (other than those stating
the statutory minimum or maximum). At June 30, 2016, of the 101
claims that set forth specific amounts, there were no claims
seeking specific amounts for punitive damages.

"In addition, relatively few of the claims have reached the
discovery stage and even fewer claims have gone past the discovery
stage.

"Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all
asbestos-related cases, some of which were filed over 20 years
ago, have been approximately $8.1 million. All relief sought in
the asbestos cases is monetary in nature. To date, approximately
40% of the Company's costs related to settlement and defense of
asbestos litigation have been covered by its primary insurance.
Effective February 14, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage-
in-place agreement with its first level excess carriers regarding
the coverage to be provided to the Company for asbestos-related
claims when the primary insurance is exhausted. The coverage-in-
place agreement makes asbestos defense costs and indemnity
coverage available to the Company that might otherwise be disputed
by the carriers and provides a methodology for the administration
of such expenses. Nonetheless, the Company believes it is likely
there will be a period within the next 6 to 18 months, prior to
the commencement of coverage under this agreement and following
exhaustion of the Company's primary insurance coverage, during
which the Company will be solely responsible for defense costs and
indemnity payments, the duration of which would be subject to the
scope of damage awards and settlements paid.

"Based on the settlements made to date and the number of claims
dismissed or withdrawn for lack of product identification, the
Company believes that the relief sought (when specified) does not
bear a reasonable relationship to its potential liability. Based
upon the Company's experience to date, including the trend in
annual defense and settlement costs incurred to date, and other
available information (including the availability of excess
insurance), the Company does not believe these cases will have a
material adverse effect on its financial position and results of
operations or cash flows."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers Want $19MM From Asbestos Lawyers
----------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Humana, Aetna and UnitedHealthcare sued five Texas law firms,
demanding $19.5 million in medical benefits they paid the firms'
asbestos clients.

Asbestos became prized building material in the late 1800s for its
fire-resistant and sound-absorption qualities. By the 1950s, the
friable mineral had been incorporated into nearly every aspect of
commercial and home buildings: flooring, roofing, concrete,
insulation and bricks.

But inhaling asbestos can cause lung diseases, including cancer.
Class action lawsuits and government regulations have resulted in
tens of billions of dollars in judgments and other costs,
including remediation of buildings and asbestos mines.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1990 banned materials
containing more than 1 percent asbestos from being sprayed on
buildings, pipes and electrical lines.

Most asbestos personal injury claims are settled through asbestos
bankruptcy trusts, set up in the reorganization plans of bankrupt
companies that manufactured asbestos, according to the insurers'
Sept. 6 lawsuit in Galveston Federal Court.

Once an asbestos trust is established, an asbestos claimant must
seek a settlement from the trust rather than through a lawsuit
against the debtor, the insurers say in the complaint.

"There are presently more than 50 asbestos trusts in operation.
Additional asbestos trusts are scheduled to be established or
[start] accepting claims within the next 12-18 months.
Collectively, these trusts will hold more than $40 billion in
assets," the lawsuit states.

The three major insurance companies say the five defendant law
firms have pocketed more than $19.5 million in bankruptcy trust
settlements that belong to them, as reimbursement for medical
benefits they provided for 297 of the firms' clients.

The insurers say they had to review dozens of bankruptcy documents
and file motions in bankruptcy courts to identify those 297
people, because asbestos bankruptcy trust claims operate "under a
cloak of secrecy" with no public disclosure of who gets paid, how
much they are paid, nor from which trust.

The insurers say that as Medicare Part C providers, federal law
requires the law firms to reimburse their medical benefit payments
to the firms' clients.

They say the law firms repay benefits to the federal government
when their asbestos clients are covered by Medicare Parts A and B,
which are administered directly by the feds, but ignore those
bills when the clients are covered by private insurers under
Medicare Part C.

They allege ERISA and Medicare Act violations and unjust
enrichment.

They want the law firms ordered to hold asbestos settlements in a
trust account.

They also seek a declaration they are entitled to a list of the
names of all asbestos claimants represented by the law firms, and
reimbursement of medical benefits paid to the 297 claimants before
the firms pay out any more asbestos settlements.

The insurers are represented by John Thomas, Esq. --
jthomas@hicks-thomas.com -- with Hicks Thomas in Houston.

The defendants are Brent Coon & Associates, and Reuad Morgan &
Quinn LLP, both based in Beaumont; The Bogdan Law Firm, and
Shrader & Associates LLP, both of Houston; Arlington-based Foster
& Sear LLP; and Austin-based Hissey Kientz LLP.

None of the firms responded to requests for comment.

Aetna, Humana and UnitedHealthcare are three of the six largest
health insurers in the United States. Together, they insure more
than 100 million U.S. residents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Unlikely to Pay for Aboriginal Kids
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Peacock, writing for ABC News, reported that an Aboriginal
man has developed the fatal asbestos cancer mesothelioma after
playing in the tailings from James Hardie's white asbestos mine at
Baryulgil, in northern NSW, when he was a child.

Ffloyd Laurie, 54, who has never worked with asbestos, was exposed
to the deadly dust as a schoolchild when tailings from the mine
were widely used as landfill on the roads, around houses and even
at the school in the tiny community.

"We used to have it all around our yard," Mr Laurie told 7.30.

"We used to play marbles. We used to make pancakes and eat it! We
didn't know what it was."

James Hardie operated the mine from just after World War II until
1976, shortly before it closed.

But the former asbestos multinational appears unlikely to pay Mr
Laurie any compensation.

Because of a special clause in the agreement struck in 2005
between the NSW government and James Hardie after it moved
offshore, it can only be sued in relation to the Baryulgil mine as
a "defendant of last resort".

Mr Laurie's lawyer, Tanya Segelov, has instead commenced
proceedings against the NSW Education Department, because Mr
Laurie and his sister, brother and schoolmates were all exposed to
asbestos in the playground of the Baryulgil Primary School.

"It's absurd that the people responsible are not being sued, but
it's the state and the taxpayers who will be paying compensation
for what really is James Hardie's problem," Ms Segelov told 7.30.

"It makes me really angry to think that decades after the dangers
of asbestos were known, these kids had no chance. They were
covered in it."

'Asbestos mountains were my first sand hills'

Although the company was aware of the dangers of asbestos and its
link to cancer for many decades, the Aboriginal people from
Baryulgil say they were never warned.

"When they dropped off the new tailings we would just go and play
in these piles of asbestos," Mr Laurie's sister, Di Randall, told
7.30.

"To us it was just like dirt or sand. We thought it wasn't harmful
because no-one told us that it was, so we just dived in it."

Michelle Larkin remembers when she was about 10 years old watching
the truck from the mine dump loads of asbestos tailings outside
the school.

