---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, October 14, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 206




                            Headlines

640 PELHAM: "Reyes" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA, NY Labor Laws
3M CORP: Faces Second Water Contamination Class Action
ADVANCED SOLIDS: Faces "Kerbow" Suit Over "Misclassification"
AIR CANADA: Parallel Class Proceedings Issue Arises in McKay Case
APPLIED MEDICAL: Cal. App. Sends Nguyen Suit Back to Arbitration

ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: West Calumet Residents File Class Action
AXIALL CORPORATION: "Bohrer" Suit Moved to N.D.W.Va.
BALTIMORE POLICE: Employees Seek to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Court Consolidates Price-Fixing Suits
BARNES & NOBLE: Judge Tosses Class Action Over 2012 Data Breach

BAYER CORP: Judge to Consolidate 50 Nearly Essure Suits
BP AMERICA: "Cecil" Suit Claims Non-Payment of Oil Well Royalties
BTB EVENTS: Faces "Rescalvo-Najera" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
CANADA: RCMP Commissioner Apologizes for Harassments
CANADA: Alberta RCMP Officer Resigns Following Harassment Claims

CANADA: RCMP Apology Beginning of Recovery, Former Mountie Says
CANADA: RCMP Class Action Plaintiff Overjoyed by Apology
CARMEL, IN: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Traffic Ordinance
CARMINE'S BROADWAY: Class of Servers Certified in "Pichardo" Suit
CENTRAL FLORIDA: "Yarger" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & Damages

CHINATOWN TAKE-OUT: Faces "Li" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
COREPOWER YOGA: Faces "Walsh" Suit in N.D. of California
CST BRANDS: Jacob Kempler Seeks to Enjoin Sale to Circle K
CVS CAREMARK: First Circuit Revives Vitamin E Class Action
DISCOUNT GARAGE: "Chickering" Lawsuit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA

DNC SPORTSERVICE: Concessionaire Wins Appeal in Overtime Suit
DOLGENCORP LLC: Faces "Erlandson" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
DRAGON WEST: "Wilson" Suit Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA
DRILL-CHEM LLC: Faces "Julmis" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
DYNAMIC DESIGN: Faces "Espinoza" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation

EASTMAN KODAK: Plaintiff Lawyers Take Home $2.4-Mil. in Fees
ELECTROLUX HOME: Court Narrows Claims in "Elward" Suit
FIAT CHRYSLER: Jeep Class Actions Consolidated in Michigan
FORD MOTOR: Court Certifies Focus Owners Class in "Daniel" Suit
GLH CAPITAL: Faces "Owens" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Min. Wage Law

GOLDEN MANGO: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
GOLDMAN SACHS: "Bloom" Lawsuit Transferred from Cal. to N.Y.
H. GREGORY: Faces "Bermudez" Suit Seeking Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
HP INC: "Doty" Suit Alleges Unauthorized Changes to Firmware
INLAND BANCORP: iMove Chicago Files Suit Over TCPA Breach

JANI-KING OF PHILADELPHIA: Attorneys Question Appellate Ruling
JASON'S PIZZA: Faces "Hackhel" Suit Alleging Misclassification
JOE'S GOURMET: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Tackles Satisfaction of Mortgage Issue
KEY ENERGY: "Pruitt" Suit Alleges Employee Misclassification

L&M WAREHOUSE: Faces "Keeley" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
LEGACY SUPPLY: "Martin" Suit Alleges Cal. Labor Law Breaches
LIBERTY LIFE: Class & Subclass Certification in "Bush" Granted
LINEAR TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Guerra" Suit Over Merger with Analog
LMS TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Jackson" Suit Under Cal. Business Code

LTD FINANCIAL: Faces "Saroza" Suit in District of New Jersey
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Bennett" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2743
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Hotaling" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2743
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "McPherson" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2743
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Ryan" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2743

MARMAX PARTNERS: Faces "Espinal" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MDL 2672: Fleshman's Bid to Depose Va. Class Representative Nixed
METROPOLITAN LIFE: "Hanis" Class Cert. Bid Denied as Moot
MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: "Schuman" Suit Alleges ERISA Violation
MMPB GROUP: Faces "Benegas" Suit Seeking OT Pay, Wages Under FLSA

MYLAN PHARMA: "Product Hopping" Case Dismissal Affirmed
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Jerrick" Files Suit Over Athletes' Safety
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Gray" Files Suit Over Athletes' Safety
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Harvey" Files Suit Over Athletes' Safety
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Dudley" Files Suit Over Athletes' Safety

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Collins" Files Suit Over Athletes' Safety
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces "Towe" Suit Over Athletes' Safety
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Athletes' Safety
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces "Reddick" Suit Over Athletes' Safety
NATIONAL OILWELL: "Furniss" Suit Transferred to Texas

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: 6th Cir. Finds Standing in Data Breach Case
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Charlie Wysocki Joins Concussion Class Action
NEVSUN RESOURCES: Averts Eritrean Workers' Class Action
NFI INTERACTIVE: "Marsh" Suit Seeks to Recoup Pay Under FLSA
OREGON: Linn County Class Action v. Forestry Dep't Can Proceed

PAOLA PAINTING: Faces "Maisanche" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
PENN STATE: Faces "Chase" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Penn. Wage Laws
PHOENIX FINANCIAL: Konings Seeks Certification of Damasco Class
POST FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Cereal Box Ads
PROCTER & GAMBLE: "Colley" Suit Over Old Spice Dismissed

QUALITY SEAL: Faces "Xaca" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Wis. Wage Law
ROCKFORD PRODUCTS: Faces "Fair" Suit Alleging WARN Act Violation
SAFEWAY INC: Must Pay $516,484 Discovery Sanction in "Rodman"
SAINT JEAN: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Thomas" Suit Claims
SANOFI SA: Faces Various Suits Over Taxotere-Related Hair Loss

SCHLUMBERGER TECH: Class of Specialists Certified in "Levy" Suit
SEDGE ISLAND CORP: Faces "Sanchez Vasquez" Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
SHERIDAN PRODUCTION: "Whisenant" Suit Stays in W.D. Okla. Court
SNYDERS-LANCE: Faces "Roxberry" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SOLARCITY CORP: Faces "Diwana" Suit Over Acquisition by Tesla

SONAM'S STONEWALLS: Faces "Gonpo" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
SURVILLE ENTERPRISES: "Rodriguez" Suit Moved to S.D. Fla.
SWAMIJI MANAGEMENT: Faces "Contreras" Suit Seeking to Recoup Pay
T&T ENERGY: "Goree" Lawsuit Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA
TITLEMAX OF TENNESSEE: "Curatola" Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA

TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS: "Doshi" Suit Transferred to D. Mass.
TRUEACCORD CORP: Faces "Coffman" Suit in M.D. Fla.
UNILEVER UNITED STATES: Faces "Cruz-Acevedo" Suit in N.D. of Ca.
UNIQUE FREIGHT: "Morales-Ortega" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Customers File Fraud Class Action in Minn.

UNIVERSAL HANDICRAFT: "Mollicone" Files Suit Over Adore Products
UNIVERSITY OF DENVER: EEOC Files Suit Over Pay Disparity
USA ROOFING: NY Court Denies Class Certification in "Juarez"
VALVE CORP: Court Dismisses Class Suit Over Counter Strike Game
VALVE CORP: Players Can Still Appeal CS:GO Class Action Dismissal

VERTEX PHARMA: 1st Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Complaint
VIM RECYCLING: Insurer's Counterclaim Tossed
VOLKSWAGEN AG: James Liang Indicted in Emissions Scandal
WASHINGTON COUNTY WATER: Utah High Court Nixes Townhomes Suit
WASHINGTON INVENTORY: Simon-Wilson Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

WELLS FARGO: "Gardner" Files Suit Over "Unauthorized Accounts"
WELLS FARGO: House Wants CEO to Undo Forced Arbitration Clause
WELLS FARGO: "Cota" Files Suit Over Non-Payment of Overtime Work
WOK TO WALK: Faces "Riley" Suit in Southern District of New York
YAHOO! INC: Faces "Filares" Lawsuit Over 2014 Data Theft

* Second Circuit Clarifies Law for Consolidated Cases
* Study Says More Opt-Outs Likely in Big Class Action Settlements


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magistrate Judge Favors Dismissal of "Suoja"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims vs. Puget in "Johnson" Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Md. Federal Court Denies Bid to Remand "Rhodes"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Indiana App. Partially Flips Ruling in "Myers"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miss. High Court Junks Grant of JNOV in "Smith"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reynolds Owes No Duty of Care in Take-Home Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Loses Summary Judgment in "Lee"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Bid to Junk Eagle's Insurance Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Cir. Says Cos. Waived Personal Jurisdiction
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family Seeks Help Over Parents' Asbestos Death

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Ban Bills Introduced in US Congress
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Sues Greensboro Over Exposure to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Federal Bldgs in Hamilton Have Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Libby Asbestos May Lead to Autoimmune Disease
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Factory Worker Dies From Asbestos Disease

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Grading System Improves Prognosis
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fitness Instructor Diagnosed with Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mr. Fluffy Fraud Accused Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Exposed to Asbestos at VA Campus
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge to Hear Arguments on Merc Issue

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wrongful Death Suit Alleges Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found Buried Behind Abandoned School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insulation Blamed for Aussie Mesothelioma Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Causes Death of Retired Carpenter
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Cleanup Planned for Historical Museum

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Overalls Linked to Wife's Asbestos Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Litigation Continues to Decline
ASBESTOS UPDATE: College Closed After Asbestos Found in Roof




                            *********


640 PELHAM: "Reyes" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA, NY Labor Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE PABLO REYES, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. 640 PELHAM FOOD CORP. (d/b/a
GREEN APPLE SUPERMARKET), DG 231 FOOD CORP. (d/b/a PIONEER
SUPERMARKET), and RAFAEL MONTES DEOCA, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-
07624 (S.D.N.Y., September 29, 2016), alleges unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, violation
of the N.Y. Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage
orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor.

Green Apple Supermarket and Pioneer Supermarket are supermarkets
owned by Rafael Montes Deoca.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


3M CORP: Faces Second Water Contamination Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Ted Skroback, writing for KOAA, reports that the class action
lawsuit being filed over groundwater contamination in the
Fountain/Security/Widefield area is going after manufacturers of
the fire retardant used by the air force that seeped into the
ground water supply leaving behind accelerated levels of cancer
causing PFC's.

McDivitt Law is teaming up with a law firm from New York that
specializes in environmental class action lawsuits.  They are in
town meeting with clients of the lawsuit against manufacturing
companies who they say should pay victims for high amounts of
PFC's found in the Fountain/ Security/Widefield water supply.

"I said we need to have some heavy hitters to help us out, this is
a, this is a big case because there's a lot of people involved and
the people on the other side we feel should be held accountable
have more money than God," said Mike McDivitt.

There are six manufacturing companies named in the lawsuit, but no
mention or intention of going after the Air Force that used the
foam as a fire retardant.

"They've produced no documents to show that they've notified the
end user of the appropriate way to use this," said Paul Napoli of
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC from New York, "so to be careful that if you
put it on the ground it's somehow going to end up in the water."

The law offices also think the government should pay to get
residents in the affected area blood tested, they say up to 70,000
thousand people could be affected.

"If you get a blood test for $700, if you multiply that times
everybody that needs to be blood tested that's a very expensive
proposition.  We think it's a community health problem, we think
it's a public health problem," said Mr. McDivitt.

The lawsuit started with over 1,000 signatures and is now over
1,500.

"These companies have the obligation if they're going to sell the
product to warn appropriately, let every end user know how to use
it safely and whether or not you can affect the surrounding
environment," said Hunter Shkolnik.

There's a second class action suit filed by a Denver law firm, a
court could find that it's best the two lawsuits merge.


ADVANCED SOLIDS: Faces "Kerbow" Suit Over "Misclassification"
-------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN KERBOW, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v.
ADVANCED SOLIDS CONTROL, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-00410 (S.D. Tex.,
September 27, 2016), alleges that the Defendant does not pay its
solids control technicians overtime as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act; instead, it improperly classifies them as
independent contractors.

ADVANCED SOLIDS CONTROL, LLC is an oilfield service company
specializing in solids control for land based oil and gas drilling
operations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David I. Moulton, Esq.
     Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
     BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
     8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Phone: (713) 877-8788
     Fax: (713) 877-8065
     E-mail: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com
             rburch@brucknerburch.com

        - and -

     Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
     Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
     Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
     FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP
     1150 Bissonnet
     Houston, TX 77005
     Phone: (713) 751-0025
     Copier: (713) 751-0030
     E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
             adunlap@fibichlaw.com
             itkin@fibichlaw.com


AIR CANADA: Parallel Class Proceedings Issue Arises in McKay Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Williams, Esq. -- pwilliams@mccarthy.ca -- of McCarthy
Tetrault LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that McKay is
one of three potential class actions brought in B.C., Ontario, and
Quebec respectively, arising from cargo fees charged by certain
airlines.  Counsel for the proposed class representative in each
action worked co-operatively and focused on the Ontario action,
which was certified in Airia Brands v. Air Canada, 2015 ONSC 5352.
The Ontario Superior Court subsequently approved a distribution
protocol respecting settlement funds.  Counsel for the proposed
class representative in McKay then sought the B.C. Supreme Court's
approval of a similar distribution order.