"We were all given little buckets to carry the asbestos up through
the school and we started building a volleyball court," she told
7.30.

"Straight after school, we were into it, diving into it. It wasn't
anything new to us because we lived with asbestos. Asbestos
mountains were my first sand hills."

Fears Ffloyd is just the first

Although Mr Laurie is the first of the children to develop
mesothelioma, the fear is others might too.

Ms Randall told 7.30 she is now scared to have a medical check-up.

"I'm frightened that I could have something, so every day I just
wake up and think I'm the lucky one," she said.

"But then my luck could run out, too. We don't know."

Mesothelioma is almost always fatal within a year of first
diagnosis.

Mr Laurie says with the little time he has left, he wants to "live
life to the full", including going on the honeymoon he never had
with his wife.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MPs to Move Out of "Asbestos-Riddled Parliament
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arj Singh, writing for Independent.co.uk, reported that MPs could
move out of the Houses of Parliament for six years if they back a
parliamentary committee's recommendation of a temporary decant so
restoration work can take place.

The Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster will recommend
that MPs move into the nearby Department of Health with peers
going to the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, a committee
source said.

According to The Times, Prime Minister Theresa May is set to back
the call, increasing the likelihood that it will happen, but it
will still be subject to a parliamentary vote.

The committee will recommend that the move takes place between
2022 and 2028, the source said.

A study by Deloitte last year highlighted the appalling condition
of the Palace of Westminster, with potentially deadly fire risks,
collapsing roofs, crumbling walls, leaking pipes and large
quantities of asbestos.

The committee of MPs and peers is set to back one of the options
set out in the study -- that there should be a full decant,
estimated by Deloitte to cost between GBP3 billion to GBP4.3
billion -- with the most likely figure GBP3.5 billion.

If politicians refuse to leave the building, patching it up to
basic standards will take around 32 years and could cost between
GBP4.9 billion and GBP7.1 billion, the June 2015 study said.

A Downing Street spokeswoman said: "We are awaiting the report and
will respond in due course."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wave of Victims to Emerge From Toxic School
------------------------------------------------------------
Hamish Broome, writing for The Northern Star, reported that the
lawyer representing a Casino man dying from asbestos-related lung
disease mesothelioma has said she expected a wave of victims to
emerge in coming years.

Tanya Segelov, who is representing 54-year-old Ffloyd Laurie in a
lawsuit against the NSW Education Department, said it would be
"amazing" if others who grew up in the Aboriginal community of
Baryulgil in the 1960s and 1970s failed to contract the disease.

"It takes 40 years to develop, so this is the time," Ms Segelov
said.

"What we know is there was a whole community exposed in this way.
They're not all going to get it. It's a lottery as to who will and
who won't."

"They know about the disease, they've lived with the consequences
of it. Now we're seeing the next generation of it.

"The insidious thing about asbestos is you've got to wait 40 years
for it to develop."

Mr Laurie was diagnosed in June with the disease after suffering
from a prolonged cough.

Following scans, doctors immediately recognised the fluid on his
lungs as characteristic of the deadly disease.

Mesothelioma sufferers are usually given between nine and 12
months to live.

Unlike the previous generation who contracted the disease after
working in the notorious James Hardie asbestos mine, this
generation was exposed to asbestos tailings away from the mine
while at school and playing in their community.

Ms Segelov said ironically, the Baryulgil community had very happy
memories of growing up in a "loving and very stable" community --
partly thanks to the reliable, prosperity afforded to their
community from jobs in the mine.

But the memories of the idyllic childhood had long been shattered
by the deadly legacy of the mine and the tragedy to all the
families who lost their dads and uncles.

Ms Segelov said the compensation sought from the NSW Education
Department would come in enough time for Mr Laurie to afford the
"best available" treatment for the disease, to provide peace of
mind for his family -- for whom he was the main breadwinner -- and
to enjoy his life in the little time he has left.

She said the broader goal of the lawsuit was to put it "on the
record" that the first child of the original generation exposed to
the disease had been struck down.

She said because Baryulgil was an Aboriginal community many of
their illnesses had been put down to "lifestyle diseases" by James
Hardie over the years, but "they can't argue this one" because
asbestos was the sole cause of mesothelioma.

"There will be more people coming after Ffloyd," she said.

"We want to make sure that this community is not forgotten."

The lawsuit will be expedited and is expected to be resolved
within three months.

"We hope the state will come to the table and negotiate a
settlement," Ms Segelov said.

Rivers student is likely to be the first of many diagnosed with
cancer as a result of tailings from a nearby James Hardie asbestos
mine being spread throughout the school's playground.

ABC 7.30 last night reported the case of Ffloyd Laurie, a 54-year-
old man diagnosed with the incurable asbestos cancer mesothelioma
earlier this year.

Mr Laurie spent his childhood in the 1960s and 70s in Baryulgil,
south of Casino, where his father worked at the nearby asbestos
mine, operated by James Hardie from 1953 to 1976.

His father subsequently died from an asbestos related disease
contracted due to his former employment.

Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia president, Barry Robson,
said Mr Laurie was believed to be the first former student
diagnosed with mesothelioma as a result of the long-running
practice of using asbestos mine tailings in the school grounds.

Children played and crawled through asbestos

"For decades, the mine manager would arrange for asbestos tailings
to be sent down the road from the mine and dumped in the school,"
Mr Robson said.

"Former students recall being given buckets which they filled with
asbestos and used to fill holes in the volleyball court and
elsewhere in the playground, while photographs show piles of
asbestos waste used as part of an 'obstacle course' for the
children to play and crawl through.

"Decades after the deadly nature of asbestos was confirmed, this
toxic substance was deliberately being delivered to a public
school where children would be exposed to it daily."

First diagnosis from childhood exposure

Mr Robson said that while many former mine workers and residents
of Baryulgil had contracted asbestos-related diseases, Mr Laurie
was the first whose only exposure occurred in childhood.

"Mr Laurie was a non-smoker who never worked with asbestos, so his
childhood in Baryulgil was unquestionably the cause of his
diagnosis with aggressive, incurable mesothelioma," he said.

"With up to 70 children enrolled at the school at any time, and
the use of asbestos waste continuing for decades, there is no
doubt he is just the first of many who will have their lives cut
short."

Taxpayers to foot the bill

Mr Robson said it was a disgrace that taxpayers, rather than James
Hardie, would be forced to foot the entire compensation bill
resulting from the practice.

"Under the compensation arrangements negotiated in 2005, James
Hardie became a defendant of last resort, forcing victims to sue
any other possible organisation first before they could make a
claim against the nation's largest former asbestos producer," he
said.

"That means the NSW Government, and by default taxpayers, will be
left footing the entire compensation bill for former Baryulgil
Public School students who fall victim to the asbestos waste that
was dumped at their school by James Hardie."

Mr Laurie's legal action

Mr Laurie is taking legal action in a ground-breaking case against
the NSW Government in relation to his exposure to asbestos at the
public school.

He is being represented by dust diseases specialist Tanya Segelov,
who is also a member of the Federal Government's Asbestos Safety
and Eradication Council.

She said he never worked in industries where asbestos is
prevalent, and that his only known exposure to the toxic substance
occurred at Baryulgil.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Atty Calls for Workplace Protection for All
------------------------------------------------------------
Leigh Day, in an article for Lexology, wrote that asbestos lawyer
and campaigner Harminder Bains, Esq. -- hbains@leighday.co.uk --
has called on the Government to press for action on the removal of
asbestos in schools and workplaces as a huge restoration project
is announced to make safe the Houses of parliament.

Harminder, whose father died of mesothelioma, and who has
campaigned for the removal of potentially lethal asbestos products
in workplaces, including schools and hospitals, says, "I am
saddened that while MPs are quick to preserve their own safety
when it comes to asbestos removal, schoolchildren and people
working in offices, hospitals and factories, do not have the same
choice."

The Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster is to recommend
that MPs move out of the Houses of Parliament for six years while
an extensive restoration programme takes place.

A report on the state of the buildings last years highlighted
problems including fire risks, collapsing roofs and walls, leaking
pipes and large quantities of asbestos.

Exposure to asbestos is the only cause of the fatal lung cancer
mesothelioma which causes thousands of premature deaths every
year.

In 2015 the all-party Parliamentary Group of Occupational Safety
and Health called for immediate action to remove asbestos from the
UK's workplaces and public buildings.

At the time, Ian Lavery, chair of the all-party group said: "There
is far too much complacency about the asbestos which we can still
find in hundreds of thousands of workplaces as well as a majority
of schools where children face exposure to this killer dust.

Harminder Bains, partner in the asbestos team at Leigh Day said:

"Asbestos dust is a killer. People have the right to work and
study in buildings that are free of this menace.

"Unlike MPs, who will enjoy the restoration of their workplace at
tax payers' expense, thousands of UK citizens will go on to
develop a fatal lung disease because they have been exposed to
asbestos.

"The Government should do all it can to get asbestos out of
schools. Pupils, teachers and support staff all deserve protection
from asbestos, and it is deeply disappointing that the Department
of Education still does not have a long term strategy in place to
deal with this lethal problem.

"All workers deserve protection, not just the ones who are lucky
enough to work in the Houses of Parliament."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Fears Close Hotel Development Site
------------------------------------------------------------
Pablo Vinales, writing for ABC News, reported that a hotel
construction site in central Hobart has been temporarily shut down
after a suspected discovery of asbestos in concrete building
material.

About 80 construction workers on the site were told to stop work
when sampling from the material, known as infill, was tested for
the potentially deadly fibre.

Hutchinson Builders confirmed a hygienist was brought in to assess
the situation.

Richie Hassett from the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy
Union (CFMEU) was called to the site and said he was concerned
about the finding.

"Management contacted me with some issues about asbestos on site,
the site's been shut down at the moment and there's some remedial
works being done as we speak," said Mr Hassett.

The union said the sub-contractor that supplied the infill
obtained it from a nearby demolition site that was contaminated
with asbestos.

Mr Hassett fears it could have gone to other work sites.

"What other sites has this gone to, what other driveways has this
gone to? We just don't know," said Mr Hassett.

Asbestos 'prevalent' in Tasmania

Michael Kerschbaum from the Master Builders Association said the
incident was concerning, but asbestos was prevalent in Tasmania's
building industry.

"It's opportune for people to consider where they're getting their
fill from, the source of that fill and just have a think about
whether it may contain asbestos," he said.

The sub-contractor has been contacted for comment.

Site project manager Jo Gregg said work was stopped as a
precaution.

"We had some material come to site and we've taken the proactive
step of shutting the site down just while we take some
precautionary and investigative steps to find out what is that
material," said Ms Gregg.

"Very shortly after we shut the whole site down and brought
everyone into the site shed and just explained that we were taking
precautionary steps while we did further investigations."

In a statement, Worksafe Tasmania confirmed it was investigating.

The hotel is being developed by the Sydney-based Ressen Property
Group.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Rugby Player Fronts ICAC Over Dumping Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Raveen Hunjan, writing for ABC News, reported that former rugby
league player Craig Izzard has fronted the Independent Commission
Against Corruption, denying allegations he solicited a bribe early
last year and claiming he acted honestly in his role as an illegal
waste dumping investigator for western Sydney councils.

Mr Izzard is facing the ICAC over four allegations he asked for
money in return for ignoring illegal asbestos-ridden waste dumping
between January 2015 and March this year.

The inquiry was shown two emails sent to Mr Izzard in 2014, where
staff raised concerns about waste dumping at a Luddenham property,
in Sydney's west, where asbestos was later found.

"The job was referred to you a while back, could you please
provide council with the details of your investigation," said one
email.

Counsel assisting the inquiry, James Mack, asked Mr Izzard whether
he investigated the matter.

"Not that I can remember," said Mr Izzard.

"Did it surprise you that 11 samples taken by the EPA from 405
Willowdene contained asbestos?" asked Mr Mack.

"It would surprise me, yes," said Mr Izzard.

Following the incident, the owner of the property faced Liverpool
local court, pleaded guilty to dumping asbestos and was fined
$55,000.

The man who transported the waste to the Luddenham property was
also later fined $25,000.

Mr Izzard was also asked about one allegation of soliciting a
bribe from a man named Antonio Barillaro in exchange for not
investigating the man over alleged illegal landfill operations at
a Badgerys Creek property.

Mr Mack: "You never solicited a bribe from him?"

Mr Izzard: "No."

Mr Mack: "He never said the words to you, 'you're not getting a
dollar from me'?"

Mr Izzard: "No."

Mr Mack: "Do you know anybody by the name Antonio Barillaro?"

Mr Izzard: "No."

Mr Mack: "Are you telling the truth Mr Izzard?"

Mr Izzard: "I certainly am."

Counsel assisting took Mr Izzard through Penrith City council's
codes of conduct, quizzing him on his obligations not to abuse his
power and to act ethically in his role.

Mr Izzard said he did not know the code of conduct document "word
for word," but that he was guided by the obligations set out.

"Is it your evidence that whilst employed within the Western
Sydney Regional Illegal Dumping Squad that you always acted
honestly?" asked Mr Mack.

"I would say yes," replied Mr Izzard.