The application was heard by Chief Justice Hinkson, who began his
reasons for judgment with a review of Canada's national class
actions regime -- or lack thereof.  Chief Justice Hinkson found
that the existence of three parallel actions in B.C., Ontario, and
Quebec merely duplicated each other, occupied the time of three
courts, and created additional expenses for parties forced to
litigate in different provinces.

However, Hinkson C.J. found that despite the absence of national
class action legislation, courts in various provinces had
permitted the pursuit of what are effectively national class
actions, and had also deferred to class proceedings in other
provinces.  Hinkson C.J. held that deference should be encouraged,
as it would prove more efficient than parallel proceedings.

Yet the problem of multiplicitous class actions remains.  For
example, In McKay, all of the members of the proposed but
uncertified B.C. class, were also members of the Ontario class in
Airia Brands. With reference to Kowalyshyn v. Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., 2016 ONSC 3819, Hinkson C.J.
identified at least six problems, in the context of class
proceedings, in attempting to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings:

   1. the right of a putative class member to opt-out of the class
proceeding;

   2. the influence and importance of class size and class member
loyalty;

   3. law firms prospecting for a quick profit from class action
work, which start multiple class actions or redundant class
actions in order to get a piece of the class-action-action;

   4. what Perell J. [who decided Kowalyshyn] described as the
double dealing of defendants;

   5. the absence in Canada, which is a confederation of
provinces, of any mechanism as exists in the United States, which
is a union of states, to consolidate proceedings that are
initiated in several different jurisdictions; and

   6. the rarity of purely local class actions and the prevalence
of parallel regional, national, or global class actions that are
difficult to cull.

Turning to the merits of the application -- and perhaps to make
the point that McKay was an unnecessary duplication of Airia
Brands in Ontario -- Hinkson C.J. simply quoted the portions of
the Ontario judgment approving the settlement distribution that he
considered germane to the application in McKay.  Chief Justice
Hinkson also held that there was no need for the B.C. Supreme
Court to oversee the distribution process because the Ontario
Superior Court would do so and because allowing it to do so would
be a more efficient use of judicial resources.

One solution to at least partially reduce the impact of parallel
class proceedings may be to have judges from different provinces
hear applications like the one at issue in McKay concurrently.
That approach was approved in Endean v. Canadian Red Cross, 2013
BCSC 1074, where the Court held that it was appropriate to hear an
application in a parallel class action at a location outside B.C.
alongside supervisory judges from the parallel actions in other
provinces.  However, the Court of Appeal reversed that decision
(2014 BCCA 61) and held that a B.C. judge cannot conduct a hearing
outside B.C., but could preside over a hearing that took place in
B.C. via telephone or video conference.  Conversely, the Ontario
Court of Appeal held that an Ontario judge could conduct a hearing
outside Ontario (Parsons v. Ontario, 2015 ONCA 158).

The Supreme Court of Canada heard appeals from Endean and Parsons
on May 19, 2016.  The Court may use the cases to address the issue
of parallel class proceedings.  However, unless and until the
Court or the provincial legislatures engage in much-needed reform,
class action counsel and litigants will continue to incur the cost
of the inefficiencies identified by Hinkson C.J. and others.


APPLIED MEDICAL: Cal. App. Sends Nguyen Suit Back to Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
Associate Justice Eileen C. Moore of the Court of Appeals of
California, Fourth District, Division Three, granted in part
Plaintiff's petition for writ of mandate and remanded the case
captioned, DA LOC NGUYEN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. APPLIED
MEDICAL RESOURCES CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent, Case No.
G052207 (Cal. App.).

In her Opinion dated October 4, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/mUqF4w from Leagle.com, Judge Moore granted the
petition for writ of mandate as to the portion of the Superior
Court's order dismissing the class claims to allow the arbitrator
to decide whether the arbitration clause permits arbitration on a
class-wide basis because the "the mere inclusion of the words 'I
agree' by one party in an otherwise mutual arbitration provision
destroys the bilateral nature of the agreement." The Court rejects
Plaintiff's contention on the payment of arbitration fees because
it lacks merit.  The cause is remanded to the trial court for
further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Defendant manufactures surgical products and sells or distributes
them nationwide. After plaintiff completed a job application,
defendant hired him to work in the production line of its surgical
products. In 2014, plaintiff brought a putative class action
against defendant, asserting causes of action under the Labor
Code, the Unlawful Competition Law, and Private Attorney General
Act (PAGA). The action sought unpaid overtime, meal and rest
period compensation, penalties, plus injunctive and other
equitable relief.

Counsel for both parties met on multiple occasions to discuss a
potential stipulation to submit the claims to arbitration and stay
the PAGA cause of action. Defendant moved to compel arbitration of
the individual claims, strike the class allegations, and stay the
PAGA cause of action. Plaintiff opposed the motion. Defendant
offered to pay for the costs of arbitration, including the
initiation fees and compensation for the arbitrator, effectively
agreeing to strike the cost splitting provision.

The trial court granted Defendant's motion, ordering plaintiff's
individual claims to arbitration, striking or dismissing the class
action allegations with prejudice, and directed Defendant to "pay
all costs of the arbitration other than those that plaintiff would
necessarily pay in a court proceeding." In doing so, it found
that: (1) the contract was still a contract even if it may be one
of adhesion because plaintiff was required to sign it in order to
obtain employment; (2) plaintiff was not credible in claiming he
was "not fluent in speaking or reading English," as he states in
his application "he has English as a special skill or talent,
checked the appropriate boxes on the application which require
such an understanding, and is a civil engineer trained in
Australia"; (3) the failure to attach or provide the AAA rules
"may make the application procedurally unconscionable" but not
"substantially oppressive as it would seem unlikely that a civil
engineer, with six years of college, could not traverse the
internet to find such rules and, even if the application is
procedurally unconscionable, it is not substantively
unconscionable"; (4) the costs provision was "easily severable"
and did "not permeate the application with substantive
unconscionablity"; and (5) nothing in the arbitration provision
indicated "class actions or representative claims were included"
and the words used did not relate or arise out of other employees'
employment.

On appeal, plaintiff asserts the court erred in finding the
arbitration clause was not unconscionable, severing the cost
provision, and dismissing the class claims with prejudice.
Plaintiff argues the arbitration clause is substantively
unconscionable because it lacks mutuality, requires him to pay
arbitration fees, gives defendant a "free peek" at his claims, and
fails to satisfy the requirements of Armendariz v. Foundation
Health Psychcare Services, Inc.  Plaintiff asserts the arbitration
provision is substantively unconscionable because it requires him
to pay half the costs of the arbitration without considering his
ability to do so and misinforms him he had to pay all his own
attorney fees.

Da Loc Nguyen is represented by Richard E. Quintilone II, Esq. --
req@quintlaw.com -- QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES; and John D. Trieu,
Esq. -- john@trieulaw.com -- LAW OFFICES OF JOHN D. TRIEU

Applied Medical Resources Corporation is represented by Steven M.
Zadravecz, Esq. -- szadravecz@jonesday.com -- and Edward S. Chang,
Esq. -- echang@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY


ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: West Calumet Residents File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Lyons, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that residents
of the West Calumet Housing Complex in East Chicago want the
operators of two former lead factories to pay for their
relocation.

A class action lawsuit filed on Oct. 6 by LeRithea Rolan and
Lamottca Brooks, on behalf of the residents of the housing
complex, charged that Atlantic Richfield Company, DuPont and the
Chemours Company should be responsible for the costs incurred by
residents as they've been forced from their homes because of the
lead and arsenic the now-demolished factories left in the ground.

". . . News of the lead and arsenic contamination in East Chicago
has thrown the neighborhood into disarray, while ARCO and DuPont
are long gone from the area," said attorney Thomas Zimmerman, who
is representing the plaintiffs, in a statement.  "The polluters
must take responsibility and pay for the damages they have
caused."

The lawsuit wants the court to hold the companies responsible for
the anguish the contamination has caused residents of the West
Calumet Housing Complex.

"Everybody's lives have been disrupted tremendously from this,"
Zimmerman said.

When the EPA tested the levels of lead and arsenic in the soil at
the West Calumet Housing Complex, the results showed every street
in the complex had high levels of contamination.

The testing of Ms. Rolan's yard recorded lead levels that ranged
from 1,852 to 29,000 parts per million.  The testing in
Ms. Brooks' yard found lead levels from 6,900 to 91,100 ppm.

The EPA considers lead levels below 400 ppm safe and anything
above 1,200 ppm requires emergency removal.

"None of the residents knew about the polluted soil when they
moved there," Mr. Zimmerman said.

Ms. Brooks sent her children to live with relatives after learning
about the lead and arsenic levels in the soil, Mr. Zimmerman said.

"She's afraid for their health," he said.

Shortly after moving into the complex with her family in 2012, Mr.
Zimmerman said Brooks began to notice behavioral problems and
difficulty concentrating with her children.  Physicians were
unable to figure out the root cause, Mr. Zimmerman said, but did
not yet know about the lead levels in the soil.

"Now that that has been made known, it all makes sense,"
Mr. Zimmerman said.

Ms. Brooks and the other residents of the complex are now forced
to move and uproot their lives in a short amount of time,
Mr. Zimmerman said, and many residents are having difficulty
finding a new place to live.

The residents are of limited means, Mr. Zimmerman said, and most
don't have the money to pay for all the relocation costs.

"We're seeking some compensation from the polluters to help
provide some assistance," Mr. Zimmerman said.

Aside from the issue of relocation costs, Mr. Zimmerman said the
contamination at the site put a burden on the residents of the
complex and made it impossible for the residents to enjoy their
homes and the properties around them.

In the middle of the summer, children were not able to play
outside because of parents' concern for their health and safety.
Residents kept their windows closed, many didn't have air
conditioning.  If children went outside, parents made the kids
remove their clothes at the door and washed off any dirt.

"It was very difficult on the residents and especially the
children," Mr. Zimmerman said.

The costs being sought in the class action suit builds on the work
done by the EPA to hold the companies responsible for clean up
costs, Mr. Zimmerman said.

In 2014, the U.S. District Court for Northern Indiana approved a
consent decree between the EPA, Department of Justice, State of
Indiana, the Atlantic Richfield Company and E.I. du Pont De
Nemours regarding the cleanup of the U.S. Smelter and Lead
Refinery site. The agreement covered only zones one and three of
the site.

Based on the agreement, the two companies would cover roughly $26
million in cleanup costs, according to the EPA.

"That however does not compensate the people who are living there
for the aggravating and inconvenience they are experiencing,"
Zimmerman said.

Mr. Zimmerman said the Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act not only provides the EPA the
mechanism to seek costs for cleanup but also compensation for
affected residents.  That was not part of the consent decree, he
said.


AXIALL CORPORATION: "Bohrer" Suit Moved to N.D.W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Tim Bohrer, Ronda Bohrer, Roy
Yoho, and Darlene Yoho individually and on behalf of a class of
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Axiall Corporation,
the Defendant, Case No. 16-C-158, was removed from the Circuit
Court of Marshall County, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of West Virginia (Wheeling). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-00156-FPS to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to Hon. Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.

Axiall Corporation has historically been a major manufacturer and
marketer of chlorovinyls and aromatics.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bryan D. Pasciak, Esq.
          James G. Bordas Jr., Esq.
          Jeremy M McGraw, Esq.
          BORDAS & BORDAS, PLLC
          1358 National Rd
          Wheeling, WV 26003
          Telephone: (304) 242 8410
          Facsimile: (304) 242 3936
          E-mail: jbordas@bordaslaw.com
                  jeremy@bordaslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John R. Callcott, Esq.
          William D. Wilmoth, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON, PLLC - MORGANTOWN
          PO Box 1616
          Morgantown, WV 26507-1616
          Telephone: (304) 598 8151
          Facsimile: (304) 598 8116
          E-mail: john.callcott@steptoe-johnson.com
                  william.wilmoth@steptoe-johnson.com


BALTIMORE POLICE: Employees Seek to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
THE BALTIMORE CITY, LODGE NO. 3 OF THE FRATERNAL, ORDER OF POLICE,
INC., GENE S. RYAN, PRESIDENT, 300 East Lombard Street, Suite
1100, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, and KENNETH B. BUTLER,
300 East Lombard Street, Suite 1100, Baltimore, Maryland 21202 and
WILLIAM E. MACDONALD, 300 East Lombard Street, Suite 1100
Baltimore, Maryland 21202 and JONATHAN S. GLAZERMAN, 300 East
Lombard Street, Suite 1100, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, Plaintiffs,
v. BALTIMORE POLICE DEPARTMENT, Serve on: Glenn Marrow, Baltimore
City Law Department, 100 N. Holliday Street, Suite 101, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202, and MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
OF BALTIMORE, Serve on: David Ralph, Baltimore City Law
Department, 100 N. Holliday Street, Suite 101 Baltimore, Maryland
21202, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03309-ELH (D. Md., September
30, 2016), seeks to recover on behalf of active, retired and
former Members -- all of whom are or were employees of the
Department -- compensation for overtime work under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendant, Mayor and City Council for Baltimore, is a chartered
Municipal Corporation under Maryland Code Annotated Articles 23A
and 23B, and is responsible for the operation of the Baltimore
Police Department and its employees.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Aaron A. Nichols, ESQ.
     Michael E. Davey, ESQ.
     SCHLACHMAN, BELSKY & WEINER, P.A.
     300 East Lombard Street, Suite 1100
     Baltimore, MD 21202
     Phone: 410.685.2022
     Fax: 410.783.4771
     Email: anichols@sbwlaw.com
            mdavey@sbwlaw.com


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Court Consolidates Price-Fixing Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Valerie Caproni of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York issued two lengthy opinions on
October 3 permitting consolidated class action lawsuits on behalf
of proposed classes of investors in physical gold and gold
derivatives and physical silver and silver derivatives to proceed
to discovery.