Mr Izzard will return to front the inquiry.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Additional Asbestos Found at VHS South
-------------------------------------------------------
Deborah M. Marko, writing for The Daily Journal, reported that
electrical and sheet metal workers stopped work at Vineland High
School South when additional asbestos was discovered in the
kitchen area, according to school officials.

The subcontractors were focused on duct work as part of the $10
million, two-year replacement of the heating/hot water system and
the installation of air conditioning at the 53-year-old school.

How it started: Vineland High air conditioning project hits snag

The latest discovery of asbestos was found over the dishwasher
area, Wayne Weaver, the school district's facilities director,
told The Daily Journal.

The area includes about three clusters measuring about 12-by-12
inches, he said.

This area was not included during the 20-day around-the-clock
abatement project that kicked in when asbestos was discovered in
July, according to school board president Scott English. That
project wrapped up Aug 31.

This latest asbestos discovery was in a "very small concealed
area," said Edye Maier, spokeswoman for the  N.J. Schools
Development Authority, who said the material was scheduled to be
removed today. The crews that stopped work followed protocol, she
said.

An environmental specialist was called in and air samples tested
clean, she said.

Related story: VHS South asbestos project completed on time

"I am very frustrated, I just want the project to come to a
close," the school board president said. "Unfortunately, you can't
stop this from happening when you're into a building this age."

Students were not exposed to the asbestos, Weaver said, noting the
kitchen area remains closed, along with the gym area, while the
construction work continues.

Students were scheduled to be dismissed due to heat previously.

This newly discovered asbestos will be removed, Weaver said. Then
the subcontractors will be back, he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sri Lanka to Take New Steps Over Asbestos Use
--------------------------------------------------------------
News First reported that Sri Lanka's cabinet has decided to
control the importation and use of asbestos from January 1, 2018
with a plan of prohibiting the manufacture of asbestos-related
products by 2024, a top government minister said.

"All varieties of asbestos including white asbestos used in Sri
Lanka have been found to be carcinogenic by the World Health
Organization," Cabinet spokesman, Minister Gayantha Karunathilake
told reporters at the Cabinet press briefing on Wednesday.

"The import of blue asbestos, already identified as cancerous by
the WHO has been banned in the Island since 1987" Karunathilake
said.

Asbestos is used in the manufacture of roof tiles, cement, pipes,
and break-pads of vehicles, papers and ropes.

According to the WHO, all types of asbestos cause lung cancer,
mesothelioma, cancer of the larynx and ovary.

Exposure to asbestos occurs through inhalation of fibers in the
air around living and working spaces. WHO says around 125 million
people in the world are exposed to asbestos at the workplace.

The government said the move to control the use of asbestos is
aimed at minimising its impact on health and the environment, and
to shift consumers to more beneficial substitutes.

About 80 percent of asbestos imported to Sri Lanka are used for
the manufacture of roofing sheets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plaintiff Seeks to Restore Asbestos Verdict
------------------------------------------------------------
The Madison County Record reported that former plasterer Joseph
Sondag, who won a jury verdict in an asbestos trial but lost it on
appeal due to his excellent breathing, aims to restore it at the
Illinois Supreme Court.

Sondag wants the Court to review a decision of Fourth District
appellate judges in Springfield, who found he suffered no physical
harm from asbestos.

They ruled that McLean County Circuit Judge Rebecca Foley should
have directed a verdict for Tremco Inc., instead of entering
$70,000 judgment against it.

Sondag used Tremco tape, which contained asbestos, from 1957 to
1983.

He sued Tremco and other asbestos defendants in 2008, after
physician Al Rossi found scarring and pleural plaques in his
lungs.

At trial in 2014, Rossi testified that at age 82, Sondag could
climb two flights of stairs at a running pace without shortness of
breath.

He told jurors a pulmonary test showed excellent diffusion
capacity for a man of his age who had smoked.

Daughter Julie Grant told jurors she had noticed shortness of
breath, and spouse Phyllis Sondag told them it had grown worse in
the last year and a half.

Jurors awarded damages but didn't break them down by category.

On appeal, Tremco argued that physical changes resulting from
asbestos dust, without clinical symptoms, do not afford a cause of
action for products liability.

Fourth District judges agreed this June, finding Sondag suffered
no physical harm.

Justice Thomas Appleton wrote, "He has no pulmonary symptoms."

"Physical harm is an essential element of any action for product
liability, regardless of whether the action sounds in negligence
or strict liability," he wrote.

Appleton distinguished physical harm from harm, and distinguished
both from injury.

He wrote that injury denotes invasion of any legally protected
interest of another.

He wrote that harm denotes existence of loss or detriment in fact
of any kind resulting from any cause.

He also wrote that physical harm denotes physical impairment of
the human body, or of land or chattels.

"Although no one wants pleural plaques and interstitial fibrosis,
we do not see how these conditions have affected him in any
practical, functional way," Appleton wrote.

He wrote that as of the date of trial, Sondag had no restrictive
lung disease, respiratory distress or limitation.

But for tests, "he would have remained blissfully aware of any
condition in his lungs," he wrote.

Appleton found no evidence that plaques and scars caused the
shortness of breath that his daughter and spouse noticed.

"After all, Joseph Sondag is 82 years old, and he has been a
smoker," Appleton wrote.

Physician Rossi "agreed that Joseph Sondag was doing pretty well,"
he wrote.

He wrote that Sondag might argue that he would have been even
healthier had he not been exposed to Tremco tape.

"The problem with such reasoning is that there are hundreds of
millions of air sacs in the lungs and saying that physical harm
[starts] with the scarring of any one of these air sacs would tend
to divest harm of its practical meaning," he wrote.

Justice Lisa Holder White concurred.

Justice Thomas Harris concurred but wrote separately that he would
have ordered Tremco to pay $67,000 in medical bills.

That would nearly equal the amount of the jury's award, which
Appleton did not include in his opinion but Harris included in
his.

Sondag petitioned the Supreme Court for leave to appeal, and he
awaits an answer.

Brad Elward, Melissa Schoenbein, Chris Larson and William
Charnock, all of Heyl Royster in Peoria, represent Tremco.

Chip Corwin, James Wylder and Andrew Kelly, all of Wylder Corwin
Kelly in Bloomington, represent Sondag.  They can be reached at:

     Wylder Corwin Kelly LLP
     207 E. Washington, Suite 102
     Bloomington, IL 61701
     Email: info@wcklaw.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Yuanda Under Pressure Over Asbestos Scandal
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Burrell, writing for The Australian, reported that the
Chinese-owned building products company behind a mounting asbestos
scandal in Australia is under financial pressure, with combined
losses of $11.4 million over the past two years and outstanding
debts to its parent entity of almost $40m.

Yuanda Australia's latest financial accounts, lodged with the
corporate regulator, reveal it is surviving due to the "ongoing
support and funding" from parent company Shenyang Yuanda Aluminium
Industry Engineering Co.

The company has been at the centre of controversy since the
discovery in July that it had supplied asbestos-laced products to
the $1.2 billion Perth Children's Hospital and the 1 William
Street tower in Brisbane. The Australian revealed that another
Yuanda's shipment was later stopped at the border and revealed to
contain asbestos, which has been banned in Australia since 2003.

Asbestos is not illegal in China, which remains one of the world's
biggest producers of chrysotile, the "white asbestos" found in
Brisbane and Perth.

Yuanda's parent company in China is chaired by Kang Baohua, who
controls 56 per cent of the company and whose personal wealth is
estimated at $US1.15 billion.

Yuanda, which employs 8000 people, has been praised by top leaders
in China, including President Xi Jinping, as an example of Chinese
reform. Mr Kang, 63, is also a director of Yuanda Australia.

As at December 31, Yuanda Australia's total liabilities exceeded
assets by $48m and its debts included a $37.7m outstanding loan
provided by the parent company, according to the accounts filed
with the Australian Securities & Investments Commission. According
to the financial statement, the parent entity has confirmed in
writing that it won't call for repayment of the loan unless the
Australian subsidiary was able to repay it without impairing its
ability to conduct business and pay other liabilities.

Yuanda Australia made an after-tax loss of $7.1m in 2014 and
another after-tax loss of $4.3m last year. It earned $217.2m in
revenue in Australia last year.

Since mid-July, Australian Border Force has ordered independent
testing of all of Yuanda's shipping containers and two airfreight
shipments. Tests on all of them, apart from the container headed
for the Brisbane site, have been negative. Testing has also been
conducted at the 68 sites across Australia at which Yuanda has
supplied building products. No asbestos has so far been detected.
Yuanda has previously blamed a "fraudulent" certification process
in China.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Still Possible for 9/11 Survivors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Strauss, writing for Surviving Mesothelioma, reported that 15
years after the 9/11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center,
some of the wounds inflicted that day have begun to heal.
Unfortunately others, including many anticipated cases of
malignant mesothelioma, have yet to be revealed.

Malignant mesothelioma is the most deadly of several serious
health conditions associated with the fibrous mineral, asbestos.
It can take decades after people inadvertently inhale or swallow
the fibers for them to develop symptoms of the disease.

Asbestos was a popular insulator and building component additive
at the time the Twin Towers were constructed. Some four hundred
tons of the toxin was used in the building. When the towers came
down, thousands of first responders and New Yorkers were exposed
to enormous clouds of dust and debris which included mesothelioma-
causing asbestos.

A Deadly Legacy of Mesothelioma

While many of the emergency workers, first responders, and others
on or near the scene of the 9/11 tragedy developed respiratory
problems in the weeks and months following the event, those who
are most likely to eventually receive a mesothelioma diagnosis may
not know it for another five years or more.

Fortunately, when and if these people are diagnosed with
mesothelioma, they may be eligible for compensation. Last year,
Congress reauthorized the Zadroga Act, legislation that provides
healthcare and other benefits to 9/11 firefighters and first
responders.

Mesothelioma's Long Latency

The risk of mesothelioma among people on the scene of the 9/11
attacks still exists fifteen years after the fact because of the
disease's long latency period, or the time between exposure and
symptom development.

Shards of asbestos are biopersistent, remaining in the body tissue
where they trigger inflammation and irritation that can eventually
lead to malignant mesothelioma.

It is the same worrisome problem faced by anyone who has been
exposed to toxic asbestos dust; the symptoms of mesothelioma could
develop at any time after exposure. Or they may never develop.

The anniversary of 9/11 is a fitting time to note that anyone who
has been exposed to asbestos dust, regardless of the setting,
should be aware of the most common symptoms of mesothelioma. These
can include cough, shortness of breath, chest pain, and fatigue.

Asbestos-exposed people should have regular medical exams to
monitor for early signs of illness. Some studies have even
suggested that there may be a survival benefit in periodic CT
scans for individuals at highest risk.

An estimated 60,000 to 70,000 9/11 responders suffered the most
concentrated asbestos exposure and now face the highest risk for
mesothelioma. However, the EPA has stated that no level of
asbestos exposure is safe.

Source:

Wu, M et al, "Case report: Lung disease in World Trade Center
responders exposed to dust and smoke", April 2010, Environmental
Health Perspectives, pp. 499-504.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit Blaming Asbestos in Courthouse Could End
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Wallach, writing for Beaumont Enterprise, reported that the
family of a district court judge that sued Jefferson County in
2005 for contributing to his death concedes the case is likely at
an end because of a recent court ruling that could prolong it
several more years and a 2014 Texas Supreme Court decision that
limited manufacturers' liability.

Ellarene Farris, the wife of late District Judge James Farris,
sued the county and other defendants, including asbestos
manufacturers, in her husband's 2004 death, contending asbestos
remediation in the Jefferson County courthouse exposed her husband
to the deadly fibers that were in widespread use throughout much
of the 20th century as insulating material in buildings.

A district judge in Harris County, where all asbestos-related
cases are reviewed and cleared for trial in the courts where they
were first filed, ruled that the county and other defendants could
appeal any decision he would make in the case, meaning the case
could continue for years.

A Texas Supreme Court decision from 2014 that limited liability of
asbestos manufacturers in cases where lung disease resulted during
decades of exposure also lengthened the family's odds of success.
Farris, who was 72 when he died, spent almost his entire legal
career in the Jefferson County courthouse, first as an assistant
district attorney, beginning in 1961; county Court-at-law No. 2
judge from 1969 to 1977; and 317th District Court judge from 1977
until 1996, all within the old courthouse building built in 1931.

He pursued a side career as an in-demand dinner speaker that took
him across the country, usually for juvenile justice advocacy
groups, which was his main legal focus in the 317th court.
"He had just given a speech in Idaho in October 2004," Ellarene
Farris said. "He came home and said he couldn't do it any more. He
went into the hospital and nine days later, he was dead."

She said her husband had no idea he suffered from mesothelioma, a
cancer of the lining of the lungs. The symptoms began as an
abdominal pain that wouldn't quit and ended soon after with a
struggle to breathe.

"He was so scared. He didn't even know he had mesothelioma,"
Ellarene Farris said.

Farris, her son, Gary Wallace, and her attorneys, Aaron Heckaman
and Kyle Beale, said the Texas law requiring plaintiffs to find
others who had similar exposure creates an almost impossible
standard.

"The test is a legal fiction," said Beale, who said the case is
personal because he knew Farris when Beale was a law student at
Baylor University, also Farris' alma mater.