The cases concern the London Gold Fix and the London Silver Fix,
which are key benchmark rates for gold, silver, and related
financial instruments.  For many years, The Bank of Nova Scotia,
Barclays, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, and Societe Generale met in private
to conduct the Gold Fix.  Similarly, for many years, The Bank of
Nova Scotia, Deutsche Bank, and HSBC met in private to conduct the
Silver Fix.  The investor Plaintiffs (who sold physical gold and
silver and related futures and options contracts on these metals)
accused the Fixing Bank Defendants of utilizing their preferred
positions at the Gold and Silver Fixes to collude and effectively
"name their own" Fix price and thereby gain an unfair advantage
with respect to the contracts, derivatives, and physical positions
that they held in the market, all of which were correlated to the
Fix price in one way or another.

In her opinion, Judge Caproni concluded that the investor
Plaintiffs had sufficiently stated a claim for conspiracy in
restraint of trade against the Fixing Bank Defendants.  Judge
Caproni further determined that the investor Plaintiffs have
standing to bring antitrust and Commodity Exchange Act claims
against the Fixing Bank Defendants.  The investor Plaintiffs had
also named UBS as a defendant in both cases, but Judge Caproni
dismissed UBS as a defendant noting that it was not a party to
either the Gold or Silver Fix.  Judge Caproni also dismissed
certain claims brought by ETF investors.

The cases will now proceed into discovery.

Judge Caproni previously appointed Berger & Montague, P.C., led by
managing shareholder Merrill G. Davidoff, as co-lead counsel in
the case concerning the Gold Fix.  Berger & Montague, P.C. is also
class counsel in the case concerning the Silver Fix.  Prior to
Judge Caproni's ruling on the motions to dismiss, the investor
Plaintiffs entered into settlements in both cases with defendant
Deutsche Bank.

                 About Berger & Montague, P.C.

Berger & Montague is a full-spectrum civil litigation firm
primarily serving plaintiffs.  Its lawyers are recognized
nationally for their ability, agility, and decades of successful
experience in handling major complex litigation in Antitrust;
Commercial Litigation; Commodities & Options; Consumer Protection;
Corporate Governance & Shareholder Rights; ERISA & Employee
Benefits; Employment Law; Environmental & Mass Tort; Insurance &
Financial Products & Services; Lending Practices & Borrowers'
Rights; Representing Opt-Outs In Class Actions; Securities Fraud;
and Whistleblowers, Qui Tam & False Claims Act matters.


BARNES & NOBLE: Judge Tosses Class Action Over 2012 Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Herra, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a federal
judge has dismissed an attempt by customers of Barnes & Noble to
sue the bookseller over a 2012 data breach they say exposed them
to an increased risk of identity theft.

In September 2012, PIN-pad terminals in 63 Barnes & Noble stores
were tampered with, allowing individuals known as "skimmers" to
collect customers' data when they swiped their credit and debit
cards.  Barnes & Noble publicly announced the breach six weeks
after it was discovered.

The four named plaintiffs in the case then filed a class action
suit against the company.  According to court documents,
plaintiffs Ray Clutts, Heather Dieffenbach, Jonathan Honor and
Susan Winstead were all customers who shopped at affected Barnes &
Noble stores while the skimming devices were in place.

The plaintiffs' original complaint, filed in 2013, was dismissed
for lack of standing.  On Oct. 3, Judge Andrea R. Wood dismissed
all counts of the plaintiff's amended complaint, finding that,
though the plaintiffs had established standing, they still failed
to state a claim.

The lawsuit had charged Barnes & Noble with breach of implied
contract, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act, invasion of privacy, violation of the
California Security Breach Notification Act and violation of
California's Unfair Competition Act.

The invasion of privacy claim was dismissed because the judge said
it applies only to the public disclosure of highly offensive or
embarrassing private information.  Not only was the plaintiffs'
personal information not made public, the court wrote, such data
as names, birth dates and credit card numbers could not be
considered offensive or embarrassing.

The four remaining counts all shared the same fatal flaw, the
judge wrote: Failure to show that any of the plaintiffs suffered
actual financial damages as a result of their claims.

On the breach of implied contract claim, the plaintiffs argued
that Barnes & Noble was obligated to "reasonably safeguard" its
customers' personal identifying information.  The judge sided with
the bookseller in finding that regardless of whether such a
contract existed, under state law, a breach of contract claim can
only stand if the plaintiffs suffered actual damages.  The
plaintiffs tried to argue that the cost of protecting its
customers' data is built into the company's prices, but the court
was unconvinced.

"The court rejects Plaintiffs' arguments that overpayment for
goods at Barnes & Noble or the loss of the value of Plaintiffs'
PII represent damages for the purposes of the breach of contract
count," she wrote.

Ms. Winstead argued that she had suffered financial losses in the
form of monthly payments to an identity protection monitoring
service, but the amended complaint made it clear that she had
subscribed to the service even before the data breach, according
to court documents.

A claim for damages under the ICFA also requires the plaintiff to
show some actual injury suffered as a result of a business'
deception.  The court noted that the law specifically states an
increased risk of future identity theft does not qualify for
damages under the act.

The California Security Breach Notification Act only requires a
business that conducts business in California to notify residents
whose information may have been compromised of a data security
breach.  The court found that the six-week lag between the
discovery of the data breach and the public announcement was too
long under the law, but again, the one plaintiff who lives in
California was unable to show that the lag caused her any injury.

That plaintiff's claim under the Unfair Competition Act in her
home state had the same problem.  The Unfair Competition Act
prohibits business practices that create unfair competition, but a
claim under the act must show damages.  Case law has established
that an increased risk of identity theft does not qualify as
damage under the act, the judge wrote.

Plaintiffs in the case were represented by attorneys with the
firms of Barnow & Associates, of Chicago; Grant & Eisenhofer, of
Chicago; and Siprut P.C., of Chicago.

Barnes & Noble was represented by the firms of Honigman Miller
Schwartz and Cohn, of Chicago; and Arnold & Porter, of Washington,
D.C.


BAYER CORP: Judge to Consolidate 50 Nearly Essure Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that a small army
of plaintiffs lawyers are set to gain a tactical advantage in
dozens of California lawsuits against Bayer Corp. that accuse the
drug giant of failing to warn women about the dangers of a birth
control implant.

A state court judge on Sept. 30 said she plans to grant a motion
that will bring pretrial proceedings for nearly 50 cases over
Bayer's Essure device pending in courthouses across California
under one roof.

Coordinating the cases, plaintiffs attorneys say, will allow them
to pool their resources and add momentum to the litigation against
the company.  It will also move the cases into a courtroom where
plaintiffs have so far gotten some traction with their arguments,
and tees up a big fight over the scope of a fresh state Supreme
Court decision on mass torts.

Alameda County Superior Court Judge Winifred Smith, who is
presiding over half of the Essure cases pending in California, in
August rejected arguments by Bayer's attorneys that certain claims
over the medical device are pre-empted under federal law and
barred by the statute of limitations.

On Sept. 30, Judge Smith said during a hearing she thinks that
bringing the remainder of the cases into her courtroom makes sense
because they share many common aspects, and because doing so would
conserve court resources.

"I am inclined to grant the motion for coordination," Judge Smith
said. "I haven't really heard anything that would change my
thinking."

Judge Smith's order, which she said would be issued later on Sept.
30, will technically serve as a recommendation to California's
Judicial Council in favor of coordination.  But plaintiffs
attorneys say it is rare for the council to rebuff the opinion of
a judge.

The mass tort litigation centers on claims that Bayer failed to
disclose to the Food and Drug Administration and health care
providers that its Essure implant could cause serious health
risks, such as perforation of the uterus, chronic pain and
prolonged bleeding, as well as unintended pregnancies.

Many of the cases filed in California involve plaintiffs from
outside the state, and bringing the suits together almost ensures
a brawl over the extent to which of those claims can proceed in
California courts.  The litigation could test the bounds of a
California Supreme Court ruling in August holding that Bristol-
Meyers Squibb could be sued in the state's courts by out-of-state
residents.

Much of the development of the Essure device was conducted in the
Bay Area by a startup that was later bought out by Bayer,
according to plaintiffs.

Arguing for coordination on Sept. 30, Fidelma Fitzpatrick of
Motley Rice said that there are at least 31 different law firms
with Essure cases against Bayer pending in California.  While they
have been trying to cooperate and keep the courts apprised of
rulings in similar cases, "that becomes increasingly difficult as
more attorneys get involved and more cases are filed,"
Ms. Fitzpatrick said.

That complaint was skewered by Bayer attorney Maja Eaton --
meaton@sidley.com -- of Sidley Austin.  "I think it's really a
novel argument that coordination should be ordered simply because
plaintiffs' attorneys are finding it difficult to communicate with
each other," Ms. Eaton said.

Bayer, in its written opposition to the coordination motion, was
even more pointed.  "Ultimately, plaintiffs are not seeking
coordination -- which the parties were managing just fine on their
own -- but to avoid courts in which their complaints had not
survived a demurrer," its attorneys wrote.


BP AMERICA: "Cecil" Suit Claims Non-Payment of Oil Well Royalties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN CECIL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY (including affiliated
predecessors and affiliated successors) Case No. 6:16-cv-00410-KEW
(E.D. Okla., September 28, 2016), alleges actual, knowing and
willful underpayment or non-payment of royalties on natural gas
and/or constituents of the gas stream produced from wells through
improper accounting methods and by failing to account for and pay
royalties.

BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY is in the business of producing and
marketing gas and constituent products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
     W. Mark Lanier, Esq.
     THE LANIER LAW FIRM
     6810 FM 1960 West
     Houston, TX 77069
     12 E. California Ave., Suite 200
     Oklahoma City, OK 73104
     Phone: (713) 659-5200
     E-mail: WML@LanierLawFirm.com
             Reagan.Bradford@LanierLawFirm.com

        - and -

     Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
     REX. A. SHARP, P.A.
     5301 W. 75th Street
     Prairie Village, KS 66208
     Phone: (913) 901-0505
     Fax: (913) 901-0419
     E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com


BTB EVENTS: Faces "Rescalvo-Najera" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Javier Rescalvo-Najera, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BTB EVENTS & CELEBRATIONS, INC., BETWEEN
THE BREAD II, LTD., COOKIE PANACHE BY BETWEEN BREAD, LTD., RICKY
I. EISEN, AND SEAN MARTIN, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-07647
(S.D.N.Y., September 29, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid
minimum wages and overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.

Defendants own and operate a full service event planning and
catering business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Justin Cilenti, Esq.
     Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
     CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
     708 Third Avenue -- 6th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 209-3933
     Fax: (212) 209-7102


CANADA: RCMP Commissioner Apologizes for Harassments
----------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson
delivered an abject apology on Oct. 6 to hundreds of current and
former female officers and employees who were subjected to alleged
incidents of bullying, discrimination and harassment dating back
42 years.

Mr. Paulson made the apology as he announced the settlement of two
class-action lawsuits stemming from the harassment allegations,
some of which date back to September 1974.  He said the federal
government has earmarked $100 million for payouts

"To all the women, I stand humbly before you today and solemnly
offer our sincere apology," an emotional Paulson told a news
conference in Ottawa.

"You came to the RCMP wanting to personally contribute to your
community and we failed you.  We hurt you.  For that, I am truly
sorry."

Mr. Paulson said the settlements would provide financial
compensation for the women and pave the way to end potential
class-action lawsuits brought forward by former RCMP members Janet
Merlo and Linda Gillis Davidson.  There is no cap on the potential
cost of the payouts, he added.

Mr. Paulson was joined at the news conference by the plaintiffs,
as well as Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale and Labour
Minister MaryAnn Mihychuk.

"The impact this has had on those who have experienced this
shameful conduct cannot -- must not -- be solely understood as an
adverse workplace condition for which they must be compensated,"
Paulson said.