The latency period takes decades, Heckaman and Beale said. Trying
to find others similarly affected makes a successful case
virtually impossible, particularly in a setting that is non-
traditional for asbestos-related diseases.

The Texas Supreme Court in 2014 ruled against a plaintiff who won
a judgment against brake pad manufacturer Borg Warner, upheld by
an appellate court in Corpus Christi. The state high court said
the defendant in the case wasn't the only brake pad manufacturer
whose products were used by the shop in which the plaintiff
claimed illness resulted after 30 years.

The Farris case also bogged down because government entities since
1970 had legal exposure capped at $100,000.

"It's never been about money," Ellarene Farris said.
Her son, Gary Wallace, agreed.

"There's not any money in this. The Texas Legislature made sure of
that," he said. "We just want the courthouse cleared."

Jefferson County Judge Jeff Branick said the courthouse is clear
of asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: John Holland Not To Blame for Hospital Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that construction company John Holland is not
responsible for asbestos discovered in roof panels at the yet-to-
be opened Perth Children's Hospital, an interim report has found.

The report, conducted by state building commissioner Peter Gow,
found problems in the production process of the panels in China.

"There was a problem or a hiccup in the production process in
China and inappropriate or non-conforming materials were in fact
included in the panels," he said.

The deadly material was found in the hospital's roofing panels --
supplied by Chinese company Yuanda -- in July.

Just days earlier, Yuanda was found to have used asbestos-tainted
gaskets sourced from China in Brisbane's new government tower.

Mr Gow said both John Holland and Yuanda had specified materials
being supplied for the hospital should be asbestos free and had
received a test report from China on the roof panels confirming
that was the case.

However, an audit revealed the test report had not actually tested
the panels for the presence of asbestos.

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection has released a
statement saying "specifiers, builders and suppliers must be
vigilant about the products they use during construction and must
satisfy themselves that the products they use do not contain
asbestos".

The department said it was the responsibility of importers and
exporters to ensure they did not import or export prohibited goods
such as asbestos.

Dust control not adequate

The report also found John Holland did not properly address the
likelihood of a dust hazard when workers cut into the panels --
causing some to be exposed to asbestos dust.

Mr Gow said had dust control management procedures been better,
the risk to workers would have been reduced.

He said the company also needed to improve its processes for
detecting and preventing the presence of asbestos.

The Australian agency responsible for stopping asbestos at the
border has since revealed it is only testing a fraction of
shipments each year for the substance.

Mr Gow said it was impossible to be sure that imported materials
did not contain asbestos.

"There is a continuing risk to the Western Australian and the
Australian construction industries from non-conforming building
products," he said.

Mr Gow said the industry needed to find better ways of detecting
hazardous products and preventing exposure to workers.

The commissioner would not comment on when the hospital, plagued
by delays -- including the recent discovery of lead in the water -
- will open.

He said an investigation into the lead was ongoing.

"At this point we don't have a clear idea of exactly where the
lead has come from," he said.

In a statement, Yuanda Australia said it was "continuing its own
thorough review to determine how incorrect products were used in
the manufacturing process".


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Netherlands Orders Removal of Asbestos Roofs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Mauney, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that although the
Netherlands banned asbestos 22 years ago, officials continue
eliminating the toxic mineral from the country's infrastructure,
most recently ordering all asbestos roofing be removed by Jan. 1,
2024.

The removal only applies to exterior asbestos-containing materials
such as corrugated sheets and slate roofing. It does not apply to
interior asbestos roof boards and roof insulation.

"The ban on [asbestos] roofing is a start," David de Vreede, a
technical advisor for the Dutch group Committee for Asbestos
Victims, told Asbestos.com. "The goal is no asbestos in the
country, but that will take a long time."

While the government is subsidizing some of the asbestos removal
costs, experts predict the federal financial help is not enough.

All 28 countries of the European Union, including the Netherlands,
have banned the use of asbestos, which is linked to serious
respiratory diseases and cancers such as mesothelioma.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the Netherlands
reports high rates of asbestos-related deaths.

Ban on Asbestos Roofs Will Prevent Exposure

Wilma Mansveld, former Undersecretary for Infrastructure and
Environment, led the roof ban, citing deteriorating roofs and
recent fires as reasons for banning the asbestos building
materials.

"We have to take this risk seriously and tackle it. I want to
prevent people from being exposed to asbestos fibers," Mansveld
said in a 2015 translated press release. "Recent fires in which
asbestos particles ended up [in] residential areas underline the
need for a ban."

Inclement weather, such as hail, high winds and freezing rain,
also leads to deterioration, and over time, the spread of
dangerous particles. The average lifespan of an asbestos roof is
30 years. In many cases, replacement is long overdue.

De Vreede, 25, owns a water and air filtration company with his
father and regularly works with asbestos removal companies. Aside
from his involvement with the Committee for Asbestos Victims, he
lobbies for better environmental standards.

He believes many Dutch residents are unaware of the dangers above
their heads. While the country banned asbestos in 1994, the ban
only applies to the trade, storage and use of asbestos. Asbestos
materials are still common in older buildings.

"Some people think that because of the ban, that there is no
danger," he said. "Those people are wrong."

Building Owners Face High Costs to Remove Asbestos

Owners of buildings with asbestos roofs are responsible for
removal, and the municipalities can inform individuals under what
special conditions they may fall under.

All removals must be reported to the municipality. After the 2024
deadline, municipalities can impose a fine or penalty on owners.

"Some people think that because of the ban, that there is no
danger," De Vreede said. "Those people are wrong."

The Netherlands has strict asbestos removal standards, and it is a
costly and time-consuming process. In an effort to ease the burden
on affected building owners, the Dutch government introduced a
subsidy program in January that provided them $16.7 million (15
million euros).

However, De Vreede says it's not enough.

"[The asbestos removal] is estimated to cost 3 to 4 billion euros
($3.3 to 4.5 billion), so that's just a drop of water in the
frying pan," he said.

Many Asbestos Roofs Are in Lower-Income Areas

More than three quarters of the affected roofs are located in
agricultural sectors of the country, according to Dutch website
Groninger Krant. De Vreede said that many of those affected
include residents of low-income housing formerly owned by
corporations.

"The corporations don't want to renovate because of the cost, so
they will sell to immigrants and poor people who simply don't know
any better," he said.

Law requires sellers to disclose in a contract if a structure
contains asbestos materials, but these disclaimers are often in
fine print and in Dutch, making them easily overlooked or
difficult to understand for foreigners and the poorly educated.

"It's usually just a 'sign here' situation," de Vreede explained.

Mesothelioma Is a Growing Problem in the Netherlands

The Netherlands reported 481 mesothelioma deaths to the World
Health Organization (WHO) in 2010, more than double the amount of
neighboring Belgium.

That's nearly the same amount of reported deaths in Spain,
Portugal and Denmark, combined.

Neighboring Germany -- with a population nearly five times the
size of the Netherlands -- reported only 1,397 mesothelioma deaths
to the WHO in 2010.

While de Vreede believes the Netherlands' true asbestos numbers
are on par with the rest of the EU, he did point out the country
has a deep history in the shipbuilding industry because of its
location on the North Sea.

Shipbuilders used asbestos to insulate most sea vessel parts.

"There is often little to no ventilation on the ships, which can
lead to high [asbestos] exposure," he said.

Fires at warehouses and farms are also catalysts for spreading
asbestos, taking particles a mile or more away, and in some cases,
affecting heavily populated city centers.

With a latency period of 20-50 years, mesothelioma and other
asbestos-related diseases could be on the rise in the future
because of these issues.

Asbestos Is Out of Sight, Out of Mind for Many

Joyce Matthijssen, a lawyer at the Committee for Asbestos Victims
in the Netherlands, said the awareness of mesothelioma and other
asbestos-related diseases varies from person to person, but she
feels it's especially low among younger generations.

"They didn't experience the time in which asbestos was actually
banned consciously," Matthijssen said. "Most people of this
younger generation don't even know how to identify asbestos."

Matthijssen added that many of the Dutch don't think about their
homes or office buildings containing asbestos.

"They also do not bother to find out," she said. "And when they do
find out, in most cases, they are more concerned about the cost of
removing asbestos than about asbestos hazards."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Daughter Blames Companies for Mother's Death
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Abella, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reported
that a St. Clair County woman is suing multiple companies,
alleging negligence in causing the death of the plaintiff's
mother.

Maria Rodriguez, individually and as special administrator of the
estate of Migdalia Praderes, deceased filed a lawsuit Aug. 17 in
St. Clair County Circuit Court against CBS Corp., Certain-Teed
Corp., Crane Co., General Electric Co., Georgia-Pacific LLC, John
Crane Inc., Union Carbide Corporation and Metropolitan Life
Insurance, alleging failure to exercise ordinary care and caution
for the safety of Praderes.

According to the complaint, on March 6, 2012, Praderes first
became aware she had developed mesothelioma, an asbestos-induced
disease. The suit says she was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or
absorbed asbestos fibers from products that were manufactured,
sold, installed or distributed by the defendants.

The plaintiff alleges the defendants negligently included asbestos
in their products, failed to provide adequate instructions and
warnings and conspired among themselves to injure Praderes.

Rodriguez seeks trial by jury and judgment of more than $50,000
from each defendant. She is represented by attorneys Randy L. Gori
and Barry Julian of Gori, Julian & Associates PC in Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 16-L-436


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Work Site Hit With 17 Asbestos Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Aliyya Swaby, writing for New Haven Independent, reported that the
principal of a Wallace Street construction site is contesting
$65,000 in federal fines levied for allegedly failing to protect
workers from asbestos exposure.

In response to an employee complaint, Occupational Health & Safety
Administration (OSHA) sent inspectors last November to visit 206
Wallace St., a former automotive warehouse, and hit owner Rakaj
Companies this summer with a list of 17 violations of proper
asbestos management.

Aleks Rakaj is affiliated with the property in at least three
ways, as the member of CT Repair Services, LLC located at 206
Wallace St., as principal of 206 Wallace Street LLC, and as a
member of Arka Group LLC located at 220 Wallace St., an extension
of the property. Rakaj also owns Federal Oil, LLC in Seymour.

Rakaj did not respond to repeated requests for comment from the
Independent.

According to the OSHA record, the agency issued 17 "serious"
violations May 9, to be abated by May 13. Instead, Rakaj contested
the violations June 8. The matter is now in court.

Sawco Associates bought the property from Yale University in 2009
for $1,250,000, before selling it in 2015 for $285,000 to 206
Wallace Street LLC on Nov. 12, 2015, according to land records. An
appraisal of the property shows the land at 86,533 square feet,
with a building area of 42,995 square feet -- used as an
industrial warehouse in a light industry zoning district.

New Haven's health department officials got a call about
suspicious activity in an empty building, and Brian Wnek, senior
sanitarian, headed over on November 20, 2015. When officials went
through the front door, the crew working on the project went
through the back door, said Paul Kowalski, who directs the city's
environmental health program. Then, Wnek called the feds.

The investigation was turned over to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, state Department of Health Asbestos Program and
OSHA, and the work was shut down.

The 17 violations cover a number of alleged failures to protect
employees' health, including:

   * Failing to provide lunch areas at the work site with safe
concentrations of asbestos in the air.

   * Failing to regularly monitor the concentration of asbestos in
the air.

   * Failing to use vacuum cleaners equipped with HEPA filters to
collect all dust that may contain asbestos material.

   * Failing to wet the site to decrease employee exposure to
asbestos during cleanup, removal, handling and cutting.

   * Failing to provide employees with respirators to breathe in a
contaminated area.

   * Failing to provide employees with shower areas to
decontaminate themselves after exposure to asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: City Won't Be Fined for Firefighters Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
WFTV9.com reported that 9 Investigates discovered the city of
Orlando and its fire department will not be fined after
firefighters were exposed to asbestos while prepping a building
for training.

The city could have been forced to pay thousands for the
conditions.

Channel 9's Jeff Levkulich spoke with fire department leaders
Tuesday, who said they're making sweeping changes.

The fire department will implement a new asbestos training
program.

In the last 10 years, only seven similar cases have resulted in no
fines.

According to documents from the Orange County Environmental
Protection Division, 42 companies have been fined over the last 10
years for violating asbestos regulations.

The fines ranged from $650 to $90,000.

Orlando firefighters were exposed to the hazardous substance last
February at the building used for training on Mercy Drive.

After a recent hearing, the city and the fire department, which
were facing fines of $25,000 per violation, were not fined.

"I do think it's a win-win for everybody involved," said Orlando
Fire Department Deputy Chief Gerald Lane.

Lane said the city is implementing asbestos training within the
next 30 to 60 days, and that that will cost the department
practically nothing to implement.

"Probably the most positive thing that occurred for us is we have
actually improved our communication with Orange County EPD," said
Lane. "Going forward, we have improved, or implemented some
additional rules going forward, and hopefully we don't have to
deal with this again."

WFTV legal analyst Belvin Perry said training will not have an
effect on the long-term health costs, or any potential future
lawsuits filed against the city.

"Unfortunately, it does not provide a shield for the Orlando Fire
Department for any potential litigation given with asbestos-
related illnesses that some firefighter may have suffered," Lane
said.