"For many of our women this harassment has hurt them mentally and
physically.  It is has destroyed relationships and marriages, and
even whole families have suffered as a result.  Their very lives
have been affected."

Ms. Merlo took the podium after Mr. Paulson was finished, calling
it "a great day for the RCMP" and thanking the commissioner on
behalf of the other female members represented in the lawsuits.

"They just wanted it to be a better place to work," Ms. Merlo
said. "For them I'm really thankful that today finally arrived."

As she left the podium, she embraced Mr. Paulson, who wiped tears
from his eyes as he sat back down.

"I love my flag, I love my country and I loved my job; I left way
too early," added Ms. Davidson, who also extended her thanks to
the commissioner.

"I will continue to stand up and right the wrongs if I can," she
said.  "We are, we were and we always will be your greatest
asset."

Hundreds of former and serving female Mounties and civilian
members have said they were victims of harassment, bullying and
assault dating back to when women first joined the force.

The settlement likely marks the beginning of the end a difficult
episode in the force's history, one that has haunted Paulson's
tenure as commissioner.

"The  announcement . . . closes the door on a deeply troubling and
unfortunate period in the history of our national police force,"
Mr. Goodale said.

"It is an encouraging moment, demonstrating a deep desire on the
part of all parties to move forward in a positive and constructive
manner -- starting immediately."

Though neither of the two class actions has been certified, the
settlement agreements will be submitted to the courts, paving the
way for approval.  There will be a deadline for signing on to the
actions, which means it is too early to tell how many members
might be compensated.

Ms. Merlo, whose proposed class-action suit was filed in British
Columbia, said she experienced many instances of sexual harassment
that left her with post-traumatic stress disorder.

Ms. Davidson said she endured unwanted sexual advances and
repeated harassment during her 27-year career, which included a
stint with the prime minister's protective detail.  Her lawsuit
was filed in Ontario Superior Court.

The police force has streamlined the process for addressing
conflict, giving supervisors more power to deal with disputes
promptly, but some critics fear that has opened the door to
abuses.

Mr. Goodale has already asked the RCMP watchdog to revisit the
broad issue of bullying and harassment within the force.

The Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP is
looking at whether recommendations it made three years ago have
been implemented.


CANADA: Alberta RCMP Officer Resigns Following Harassment Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Caley Ramsay and Sarah Kraus, writing for Global News, reports
that a well-known and decorated Alberta RCMP officer facing
allegations of sexual misconduct involving female co-workers has
resigned and will face no disciplinary action, RCMP told Global
News on Oct. 3.

Const. Pernell Cardinal of the Maskwacis RCMP detachment was being
investigated for six counts of sexual misconduct.  An RCMP
spokesman confirmed in late September that three of those counts
were substantiated during an internal RCMP hearing.

The exact details of the incidents were not released by the RCMP.

Cardinal was suspended by the force in September, although it's
not known if he was suspended with or without pay.  He was given
two weeks to appeal the decision.

Cardinal has been in the news often, as an RCMP spokesperson for
the Chelsea Yellowbird case.  Ms. Yellowbird, 23, was shot and
killed outside a residence on Samson Cree Nation in September
2011.

In 2010, Cardinal was awarded a Canada Bravery Medal for saving a
man from a burning house at Samson Cree Nation with his partner,
Const. David Lee.

Const. Cardinal's brother, Perry, is also a member of the
Maskwacis RCMP.

One year ago, the RCMP was defending its workplace policies
against a class action lawsuit from nearly 400 female RCMP
officers and civilian employees.

The lawsuit alleges systemic harassment, bullying and gender
discrimination.  A third of the women involved are still employed
by the RCMP.


CANADA: RCMP Apology Beginning of Recovery, Former Mountie Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Ip, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that an apology
issued by RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson to the hundreds of women
behind two class-action sexual harassment lawsuits is only the
beginning of the recovery, according to former B.C. Mountie
Catherine Galliford.

"It can be the closing of a chapter, but it's not the end of the
book," she said.

Ms. Galliford, formerly a high-profile RCMP spokeswoman, filed a
lawsuit in 2012 that shone a light on two decades of sexual
harassment and bullying she suffered within the RCMP and her
eventual diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder.  Her case
was scheduled to go to trial in 2017, before she received an out-
of-court settlement and a medical discharge this spring.

The lawsuit paved the way for hundreds of other female RCMP
officers and employees to speak up about similar experiences --
some of which date back to the 1970s -- culminating in two class-
action suits being brought forward in B.C. and in Ontario.

On Oct. 6, Mr. Paulson delivered an apology to those women and
announced $100 million had been earmarked for settlements in the
two suits. Neither of the class-action lawsuits have been
certified and the settlement agreements will still need to be
approved by the courts.

"The beauty of it is that Commissioner Paulson gave an apology and
I think, for all of these women, that's what they were waiting
for," Ms. Galliford told Postmedia News on Oct. 6.  "They wanted
an apology, an acknowledgement and validation of what they were
going through when no one listened."

However, Ms. Galliford expressed skepticism over whether the
Oct. 6 apology and settlement would translate into the type of
change she believes is needed throughout the police force.

"Do I believe the apology was necessary? I absolutely do.  Am I
sitting back and waiting for changes within the RCMP? I don't
think so," she said.  "It's a culture and I don't know if anything
will change until the perpetrators are held accountable and the
RCMP becomes more transparent."

Among the changes Ms. Galliford wants to see is a move to
provincial police forces, instead of a country-wide force.  She
says the RCMP has become "too big to be managed" and that it "has
been allowed to run rampant for too long with lack of independent
oversight."

"This is the beginning of something. I don't know what but there
are still so many people out there who are so afraid to tell their
stories," she said.

The two class-action suits were brought forth by former RCMP
members Janet Merlo and Linda Gillis Davidson.  Both women were
present on Oct. 6 when Mr. Paulson delivered the apology.

It remains to be seen how many women will be compensated as a
result of the settlement agreements.  There is no cap to the
potential amount of payouts.


CANADA: RCMP Class Action Plaintiff Overjoyed by Apology
--------------------------------------------------------
Doug Diaczuk, writing for tbnewswatch, reports that Heli Kijanen,
who has been fighting for justice in the face of gender
discrimination from one of Canada's top institutions will finally
have closure.

"Thank you to the RCMP for acknowledging your wrongdoing,"
Ms. Kijanen said on Oct. 6.

"I can now close a chapter in my book that has been open and
bleeding for many years."

A settlement has been reached in a class-action lawsuit filed
against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in 2011 involving
harassment, discrimination, bullying, and sexual abuse against
female officers and civilian employees.

On Oct. 6, Ms. Kijanen and hundreds of other women who faced
discrimination while working for the RCMP, watched as RCMP
commissioner, Bob Paulson, publically apologized for the conduct
of the national police force.

"To all the women who have been impacted by the force's failure to
have protected your experience at work, and on behalf of every
leader, supervisor or manager, every commissioner, I stand humbly
before you today and solemnly offer our sincere apology,"
Mr. Paulson said during a news conference in Ottawa.

Ms. Kijanen joined the RCMP in 2008 but said she was forced out
two years later because of constant bullying and discrimination.
Ms.  Kijanen said she experienced physical and mental distress, as
well as post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from her
experiences.

Ms. Kijanen and Thunder Bay lawyer, Alexander Zaitzeff, started a
class-action lawsuit with other women from across the country who
also faced discrimination and abuse while working at the RCMP.

Six years later, that lawsuit has been settled and Ms. Kijanen,
who was there at the beginning, said she is overjoyed to be
watching the public apology at the end of a long six years.

"In the beginning, I just dreamt about it," she said.  "I never
thought I would see it.  About an hour ago I was actually watching
it on video on my phone in private and I just felt such wonderful
feeling and hope for the future, for Mounties, and females who
want to join and work in a society where they are accepted and
they don't have to over-prove themselves, they don't have to be
dragged under the system because it's a boys club."

Thunder Bay lawyer, Christopher Watkins, who worked with
Mr. Zaitzeff on the case, said details of the settlement cannot be
discussed at this time because they are yet to be ratified by a
federal court.

There are thousands of women who have worked with the RCMP as
officers or civilian members dating back to 1974 who could qualify
for compensation.  The settlement could cost the RCMP more than
$100 million.

"I think the RCMP took a brave step forward, as well as the
government today, by starting to deal with this significant
issue," Mr. Watkins said.

"I think for the brave women of the RCMP who have faced gendered
based discrimination this is a significant step forward for the
history of policing in our country.  We look at an evolution of
change in our modern society and I think this will be known as a
benchmark case for moving forward gender based discrimination
based cases and gender rights, not only in our province but the
country as well."

While hearing the public apology from commissioner Paulson is a
significant moment for Ms. Kijanen, she said that actions will
speak louder than words.

"Time will tell how sincere they really are," she said. "But at
least now that they have been under the gun and under the
microscope, people are watching. Ever since we came out six years,
people started watching."

For Ms. Kijanen, the proof of sincerity could lie within the
RCMP's willingness to take members back who have been pushed or
left due to harassment.

"I would be one of those members that would be more than willing
to go back into the force and make real change," Ms. Kijanen said.

Ms. Kijanen said could not have made it through those six years of
fighting without the support of her family and friends and she
encourages anyone who has faced injustice to keep fighting.

"I want to tell everybody out there: if you fight for something
long enough that you firmly believe in, if it's right and it's
just, it will happen and to never give up," she said.  "I
congratulate all the female Mounties out there."


CARMEL, IN: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Traffic Ordinance
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lindsey Erdody, writing for Indianapolis Business Journal, reports
that a U.S. District Court judge has dismissed a federal class-
action lawsuit filed against the city of Carmel for its
enforcement of a local traffic ordinance.

Attorney Edward Bielski, president of Bielski Law LLC and former
partner of Stewart & Irwin PC filed the lawsuit against the city
at the end of last year alleging the city knowingly enforced an
illegal traffic ordinance and wrongly collected money from
citations "to maximize city revenue."

The lawsuit named 18 plaintiffs, of which only two were Carmel
residents.  All had been cited under Carmel's local traffic
ordinance, which was deemed invalid by the Indiana Court of
Appeals in a separate lawsuit last year.

The plaintiffs claimed the illegal citations resulted in higher
auto insurance rates and points on their driver's licenses.

The complaint also said the motorists were given false information
regarding their traffic infractions, so they couldn't properly
defend themselves.  It also alleged city police had a policy of
wrongly ticketing drivers on Interstate 465 and wrongly ticketing
drivers for non-moving violations.

Carmel had requested the court dismiss the lawsuit and argued that
the "harm" the plaintiffs described would have occurred regardless
of how they were cited because all of them admitted to the traffic
violations.

In the decision issued on Oct. 6, U.S. District Court Judge Jane
Magnus-Stinson agreed that the complaint did not tie the alleged
harm to the Carmel defendants, which included Mayor Jim Brainard,
Carmel City Council members from 2014 and 2015, Carmel City Court,
Carmel City Judge Brian Poindexter, Carmel attorney Doug Haney and
Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles superintendent Kent Abernathy.

"We are pleased with this decision that confirms our view that
this case was frivolous and needed to be dismissed to preserve
justice and the procedures used by many cities and towns across
Indiana," Mr. Brainard said in a statement sent to IBJ.

Since initially filing the lawsuit in December, Mr. Bielski
amended the complaint several times and repeatedly stated that
"discovery will show" the claims to be true.

Among several reasons cited to dismiss the case, Judge Magnus-
Stinson ruled that many of plaintiffs' claims were "too
speculative."

". . . These allegations all turn wholly on what plaintiffs think
they will learn through discovery, and not on what plaintiffs
already know to be true," Magnus-Stinson wrote.

In addition, Judge Magnus-Stinson found that some of the
plaintiffs' claims lacked standing.

The suit stems from the city's previous traffic ordinance that was
found to violate the state's Home Rule act because it duplicated
state law. The Indiana Court of Appeals decided that case Dec. 11,
and the city later repealed the ordinance in question.

That lawsuit had been filed by Jason Maraman, who had been pulled
over and cited for driving 30 mph in a construction zone with a 20
mph speed limit.

Mr. Maraman is still pursuing another federal lawsuit against the
city in which he accuses a Carmel police officer of giving false
testimony and targeting his vehicle for having an out-of-county
license plate.  He also accuses the officer of inappropriately
attempting to speak with a judge during a recess in one of the
previous hearings.

In her ruling, Magnus-Stinson accuses the plaintiffs in the class-
action lawsuit of trying to "piggyback onto Mr. Maraman's
success," but because the traffic ordinance wasn't deemed invalid
at the time they received their tickets, the issue doesn't apply.

Carmel had also requested sanctions against Mr. Bielski and
requested that he be ordered to pay all or at least a significant
portion of the city's legal fees.

The judge denied the request, saying sanctions weren't warranted,
but did note concerns with how the case was handled.

"The Court is disturbed by Plaintiffs' scattershot approach to
this litigation, as demonstrated by the fact that Plaintiffs
amended their complaint three times in three months," Judge
Magnus-Stinson wrote.