The firefighters affected will have to monitor their lungs for
years to come, but Lane said firefighters are always running into
buildings where there could be asbestos, or other dangerous
chemicals.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Review May Trigger Chlorine Industry Probe
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pat Rizzuto, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reported that chlorine
manufacturers, which currently are the largest U.S. importers of
asbestos, could have their use of the mineral reviewed soon if the
Environmental Protection Agency selects asbestos as one of the
first 10 substances it will analyze under the amended chemicals
law.

Chlorine and caustic soda are manufactured by the chlor-alkali
industry, which uses asbestos for one of three processes that
companies can use to produce both chemicals. The U.S. Geological
Survey has listed the chlor-alkali industry as the primary
importer of asbestos in each annual mineral commodity summary the
service has published since 2013. The industry's use accounted for
90 percent of the 358 tons of asbestos imported into the country
in 2015, the geologic survey said in its 2016 summary.

The chlor-alkali industry's use of asbestos should be evaluated by
the EPA as part of an assessment of the risks posed by the
mineral, Linda Reinstein, president of the nonprofit advocacy
group Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), told
Bloomberg BNA Sept. 9.

Top 10 Substances?

All domestic uses of asbestos should be reviewed by the EPA, which
must make the mineral one of the first 10 chemicals it evaluates
under the recently amended Toxic Substances Control Act, Scott
Faber, vice president of the Environmental Working Group (EWG),
told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 12.

"Few chemicals are as dangerous as asbestos; there is no question
it poses a health risk," Faber said.

The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act
(Pub. L. No. 114-182), which amended TSCA on June 22, gave the
agency new authorities to oversee the safety of chemicals, he
said.

"Asbestos is the substance by which this new law will be judged,"
Faber said.

As changes to TSCA were debated for years, members of Congress
were among the many individuals who voiced frustration about
provisions of the original TSCA that prompted the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to overturn the EPA's 1989 ban of
many uses of asbestos The asbestos organization and Environmental
Working Group have been joined by automotive brake manufacturers,
some Democratic senators, and other environmental health groups in
urging the EPA to examine the risks of asbestos as one of the
first 10 chemicals it reviews under the Lautenberg Act.

By December the EPA must be examining the risks posed by 10
chemicals under the law. Those 10 chemicals must be selected from
the agency's 2014 "Work Plan" list of approximately 90 substances
the agency already announced it would evaluate prior to the
Lautenberg Act becoming law.

"Work plan substances for which EPA has had significant work
underway are logical candidates for the first 10 substances under
review," the American Chemistry Council told Bloomberg BNA in a
Sept. 9 e-mail.

The EPA has not begun to work on asbestos.

If the agency does not make the asbestos evaluation part of the
first 10 chemicals, the next administration could decide whether
and when it would be reviewed.

Faber declined to comment as to whether the uncertainty of which
administration will be elected is a reason his group and others
are pushing now for asbestos to be one of the first 10 chemicals
the EPA evaluates.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, however, has
testified before Congress about asbestos' benefits.

During a July 21, 2005, hearing before a Senate Homeland Security
Subcommittee about U.S. financial involvement in the renovation of
the U.N.'s headquarters, Trump testified: "there's a whole debate
about asbestos. I mean, a lot of people could say that if the
World Trade Center had asbestos, it wouldn't have burned down. It
wouldn't have melted, okay? A lot of people think asbestos . . . a
lot of people in my industry think asbestos is the greatest fire-
proofing material ever made."

Workers, Community Protected: Trade Association

If the agency were to evaluate asbestos, it will find that chlor-
alkali companies already take extensive actions to prevent workers
and the public from exposure, the American Chemistry Council said.

The agency already had reached that conclusion in 1989 when it
restricted many uses of asbestos, the council's Chlorine Chemistry
Division told the EPA in comments it filed Aug. 24 about a risk
evaluation rule the agency must develop.

When EPA excluded the chlor-alkali industry from its 1989 asbestos
ban the agency said: "exposure to asbestos during the life cycle
of this product is limited because the product is generally
fabricated on site, used saturated with isolation and disposed of
while wet. Asbestos is not prone to be released into the ambient
air during states after product fabrication."

"The industry's practices have continued to improve since 1989 as
handling and monitoring technology has evolved," the chemistry
council told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 9.

The council provided a list of actions companies take to prevent
exposures beginning from the receipt of dry asbestos shipments,
through the wet process used to transform that asbestos into a
diaphragm that is designed to prevent dangerous chemical reactions
while chlorine and caustic soda are manufactured, until the used
wet diaphragm is disassembled in a closed process and made into
non-reusable parts for disposal.

"Because of this continuous wet environment, the use of asbestos
in the chlor-alkali industry is very different than historical
processes associated with airborne release of asbestos fibers,"
the chemistry council said.

Reinstein said chlor-alkali manufacturers may successfully prevent
exposures while they use the asbestos, but that doesn't negate the
need for the EPA to assess the risks posed by the mineral's life
cycle.

Scope of Assessment Would Be Subsequent Decision

A life cycle assessment would consider the risks of mining the
mineral even though that is done abroad, she said.

The agency also should review domestic risks from transporting it
to companies that use it, from spills and accidents that could
occur, from manufacturing processes that use asbestos, from the
use of asbestos-containing products, and from the disposal of
asbestos and the products it is used to make, Reinstein said.

Her perspective on issues the EPA should consider if it evaluates
the risks of asbestos points to a step the agency would have to
take after it declares a chemical to be a high priority subject to
risk evaluation.

Within six months of declaring a chemical to be a high priority,
the agency must publish a scope with information such as the
hazards, exposures, conditions of use, and the potentially exposed
or susceptible subpopulations it plans to evaluate.

As the EPA determines the scope of any evaluation of asbestos, it
should take into account that chlor-alkali companies have
"essentially eliminated" potential exposures, the American
Chemistry Council's Chlorine Chemistry Division wrote in comments
it submitted to the agency Aug. 24 about a risk evaluation rule
the EPA is developing.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Queensland Asbestos School Students "Safe"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jamie McKinnell, writing for The Australian Associated Press,
reported that Queensland's education minister Kate Jones has
reassured parents that students at a Brisbane school where
asbestos material was found are safe.

Part of Holland Park State School is out of bounds after the
substance was uncovered on the oval after heavy rain.
Ms Jones said work to remove it was scheduled for this month's
school holidays.

"I can confirm that that is on track and . . . we will be on site
removing asbestos from Holland Park throughout the school
holidays," she said.

Ms Jones said "swift action" was taken to fence off the affected
area.

"Can I please assure all parents that all measures have been taken
in line with our asbestos management plans," she said.

Asbestos management frameworks had been in place for more than a
decade and Holland Park was the only school with an active
incident, Ms Jones added.

But the grounds didn't need to be completely shut down because
experts assessed the risk and advised school operations could
continue, she said.


                            *********

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  * * *