CARMINE'S BROADWAY: Class of Servers Certified in "Pichardo" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Ronnie Abrams adopts the report and recommendation issued
by Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn in the lawsuits titled RAUL
PICHARDO, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. CARMINE'S BROADWAY FEAST INC. and ALICART, INC.
d/b/a/THE ALICART RESTAURANT GROUP, Case Nos. 15-CV-3312 (RA), 15-
CV-4046 (RA) and 15-CV-4049 (RA) (S.D.N.Y.).

Judge Abrams, therefore, ordered that (i) a class is certified
under the New York Labor Law consisting of "all persons who have
been employed by the Defendants as servers, bussers, bartenders,
and/or barbacks in the State of New York since April 28, 2009";
(ii) absent class members' claims are tolled; and (iii) the
actions are consolidated into lead case 15 Civ. 3312 (RA) (SN).

The Plaintiffs in the three related Fair Labor Standards Act
collective actions move for consolidation and class certification
for their NYLL claims, and tolling of absent class members' NYLL
claims.  The Defendants objected to the class certification
determination, and the Plaintiff responded to the Objections.

As the Court finds each of these objections unconvincing after a
de nova review, and no clear error in the remainder of the Report,
the Plaintiffs' motion for consolidation, class certification, and
tolling is granted, Judge Abrams stated.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/gVUMZ6 from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs Raul Pichardo, Melvin Amadiz, Miguel Valerio, Valmir
Souza, Manuel Guzman, Jose Arcenio Perez, Luis Rodriguez, Anwar
Bunche, Felix Pichardo, Jose Valette, Jaime Arango, Marcus
DeAraujo, Tobias Lopez DeLaCruz, Roberto Aguilar, David Elmer,
Jessibel Shelton and Damani Varnado are represented by:

          Matthew J. Blit, Esq.
          LEVINE & BLIT, PLLC
          350 Fifth Avenue, 36th Floor
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 967-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 967-3010
          E-mail: mblit@levineblit.com

Plaintiffs Raul Pichardo, Melvin Amadiz, Miguel Valerio, Valmir
Souza and Manuel Guzman are represented by:

          Justin Stedman Clark, Esq.
          LEVINE & BLIT, PLLC
          350 Fifth Avenue, 36th Floor
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 967-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 967-3010
          E-mail: jclark@levineblit.com

Defendants Carmine's Broadway Feast Inc., and Allicart, Inc., are
represented by:

          Carolyn Diane Richmond, Esq.
          Glenn Sklaire Grindlinger, Esq.
          Zev Samuel Singer, Esq.
          FOX ROTHSCHILD, LLP (NYC)
          100 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 878-7983
          Facsimile: (212) 692-0940
          E-mail: crichmond@foxrothschild.com
                  ggrindlinger@foxrothschild.com
                  zsinger@foxrothschild.com


CENTRAL FLORIDA: "Yarger" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Yarger, on his own behalf and others similarly
situated v. Central Florida Testing Laboratories, Inc., Case No.
8:16-cv-02809-JSM-TBM (M.D. Fla., October 3, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable
attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Central Florida Testing Laboratories, Inc. provides consulting
services in the civil engineering field from site planning to
post-construction services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      W. John Gadd, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF W.JOHN GADD
      Bank of America Building
      2727 Ulmerton Rd. Ste. 250
      Clearwater, FL 33762
      Telephone: (727) 524-6300
      E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com

CHINATOWN TAKE-OUT: Faces "Li" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
------------------------------------------------------------
SHANFA LI, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. CHINATOWN TAKE-OUT INC. d/b/a China Town Take Out;
and YECHIEL MEITELES, Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-01183-TJM-DEP
(N.D.N.Y., September 29, 2016), alleges violations of the Federal
Labor Standards Act, and of the New York Labor Law (NYLL), arising
from Defendants' alleged various willful and unlawful employment
policies, patterns and/or practices.

CHINATOWN TAKE-OUT INC. -- http://www.chinatowntakeout.com/--
offers food catering services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John Troy, Esq.
     TROY LAW, PLLC
     41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119
     Flushing, NY 11355
     Phone: (718) 762-1324


COREPOWER YOGA: Faces "Walsh" Suit in N.D. of California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CorePower Yoga LLC.
The case is styled William Walsh, on behalf of himself and all
those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CorePower Yoga LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-05610 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 3, 2016).

CorePower operates a chain of yoga fitness studios in the United
States. It offers yoga fitness classes, hot power fusion and hot
yoga classes.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


CST BRANDS: Jacob Kempler Seeks to Enjoin Sale to Circle K
----------------------------------------------------------
JACOB KEMPLER FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, on Behalf of Itself and All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CST BRANDS, INC., KIM
LUBEL, ALAN SCHOENBAUM, DONNA M. BOLES, ROGER G. BURTON, ROCKY B.
DEWBRE, THOMAS W. DICKSON, RUBEN M. ESCOBEDO, DENISE INCANDELA,
JOSEPH E. REECE, STEPHEN SMITH, JOSEPH V. TOPPER, JR., and MICHAEL
WARGOTZ, Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00982 (W.D. Tex., October 4,
2016), seeks to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction,
pursuant to which CST will be acquired by Alimentation Couche-Tard
Inc. through its U.S.-based subsidiary Circle K Stores Inc. and
Parent's wholly-owned subsidiary Ultra Acquisition Corp.

CST BRANDS, INC. is a retail and wholesale distributor of motor
fuel, convenience merchandise and services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
     THE BILEK LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
     700 Louisiana, Suite 3950
     Houston, TX 77002
     Phone: (713) 227-7720
     E-mail: tbilek@bileklaw.com

        - and -

     Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
     Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
     Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
     Seth M. Rosenstein, Esq.
     WEISSLAW LLP
     1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
     New York, NY 10036
     Phone: (212) 682-3025
     Fax: (212) 682-3010


CVS CAREMARK: First Circuit Revives Vitamin E Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Debra S. Dunne, Esq. -- ddunne@shb.com -- Laurie A. Henry, Esq.
-- lhenry@shb.com -- and Madeleine M. McDonough, Esq. --
mmcdonough@shb.com -- of Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, in an article
for Lexology, report that the First Circuit recently overturned a
district court ruling dismissing a class action against CVS
Caremark Corp. Kaufman v. CVS Caremark Corp., 16-1199 (1st Cir.,
order entered September 6, 2016).

The original complaint, filed in May 2014, claimed that CVS
markets, sells and distributes vitamin E products that they
represent as supporting "heart health."  The plaintiff alleged the
retailer's "heart health" and "supports heart health" statements
were false, misleading and reasonably likely to deceive the
public.

The district court ruled that the suit was preempted by the Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), dismissing the complaint.  The
three-judge panel for the First Circuit disagreed.  While finding
that CVS would be protected by the safe harbor of FDCA if its
label met the requirements of section 343(r), the panel ultimately
decided that Kaufman adequately pled that the labeling does not
meet the statutory requirements.


DISCOUNT GARAGE: "Chickering" Lawsuit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Chickering, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, v. DISCOUNT GARAGE DOORS, INC., a Florida Corporation,
Case No. 8:16-cv-2772-T-27TGW (M.D. Fla., September 28, 2016),
seeks alleged unpaid overtime compensation, and declaratory relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Discount Garage Doors, Inc. specializes in repairing and restoring
garage doors and openers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew R. Gunter, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor
     P.O. Box 4979
     Orlando, FL 32802-4979
     Phone: (407) 420-1414
     Fax: (407) 867-0946
     E-mail: mgunter@forthepeople.com


DNC SPORTSERVICE: Concessionaire Wins Appeal in Overtime Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Barrington D. Parker of the Court of Appeals, Second
Circuit, affirmed the judgment of the district court in the case
captioned, WILLIAM A. HILL and TANICA BROWN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES SPORTSERVICE, INC., Defendant-Appellee,
BALTIMORE ORIOLES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Intervenor, Case No. 15-
2109-CV (2nd Cir.).

Plaintiffs-Appellants William A. Hill and Tanica Brown, who worked
at the concessions at Oriole Park, the home field of the Baltimore
Orioles, seek overtime compensation, which Defendant-Appellee
Delaware North Companies Sportservice Inc. (DNC Sportservice), the
owner of these concessions, chose not to pay on the basis that any
"amusement or recreational establishment" is exempt from paying
overtime if its operations or receipts show that its business is
seasonal. Appellants were employees of Maryland Sportservice's
concessions. Hill was employed from March through most of June
2011, and Brown was employed from February to June 2011.

Judge William N. Skretny of the United States District Court for
the Western District of New York granted summary judgment in favor
of DNC Sportservice, reasoning that it was exempt because the
concession activities "were an integral part of the amusement and
recreational character of Oriole Park."

On appeal, Plaintiffs argue that it is "evident that Delaware
North's operations, which are limited to the provision of food and
retail services, are not of a recreational or amusement
character."

In his Decision dated October 3, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/4Y8z0Z from Leagle.com, Judge Parker concluded that
Maryland Sportservice is an "amusement or recreational
establishment" under the FLSA because it is a "concessionaire" at
an amusement or recreational facility, which Congress intended to
exempt if it also meets one of the seasonality tests. Because
Maryland Sportservice satisfies the receipts test as applied to
new businesses under DOL's guidance, Appellants were exempt from
overtime compensation under 29 U.S.C. Section 213(a)(3).

William A. Hill and Tanica Brown are represented by Gary Lynch,
Esq. -- glynch@carlsonlynch.com -- and Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq. --
jetzel@carlsonlynch.com -- CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP

They are also represented by:

      Edward David Hoskins, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF E. DAVID HOSKINS, LLC
      16 East Lombard Street, Suite 400,
      Baltimore, MD 21202
      Tel: (410)662-6500

Delaware North Companies Sportservice, Inc. is represented by
Robert Pritchard, Esq. -- rpritchard@littler.com -- and Brian M.
Hentosz, Esq. -- bhentosz@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
-- Terrence M. Connors, Esq. -- tmc@connorsllp.com -- CONNORS LLP

Baltimore Orioles Limited Partnership is represented by Marie
Celeste Bruce, Esq. -- cbruce@rlls.com -- RIFKIN LIVINGSTON
LEVITAN & SILVER LLC; and James R. Grasso, Esq. --
jgrasso@phillipslytle.com -- PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP


DOLGENCORP LLC: Faces "Erlandson" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID ERLANDSON, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, v. DOLGENCORP, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-00315-MW-GRJ (N.D.
Fla., September 28, 2016), alleges that the Plaintiff is owed
compensation for time actually worked but not paid, and back wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

DOLGENCORP, LLC operates discount retail stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew W. Birk, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW BIRK
     309 NE 1st Street
     Gainesville, FL 32601
     Phone: (352) 244-2069
     Fax: (352) 372-3464
     E-mail: mbirk@gainesvilleemploymentlaw.com


DRAGON WEST: "Wilson" Suit Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL WILSON, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, v. DRAGON WEST OF LAWTON, INC., AND CHONG S. LAWLEY
(d/b/a DRAGON WEST), Case No. 5:16-cv-01125-F (W.D. Okla.,
September 27, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid back wages,
overtime pay and unlawful kickbacks under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Defendant owns and operates the adult entertainment club called
"Dragon West."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William B. Federman, Esq.
     Joshua D. Wells, Esq.
     FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
     10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
     Oklahoma City, OK 73120
     Phone: (405) 235-1560
     Fax: (405) 239-2112
     E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
             jdw@federmanlaw.com

          - and -

     Cullin A. O'Brien, Esq.
     CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A.
     6541 NE 21st Way
     Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308
     Phone: (561) 676 - 6370
     Fax: (561) 320 - 0285


DRILL-CHEM LLC: Faces "Julmis" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
JULMITO JULMIS, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiffs, V. DRILL-CHEM, LLC, Defendant, Civ. No.
5:16-CV-975 (W.D. Tex., September 30, 2016), alleges that Drill
Chem fails to pay Day-Rate employees time and one-half of their
regular rate for all hours worked over forty in a workweek in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

DRILL-CHEM, LLC provides products and services to the oil and gas
industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lawrence Morales II, Esq.
     Alison S. Hartry, Esq.
     THE MORALES FIRM, P.C.
     115 E. Travis, Suite 1530
     San Antonio, TX 78205
     Phone: (210) 225-0811
     Fax: (210) 225-0821
     E-mail: lawrence@themoralesfirm.com
             ahartry@themoralesfirm.com

        - and -

     Roy Barrera III, Esq.
     GOLDEN & BARRERA, P.C.
     424 E. Nueva Street
     San Antonio, TX 78205
     Phone: (210) 224-5811
     Fax: (210) 802-4633
     E-mail: rbarrera@golden-barrera.com


DYNAMIC DESIGN: Faces "Espinoza" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
BYRON J. ESPINOZA and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff(s), v. DYNAMIC DESIGN AND SERVICES, INC. and IVAN
FIGUEROA, individually Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-24184-DLG
(S.D. Fla., September 30, 2016), seeks to recover money damages
for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Defendant DYNAMIC DESIGN is a manufacturer of commercial and
residential cabinets, countertops, and flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
     ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
     9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
     Miami, FL 33156
     Phone: (305) 446-1500
     Fax: (305) 446-1502
     E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


EASTMAN KODAK: Plaintiff Lawyers Take Home $2.4-Mil. in Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David G. Larimer of the United States District
Court for the Western District of New York granted plaintiffs'
counsel a reduced award of attorneys' fees of 25% of the common
fund, for a total of $2,425,000.00, plus the requested costs and
expenses in the amount of $119,100.88; and awarded $5,000.00 for
each of the class representatives in the case captioned, IN RE
EASTMAN KODAK ERISA LITIGATION, Case No. 12-CV-6051L (W.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs brought the class action (consolidated from several
separately-filed cases) against Eastman Kodak and other defendants
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA), 29 U.S.C. Section 1001 et seq. Plaintiffs generally
allege that the defendants, fiduciaries of the Eastman Kodak
Employees' Savings and Investment Plan (the Plan), breached their
ERISA-mandated duties through imprudent management, oversight and
administration of the Plan.

The operative complaint -- an Amended Complaint reflecting the
consolidation of seven separately-filed actions -- was filed
September 14, 2012. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint on October 29, 2012, which were thoroughly briefed and
argued. The Court denied those motions on December 17, 2014, and
the parties commenced discovery in or about February 2015, which
included exchanges of interrogatories and requests for admissions,
some exchanges of documents, and motions to compel.

In December 2015, the parties agreed to formal mediation to
attempt to resolve the matter, and after just one day of mediation
which took place in February 24, 2016, the parties reached an
agreement to settle the case in its entirety. On April 22, 2016,
the parties executed a Settlement Agreement memorializing its
terms.

In the motion, the parties move for approval of the settlement,
which the Court has granted by a separate order, and for an award
of attorney fees for plaintiffs' counsel, representing 30% of the
$9.7 million common fund, plus costs, expenses, and class
representative awards. Plaintiffs claim that these actions
required the expenditure of over 2,200 hours of attorney time by
counsel at six different firms, at billing rates ranging up to
$950/hour, resulting in a lodestar amount of over $1.5 million.

In his Decision and Order dated October 4, 2016, available at
https://is.gd/LwzsKf from Leagle.com, Judge Larimer found that the
sheer size of plaintiffs' counsel roster would, of necessity, have
caused appreciable duplication of effort, and that an award of
attorneys' fees in the full amount requested by plaintiffs would
exceed what is a reasonable fee and granted an attorney fee award
of 25% of the common fund in the total amount of $2,425,000.00,
plus requested costs and expenses which the Court finds are
reasonable in the amount of $119,100.88, and class representative
awards of $35,000.00.

Mark Gedek is represented by Mark P. Kindall, Esq. --
mkindall@ikrlaw.com -- IZARD KINDALL & RAABE, LLP; Nadeem Faruqi,
Esq. -- nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com -- Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq. --
jgoldberg@faruqilaw.com -- Michael Hynes, Esq. --
mhynes@faruqilaw.com -- and Robert J. Gray, Esq. --
rgray@faruqilaw.com -- FARUQI & FARUQI LLP; Gerald D. Wells, III,
Esq. -- gwells@cwg-law.com -- CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP

Thomas W. Greenwood, et al. are represented by Mark P. Kindall,
Esq. -- mkindall@ikrlaw.com -- IZARD KINDALL & RAABE, LLP; Patrick
F. Madden, Esq. -- pmadden@bm.net -- Shanon J. Carson, Esq. --
scarson@bm.net  -- and Todd S. Collins, Esq. -- tcollins@bm.net --
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.

Antonio M. Perez, et al. are represented by Michael R. Law, Esq. -
- info@mikelawyer.com -- PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP; Jaclyn Nicci Adams,
Esq. -- afadams@gibsondunn.com -- Paul Blankenstein, Esq. --
pblankenstein@gibsondunn.com -- and William J. Kilberg, Esq. --
wkilberg@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP

Savings and Investment Plan Committee, et al. are represented by
Chad W. Flansburg, Esq. -- and Michael R. Law, Esq. --
info@mikelawyer.com -- PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP; Molly T. Senger, Esq.
-- msenger@gibsondunn.com -- Rachel E. Mondl, Esq. --
rmondl@gibsondunn.com -- Jaclyn Nicci Adams, Esq. --
afadams@gibsondunn.com -- Paul Blankenstein, Esq. --
pblankenstein@gibsondunn.com -- and William J. Kilberg, Esq. --
wkilberg@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP


ELECTROLUX HOME: Court Narrows Claims in "Elward" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John Z. Lee of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois granted in part a motion to
dismiss the First Amended Complaint in the case captioned, TERESA
ELWARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 15 C 9882 (N.D. Ill.), for failure to state a
claim and for failure to plead the fraud claims with
particularity.

Illinois consumers bought dishwashers designed and manufactured by
Electrolux that unexpectedly overheated, causing fires and
flooding. Teresa Elward, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, sued Electrolux pursuant to Illinois law for (1) breach
of implied warranty of merchantability (Count I); (2) strict
liability based on design defect (Count II); (3) strict liability
based on failure to warn (Count III); (4) negligence (Count IV);
(5) negligent failure to warn (Count V); (6) injunctive and
declaratory relief (Count VI); (7) unjust enrichment (Count VII);
(8) violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act (Count VIII); (9) violation of the Illinois
Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Count IX); and (10)
fraudulent concealment (Count X).

Elward alleges that she and other consumers purchased Electrolux
dishwashers through Electrolux's agents. Elward asserts that
Electrolux dishwashers are defective because the electrical system
overheats, causing its electrical components to catch on fire and
melt the tub that contains the water.

Electrolux moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint for
failure to state a claim and for failure to plead the fraud claims
with particularity.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated October 3, 2016
available at https://is.gd/sNKocu from Leagle.com, Judge Lee
granted the motion to dismiss Counts VI and VII because requests
for declaratory judgment and injunctions are not independent
causes of action.  He denied the motion as to all other respects,
finding that the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged claims.

Teresa Elward is represented by Edward A. Wallace, Esq. --
eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- Adam Michael Prom, Esq. --
ap@wexlerwallace.com -- and Amy Elisabeth Keller, Esq. --
aek@wexlerwallace.com -- WEXLER WALLACE LLP; Gregory F. Coleman,
Esq. -- greg@gregcolemanlaw.com -- and Lisa Anne White, Esq. --
lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com -- GREG COLEMAN LAW PC -- Shanon J.
Carson, Esq. -- scarson@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.

Electrolux Home Products, Inc. is represented by Galen D. Bellamy,
Esq. -- bellamy@wtotrial.com -- Michael T. Williams, Esq. --
williams@wtotrial.com -- and Kenneth E. Stalzer, Esq. --
stalzer@wtotrial.com -- WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP; James W.
Ozog, Esq. -- and Jennifer L. Rediehs, Esq. --
jrediehs@goldbergsegalla.com -- GOLDBERG SEGALLA, LLP


FIAT CHRYSLER: Jeep Class Actions Consolidated in Michigan
----------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Cullins, writing for Hollywood Reporter, reports that more
than a dozen lawsuits blame the automobile manufacturer for
incidents like the one that killed Anton Yelchin.

A slew of lawsuits have been filed against Fiat Chrysler
Automobiles, the manufacturer of Jeep.

The suits claim a defective gear shifter contributed to hundreds
of incidents, including the death of Star Trek actor Anton Yelchin
after his Jeep Grand Cherokee rolled backward when he was standing
behind it and it pinned him against a pillar and fence.

More than a dozen federal lawsuits have been filed across seven
states in response to a National Highway Transportation Safety
Administration investigation into the gear shifters.  Five of them
are class actions and two are individual personal injury suits.

A judicial panel on Oct. 5 ruled that three class actions, in
California, New York and Tennessee, should be centralized to the
Eastern District of Michigan, where FCA is headquartered.  On Oct.
6 it conditionally transferred four more cases. (The panel did not
immediately decide if individual personal injury cases should be
included.)

"The actions share complex factual questions arising out of
allegations that the monostable electronic gearshift installed in
certain vehicles manufactured by FCA US LLC is defective and
unreasonably dangerous in that it allegedly fails to provide the
driver with an adequate indication of whether the vehicle is in
the 'park' position and lacks a safety override function that
would place the vehicle in 'park' automatically when a driver
exits the vehicle while it is in another gear," writes Judge Sarah
Vance, the panel chair.

Mr. Yelchin's parents, Victor and Irina, are also suing the
automobile manufacturer and the dealership that sold the Jeep.
That suit was filed in California state court, so it will not be
consolidated with the others.  TMZ reported on Oct. 6 that the
dealership claims Mr. Yelchin's death was the result of "misuse,
misapplication, or damage" of the Jeep.

The Yelchin family attorneys did not immediately respond to a
request for comment.

The vehicles at issue in the federal cases are: Dodge Charger
(2012-14); Chrysler 300 (2012-14); Jeep Grand Cherokee (2014-15);
Maserati Quattroporte (2014); Maserati Ghibili (2014); and Dodge
Ram (2012-14).


FORD MOTOR: Court Certifies Focus Owners Class in "Daniel" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William B. Shubb entered a memorandum and order granting
the Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification filed in
the lawsuit captioned MARGIE DANIEL, individually and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated individuals v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a
Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:11-02890 WBS EFB (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Margie Daniel brought the action against Ford alleging a
defect in rear suspension geometry in new 2005 through 2011 Ford
Focus vehicles.  Plaintiff brings claims for: (1) breach of
express warranty under California Commercial Code; (2) breach of
implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; (3)
breach of warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; (4)
violation of the California Legal Remedies Act; and (5) violation
of California's Unfair Competition Law.

Judge Shubb certifies a class of individuals, who -- (1) purchased
or leased any 2005 through 2011 Ford Focus vehicle in California,
(2) currently own such a vehicle, and (3) currently reside in the
United States.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/Mb9SC7 from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs Margie Daniel, Robert McCabe, Mary Hauser, Donna Glass
and Andrea Duarte are represented by:

          John B. Thomas, Esq.
          HICKS THOMAS, LLP
          700 Louisiana Street, Suite 2000
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 547-9100
          E-mail: jthomas@hicks-thomas.com

               - and -

          Eric Grant, Esq.
          HICKS THOMAS LLP
          8801 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 172
          Sacramento, CA 95826
          Telephone: (916) 388-0833
          E-mail: grant@hicks-thomas.com

               - and -

          James Allen Carney, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          11311 Arcade Drive, Suite 200
          Little Rock, AR 72212
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500
          Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
          E-mail: acarney@cbplaw.com

Plaintiff Margie Daniel is represented by:

          Joseph Henry Bates, III, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          11311 Arcade Drive, Suite 200
          Little Rock, AR 72212
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500
          Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
          E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com

Defendant Ford Motor Company is represented by:

          David M. George, Esq.
          Fred J. Fresard, Esq.
          Tamara A. Bush, Esq.
          Janet L. Conigliaro
          John Mark Thomas
          Krista L. Lenart
          DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
          2723 S. State Street, Suite 400
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 214-7673
          Facsimile: (855) 264-3653
          E-mail: dgeorge@dykema.com
                  ffresard@dykema.com
                  tbush@dykema.com
                  jconigliaro@dykema.com
                  jthomas@dykema.com
                  klenart@dykema.com

               - and -

          Dennis R. Kiker, Esq.
          LECLAIR RYAN
          400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1500
          Sacramento, CA 95814 US
          Telephone: (916) 246-1140
          Facsimile: (916) 246-1155

               - and -

          Norman C. Hile, Esq.
          ORRICK HERRINGTON AND SUTCLIFFE LLP
          400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000
          Sacramento, CA 95814-4497
          Telephone: (916) 329-7900
          E-mail: nhile@orrick.com


GLH CAPITAL: Faces "Owens" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Min. Wage Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
TABITHA OWENS and CHAD WALTERS, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. GLH CAPITAL ENTERPRISE,
INC., M.L.K. ENTERPRISES, LLC, BACK STREET ENTERTAINMENT, LTD.,
CHARLES "JERRY" WESTLUND, JR., an individual, GARRETT HAMILTON, an
individual, and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01109
(S.D. Ill., October 3, 2016), seeks to recover damages for
Defendants' alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law by not paying for overtime
work.

GLH CAPITAL ENTERPRISE, INC. is a gastropub located downtown in
Marion, Illinois.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Shari R. Rhode, Esq.
     Martine Jackson, Esq.
     RHODE & JACKSON PC
     1405 W. Main St., P.O. Box 99
     Carbondale, IL 62901
     Phone: 618-529-8092
     Fax: 618-529-8582
     Email: srhode@rhodeandjackson.com
            mjackson@rhodeandjackson.com

        - and -

     Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
     Thomas A. Doyle, Esq.
     WEXLER WALLACE, LLP
     55 W. Monroe St., Ste 3300
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: 312-346-2222
     Email: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
            tad@wexlerwallace.com

        - and -

     Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
     Jesse L. Young, Esq.
     SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
     1 Towne Square, Ste 1700
     Southfield, MI 48076
     Phone: 248-355-0300
     Email: jthompson@sommerspc.com
            jyoung@sommerspc.com


GOLDEN MANGO: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Isaias Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GOLDEN MANGO AMERICA INC., JEON
SHIN and FRANCISCO JIN, Case No. CV-16-5462 (E.D.N.Y., September
30, 2016), seeks to recover damages for alleged violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

GOLDEN MANGO AMERICA INC. (doing business as GOLDEN MANGO) is a
retail food store.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
     HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC.
     69-12 Austin Street
     Forest Hills, NY 11375
     Phone: 718-263-9591
     Fax: (718) 263-9598


GOLDMAN SACHS: "Bloom" Lawsuit Transferred from Cal. to N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES BLOOM AND SHARON BURNSTEIN, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, v. GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., et al.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-07528-UA (August 24, 2016), was transferred from
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

The case alleges that Plaintiffs purchased 650,000 shares of 6.75%
Series A Convertible Preferred Stock pursuant to offering
documents that contained untrue statements of material fact and
omitted to state other material facts necessary to make the
statements made in the offering documents not misleading in
violation of the Securities and Exchange Act.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is an American multinational banking
firm that engages in global investment banking, investment
management, securities, and other financial services, primarily
with institutional clients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Patrick D. Robbins, Esq.
     SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
     535 Mission Street, 25th Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94105
     Phone: (415) 616-1100
     Fax: (415) 616-1199
     E-mail: probbins@shearman.com

        - and -

     Adam S. Hakki, Esq.
     Daniel C. Lewis, Esq.
     SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
     599 Lexington Avenue
     New York, NY 10022-6069
     Phone: (212) 848-4000
     Fax: (646) 848-4924
     E-mail: ahakki@shearman.com
             daniel.lewis@shearman.com


H. GREGORY: Faces "Bermudez" Suit Seeking Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Bermudez and Raul Garcia, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated, v. H. Gregory 1, Inc., a for profit
Florida corporation d/b/a "HGreg.com, H Greg Direct Auto Auction,
H Greg Auction Direct USA, H Greg Auction, H Greg Direct Auto
Auction, and H. Greg USA.com," and; Greg Hairabedian,
individually, Case No. 1:16-cv-24147-DPG (S.D. Fla., September 28,
2016), seeks to recover money damages for alleged unpaid minimum
wages and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant H. Gregory 1, Inc. is a Florida corporation, which
operates at least two, closely, privately held used automobile
lots as a single dealership location in Miami-Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony F. Sanchez, Esq.
     Anthony F. Sanchez, P.A.
     6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101
     Miami, FL 33143
     Phone: 305-665-9211
     Fax: 305-328-4842
     E-mail: afs@laborlawfla.com



HP INC: "Doty" Suit Alleges Unauthorized Changes to Firmware
------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT DOTY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. HP, INC. and DOES 1-10, Case 5:16-cv-02063 (C.D.
Cal., September 28, 2016), seeks to stop Defendant's alleged
practice of modifying and corrupting Purchasers' printers by
forcing unauthorized changes to their firmware.  The practice is
in violation of Unfair Competition Law.

HP, INC. manufactures, sells, and distributes printers and related
equipment and services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INLAND BANCORP: iMove Chicago Files Suit Over TCPA Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
iMOVE CHICAGO, INC., individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. INLAND BANCORP, INC., INLAND
HOME MORTGAGE COMPANY, LLC, and INLAND BANK AND TRUST, Defendants,
Case No. 2016 CH12999 (Ill. Circ., Cook County, September 30,
2016), claims that Defendants sent or caused the sending of
unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

INLAND BANCORP, INC. was operating as a bank holding company for
Inland Trust.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
     Amelia S. Newton, Esq.
     Sharon A. Harris, Esq.
     Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
     Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
     Maebetty Kirby, Esq.
     ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
     77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 440-0020
     Fax: (312) 440-4180
     Web site: http://www.attorneyzim.com
     E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
             amy@attorneyzim.com
             sharon@attorneyzim. com
             matt@attorneyzim.com
             nick@attorneyzim.com
             maebetty@attorneyzim. com


JANI-KING OF PHILADELPHIA: Attorneys Question Appellate Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Malfitano, writing for PennRecord, reports that a pair of
attorneys believe a recent federal appellate court ruling has
misinterpreted case law in certifying a putative class action
involving independent contractors of the world's largest
commercial cleaning franchisor, and instead agree with the court's
dissenting judge.

Donald Prophete -- dprophete@constangy.com -- and Jeffrey M. Rosin
-- jrosin@constangy.com -- of labor and employment law firm
Constangy Brooks Smith & Prophete recently authored a blog
questioning the decision and majority rationale of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Williams v. Jani-King of
Philadelphia, Inc.

Plaintiffs Daryl Williams and Howards Brooks bought a commercial
cleaning business from Jani-King under federal franchise laws,
thereby making them franchisees.  Filing suit on behalf of a group
of fellow franchisees in the Philadelphia area,
Mr. Williams and Brooks believe Jani-King misclassified them as
"independent contractors" instead of "employees."

Messrs. Williams and Brooks claimed they seldom or never hired
employees to assist with cleaning, and therefore sought unpaid
wages under the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law
(WPCL).  The WPCL mandates employers to regularly provide payment
and benefits, and limits deductions that can be made.

Last year, a district court granted their motion for class
certification.

Jani-King appealed the ruling to the Third Circuit, whose task it
was to consider "whether the misclassification claim can be made
on a class-wide basis through common evidence, primarily the
franchise agreement and manuals."  Jani-King sought to reverse the
class certification.

Judge D. Michael Fisher found the aforementioned agreement and
manuals were applicable to the putative class members.

"The common evidence identified by the plaintiffs and the District
Court are the Jani-King franchise agreement, policies manual, and
training manual, and representative testimony about those
documents," Judge Fisher wrote.  "The District Court concluded
that the plaintiffs' claims could be proven through this common
evidence and that, therefore, the plaintiffs met the predominance
requirement."

Ultimately, Judge Fisher and colleague Michael A. Chagares, the
court's majority, elected to uphold the trial court decision to
certify the prospective class.

"We hold that the claims in this case are susceptible to class-
wide determination and that the District Court did not abuse its
discretion by certifying the class," Judge Fisher wrote.

However, Judge Robert E. Cowen dissented from his colleagues,
terming franchising "a bedrock of the American economy" and
feeling the majority result harmed the prospect of that same
bedrock.

"I do not believe that such a result is consistent with either
basic class action principles, the nature and importance of the
franchisor-franchise relationship, or prior franchising case law,"
Judge Cowen said.

Judge Cowen also believed the common documents cited did not
provide for a class certification.

"In this case, the plaintiffs' purported common evidence merely
sets forth various franchise system controls.  Because of the
absence of common evidence tending to prove that the franchisees
are employees of the franchisor, the District Court abused its
discretion by certifying a class of Jani-King franchisees. I
therefore must respectfully dissent," the judge wrote.

Messrs. Prophete and Rosin concurred with Cowen's dissent.

"The dissent noted [correctly, in our opinion] that in conducting
a misclassification analysis the court should disregard any
controls required by franchise law to promote uniformity within
the system and manage the end-user's experience with the franchise
brand," Messrs. Prophete and Rosin wrote in their blog. "Once the
controls required by franchise law were ignored, the dissent
recognized, there really were no 'controls' left."

When reached for comment, Rosin, chairman of his firm's Franchise
Industry Practice Group, went on to say franchisors, under the
federal franchise disclosure rule, are "required to exert
significant controls over their franchisees."

"If the employment relationship is governed by whether you have
rights of control over the employee, that's fine, but keep in mind
the franchisor is supposed to have significant rights of control
over the franchisee, under the franchise laws," Mr. Rosin said.

Mr. Rosin rhetorically asked how it was possible for the two legal
concepts to be squared without having the Pennsylvania employment
law test "obliterate" the federal franchise law.

"The dissent really honed in on that, and recognized that you
really have to understand that's what a franchisor has to do, and
then look at the relationship," he said.  "Essentially, you should
exclude all of those things a franchisor has to do, before you
look at the relationship and determine whether it's an employment
relationship.  The majority [in this case] never did that."

Mr. Rosin said the court's majority not analyzing this aspect of
franchise law was "disappointing."

"They decided what the appropriate test was for the employment
relationship under Pennsylvania law, and they just simply looked
at that test and said, 'OK, could this test be examined class-wide
for this issue?" he said.

Mr. Rosin added if that were to be done, it was important for the
majority to place "parameters" around the test.

"They didn't put any parameters around it," he said.  "The whole
purpose of a class action mechanism is to say there's a common
issue of law and fact here, that should be resolved on a class-
wide basis.

"Whether the franchisees are employees is the common issue that
they found, but if you're going to find that, then say, 'If this
can be resolved on a class-wide basis, certain things the
franchisor does within the relationship need to be ignored because
those are all required by franchise law.' Had the majority
analyzed the case this way, that would have been a more reasoned
analysis."


JASON'S PIZZA: Faces "Hackhel" Suit Alleging Misclassification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Hackhel, Lynn Smith on behalf of themselves and similarly
situated individuals. v. Peter Skiouris, Athena Skiouris, Jason's
Pizza, Case No. 1:16-cv-09328 (N.D. Ill., September 28, 2016),
seeks to recover alleged unpaid minimum and overtime wages arising
from its misclassification of pizza delivery drivers.

The Defendant operates Giordano's d/b/a Jason's Pizza restaurants.


JOE'S GOURMET: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROMULO GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. JOE'S GOURMET DELI INC. (d/b/a JOE'S GOURMET DELI),
and ALI ABDO HASSIN, Case No. 1:16-cv-07602 (S.D.N.Y., September
28, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime wages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.  It also alleges violations of
the N.Y. Labor Law.

Joe's Gourmet Deli is a Deli owned by Ali Abdo Hassin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Faillace, Esq.
     Michael Faillace & Associates, P.C.
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
     New York, NY 10165
     Phone: (212) 317-1200


JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Tackles Satisfaction of Mortgage Issue
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nelson S. Roman of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York denied Defendant JPMorgan
Chase Bank, N.A.'s motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the case captioned,
TINA BELLINO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendant,
Case No. 14-CV-3139 (NSR) (S.D.N.Y.).

On March 17, 2004, the sole plaintiff named in the putative class
action, Tina Bellino, obtained a $300,000 mortgage loan from
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (JPMC) to purchase a house located at 46
Highland Avenue in Tarrytown, New York. On May 11, 2012, Bellino
sold the house. At some point thereafter, Bellino used the
proceeds from the sale to pay off the outstanding principal,
interest, and fees due on the mortgage (the Pay-Off Amount). JPMC
received a check for the Pay-Off Amount on May 14, 2012 in
Columbus, Ohio.  A satisfaction of mortgage was sent to the
Westchester County Clerk for recording via Federal Express on June
13, 2012. The Westchester County Clerk's Office recorded the
Certificate on June 21, 2012.

The Complaint purports to bring a class action against JPMC for
its alleged violation of Section 275 of the New York Real Property
Law (RPL Sec. 275) and Section 1921 of the New York Real Property
Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL Sec. 1921).

In the motion, Defendant present a question before the Court on
whether a satisfaction of mortgage or certificate of discharge
(satisfaction) is "presented" for recording at the time that it is
mailed to, or at the time it is received by, the county clerk.
According to JPMC, a satisfaction is presented for recording on
the date that it is placed with a mail service for delivery to the
appropriate county clerk.  Under this interpretation, JPMC
fulfilled its obligation to present Bellino's satisfaction for
recording when it gave the document to FedEx on the 30th day after
the mortgage was paid off.

In contrast, Bellino argues that the first provision of the
Statutes requires that a mortgagee "arrange" to have the
satisfaction presented within 30 days, including by contracting
with third-party services.  The second provision imposes strict
liability if the satisfaction is not received by the clerk within
that timeframe.  According to Bellino, JPMC violated the statute
by failing to ensure that the satisfaction was "presented to" or
received by the county clerk within 30 days after the mortgage was
paid off.

In his Opinion and Order dated October 3, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/FLk9Gl from Leagle.com, Judge Roman construed RPL
Section 275 and RPAPL Section 1921 to have required that JPMC
provide Bellino's satisfaction to the county clerk for recording
on or before the 30th day after Bellino paid the balance due on
her mortgage, finding that a satisfaction is "presented" for
recording upon receipt by the county clerk.

Tina Bellino, et al are represented by Jeremiah Lee Frei-Pearson,
Esq. -- jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com -- and Todd Seth Garber, Esq.
-- tgarber@fbfglaw.com -- FINKELSTEIN BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON &
GARBER, LLP; and David J. Cohen, Esq. -- david@tovarandcohen.com -
- KOLMAN ELY PC

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is represented by Christian J. Pistilli,
Esq. -- cpistilli@cov.com -- and Robert D. Wick, Esq. --
rwick@cov.com -- COVINGTON & BURLING, L.L.P.


KEY ENERGY: "Pruitt" Suit Alleges Employee Misclassification
------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT PRUITT, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, PLAINTIFFS vs. KEY ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, a
Texas Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,
DEFENDANTS, Case No. 1:16-at-00808 (E.D. Cal., September 29,
2016), alleges that the Defendant misclassified Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees as exempt from overtime under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is an oilfield services company that provides rig, fluid
management, frac stack, well testing, fishing and coil tubing
services to oil well drilling companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
     KENNEDY HODGESODGES, L.P.
     4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: (713) 523-0001
     Fax: (713) 523-1116
     E-mail: GKennedy@Kennedyhodges.com

        - and -

     George P. Moschopoulos, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE MOSCHOPOULOS, APC
     34197 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 100
     Dana Point, CA 92629
     Phone: 714.904.1669
     Fax: 949.272.0428
     E-mail: GeorgeM@logmapc.com


L&M WAREHOUSE: Faces "Keeley" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Keeley and others, similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. L&M
WAREHOUSE & PACKING OF NORTH FLORIDA, LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-01265-
TJC-MCR (M.D. Fla., October 4, 2016), seeks to recover money
damages for alleged unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

L&M WAREHOUSE & PACKING OF NORTH FLORIDA, LLC operates a packing
and warehouse facility.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Constantine W. Papas, Esq.
     CONSTANTINE W. PAPAS, P.A.
     1277 N. Semoran Blvd. Ste. 106
     Orlando, FL 32807
     Phone: (407) 347-6502
     Fax: (407) 206-3655
     E-mail: cwp@deanpapaslaw.com


LEGACY SUPPLY: "Martin" Suit Alleges Cal. Labor Law Breaches
------------------------------------------------------------
RICARDO MARTIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. LEGACY SUPPLY CHAIN SERVICES II, INC., an
Indiana Corporation; PrimePath, LLC, an entity unknown form, and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-02471-
WQH-BLM (S.D. Cal., October 3, 2016), alleges that Defendants
employed and continue to employ Warehouse Laborers to whom
Defendants as a class wide policy and practice failed to pay
appropriate overtime pay, did not make statutory meal periods
available or failed to pay an hour's pay in lieu thereof, and
knowingly failed to provide itemized wage statements that comply
with the Labor Code. Plaintiff further contends that Defendants'
failure to comply with the California Labor Code, and Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Orders is an unlawful business practice
within the meaning of the California Business and Professions
Code.

LEGACY SUPPLY CHAIN SERVICES II, INC. provides local distribution
services for multiple clients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher A. Olsen, Esq.
     OLSEN LAW OFFICES, APC
     1010 Second Ave., Ste. 1835
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 550-9352
     Fax: (619) 923-2747
     E-mail: caolsen@caolsenlawoffices.com


LIBERTY LIFE: Class & Subclass Certification in "Bush" Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JAMES L. BUSH, the Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY
LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF BOSTON and HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA., the
Defendants, Case No. 4:14-cv-01507-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order granting Liberty Life
Settlement Class and Subclass.

For settlement purposes, Counts III, IV, VI, X and XII are
certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure on behalf of the "Liberty Life Settlement Class" defined
as follows:

     "(a) Veterans who were honorably discharged from service in
     the United States Armed Forces and who are participants in
     ERISA-governed employee welfare benefit plans that provide
     LTD benefits insured by group LTD policies issued by Liberty
     Life; and (b) the beneficiaries of such participants."

For settlement purposes, Count I is certified pursuant to Rule
23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the
"Liberty Life Settlement Subclass" defined as follows:

     "members of the Settlement Class whose LTD benefits were
     reduced or offset by the amount of VA benefits paid or
     payable to that Settlement Subclass Member from January 1,
     2008 through the Settlement Effective Date."

James L. Bush is appointed as a Class Representative of the
Liberty Life Settlement Class and the Liberty Life Settlement
Subclass (Settlement Classes). Absentee Settlement Class Member
Adam Ripka is appointed as a Class Representative of the
Settlement Classes. R. Joseph Barton of Cohen Milstein Sellers &
Toll, PLLC is appointed as Lead Counsel for the Settlement
Classes. Michelle Roberts of Roberts Bartolic LLP is appointed as
Liaison Counsel for the Settlement Classes.

The following dates and deadlines are set in order for the Court
to evaluate whether the Settlement should be given Final Approval
and to evaluate Class Counsel's request for an award of attorneys'
fees and reimbursement of costs and expenses:

                 Event                             Deadline

   Last day for Liberty Life to send the        October 27, 2016
   Settlement Class Notice to its
   group policyholders

   Last day for Liberty Life to                 October 27, 2016
   mail Settlement Subclass Notice to
   Settlement Subclass Members

   Last Day for Class Counsel to file           October 27, 2016
   Motion for Award of Attorneys' and costs

   Last Day for Liberty Life to file            December 26, 2016
   Declaration re: Settlement Class Notices

   Last day for requests for exclusion          December 26, 2016
   from the Settlement Subclass to be
   postmarked by Settlement Subclass Members

   Last day for Settlement Class Members        December 26, 2016
   to file objections to the settlement

   Last Day for Liberty Life to Provide         January 11, 2017
   Class Counsel with amounts to be paid
   to Settlement Subclass Members

   Last day for Class Counsel to file Motion    January 25, 2017
   for Final Approval of Settlement

   Hearing on Motion for Final Approval         February 28, 2017
   of Settlement and application for
   attorneys' fees and costs

Liberty Life provides non-credit life insurance products,
annuities,
and structured settlement annuities.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=g8870CjS

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          West Tower
          1100 New York Ave. NW, Suite 500,
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408 4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408 4699
          E-mail: jbarton@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Michelle L. Roberts, Esq.
          ROBERTS BARTOLIC LLP
          1050 Marina Village Pkwy., Ste. 105
          Alameda, CA 94501
          Telephone: (510) 992 6130
          Facsimile: (510) 280 7564
          E-mail: mroberts@robertsbartolic.com


LINEAR TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Guerra" Suit Over Merger with Analog
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID GUERRA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. LINEAR TECHNOLOGY CORP., ROBERT H. SWANSON, JR.,
LOTHAR MAIER, ARTHUR C. AGNOS, JOHN J. GORDON, DAVID S. LEE,
RICHARD M. MOLEY and THOMAS S. VOLPE, Case No. 5:16-cv-05514 (N.D.
Cal., September 28, 2016), is a securities lawsuit in connection
with the acquisition of Linear by Analog Devices, Inc. through a
merger.

LINEAR TECHNOLOGY CORP. designs, manufactures and markets a broad
line of high performance analog integrated circuits for major
companies worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

     Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 983-9330
     E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com

        - and -

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


LMS TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Jackson" Suit Under Cal. Business Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WORREN JACKSON, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and On behalf of the general public, v. LMS
TRANSPORTATION LLC and DOES 1-100. Case No. BC-635316 (Cal.
Super., County of Los Angeles, September 27, 2016), alleges
violations of the California Business and Professions Code.

LMS TRANSPORTATION LLC is a licensed and bonded freight shipping
and trucking company running a freight hauling business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LTD FINANCIAL: Faces "Saroza" Suit in District of New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LTD Financial
Services, L.P. The case is titled NESTOR SAROZA, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LTD
FINANCIAL SERVICES, L.P., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-06259-
JLL-JAD (D.N.J., Oct. 3, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge
Jose L. Linares.

LTD Financial is a debt collector.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
          17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102b
          Rutherford, NJ 07070
          Telephone: (201) 507 6300
          E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Bennett" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2743
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Brian Bennett, an individual, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00281, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Eastern District of
Virginia - (Alexandria). The Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:16-cv-05004-AJT-TRJ to the proceeding.

The Bennett case is being consolidated with MDL 2743 in re: Lumber
Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Durability Marketing and
Sales Practices Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
October 4, 2016. These cases concern the sale and marketing of
Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring sold by defendant Lumber
Liquidators. Despite being marketed as sufficiently durable for
residential use, the Plaintiffs allege that their laminate
flooring scratches too easily and fails to meet the advertised
industry standard. In its October 4, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel
found that the actions in this litigation involve common questions
of fact, and that centralization in the Eastern District of
Virginia will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. All
actions involve common factual questions regarding the durability
of Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring sold by Lumber
Liquidators under the "Dream Home" label, particularly the issue
of whether the laminates comply with the allegedly warranted
industry standard for use in residential settings. Presiding Judge
in the MDL is Hon. Anthony J. Trenga, United States District
Judge. The lead case is 1:16-md-02743-AJT-TRJ.

Lumber Liquidators is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          WHITFIELD, BRYSON & MASON, LLP
          900 W. Morgan St.
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600 5000
          Facsimile: (919) 600 5035
          E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joan S. Dinsmore, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          P. O. Box 27507
          434 Fayetteville St., Suite 2600
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Telephone: (919) 755 6693
          Facsimile: (919) 755 6562
          E-mail: jdinsmore@mcguirewoods.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Hotaling" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2743
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Karen Hotaling and Margaret
Markoski, individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-04646, was
transferred from U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia - (Alexandria). The Virginia Eastern District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-05002-AJT-TRJ to the proceeding.

The Hotaling case is being consolidated with MDL 2743 in re:
Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Durability
Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation. The MDL was created by
Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on October 4, 2016. These cases concern the sale and
marketing of Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring sold by
defendant Lumber Liquidators. Despite being marketed as
sufficiently durable for residential use, the Plaintiffs allege
that their laminate flooring scratches too easily and fails to
meet the advertised industry standard. In its October 4, 2016
Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this litigation
involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the
Eastern District of Virginia will serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct
of the litigation. All actions involve common factual questions
regarding the durability of Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring
sold by Lumber Liquidators under the "Dream Home" label,
particularly the issue of whether the laminates comply with the
allegedly warranted industry standard for use in residential
settings. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Anthony J. Trenga,
United States District Judge. The lead case is 1:16-md-02743-AJT-
TRJ.

Lumber Liquidators is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Philip A. Goldstein, Esq.
          MCGUIRE WOODS LLP
          1345 Avenue of the Americas, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10105
          Telephone: (212) 548 2167
          Facsimile: (212) 715 6275
          E-mail: pagoldstein@mcguirewoods.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "McPherson" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2743
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Matthew McPherson, an individual,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01263, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia -
(Alexandria). The Virginia Eastern District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:16-cv-05003-AJT-TRJ to the proceeding.

The Mcpherson case is being consolidated with MDL 2743 in re:
Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Durability
Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation. The MDL was created by
Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on October 4, 2016. These cases concern the sale and
marketing of Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring sold by
defendant Lumber Liquidators. Despite being marketed as
sufficiently durable for residential use, the Plaintiffs allege
that their laminate flooring scratches too easily and fails to
meet the advertised industry standard. In its October 4, 2016
Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this litigation
involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the
Eastern District of Virginia will serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct
of the litigation. All actions involve common factual questions
regarding the durability of Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring
sold by Lumber Liquidators under the "Dream Home" label,
particularly the issue of whether the laminates comply with the
allegedly warranted industry standard for use in residential
settings. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Anthony J. Trenga,
United States District Judge. The lead case is 1:16-md-02743-AJT-
TRJ.

Lumber Liquidators is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Ryan" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2743
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Kelly Ryan, an individual, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff
v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a Delaware corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01978, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia - (Alexandria). The
Virginia Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-
05005-AJT-TRJ to the proceeding.

The Ryan case is being consolidated with MDL 2743 in re: Lumber
Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Durability Marketing and
Sales Practices Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
October 4, 2016. These cases concern the sale and marketing of
Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring sold by defendant Lumber
Liquidators. Despite being marketed as sufficiently durable for
residential use, the Plaintiffs allege that their laminate
flooring scratches too easily and fails to meet the advertised
industry standard. In its October 4, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel
found that the actions in this litigation involve common questions
of fact, and that centralization in the Eastern District of
Virginia will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. All
actions involve common factual questions regarding the durability
of Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring sold by Lumber
Liquidators under the "Dream Home" label, particularly the issue
of whether the laminates comply with the allegedly warranted
industry standard for use in residential settings. Presiding Judge
in the MDL is Hon. Anthony J. Trenga, United States District
Judge. The lead case is 1:16-md-02743-AJT-TRJ.

Lumber Liquidators is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Whitney Welch, Esq.
          Greenberg Traurig, Esq.
          3773 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 400 N
          Las Vegas, NV 89169
          Telephone: (702) 792 3773
          Facsimile: (702) 793 9002
          E-mail: welchw@gtlaw.com


MARMAX PARTNERS: Faces "Espinal" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Hernan Espinal, on his own behalf and on behalf of all similarly
situated v. Marmax Partners, Inc., d/b/a Valley Motor Center
Autobody, and Does 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. BC635989
(Cal. Super. Ct., October 3, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation in violation
of California Labor Code.

Marmax Partners, Inc. owns and operates an auto shop in Los
Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Young W. Ryu, Esq.
      Kelly Kim, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF YOUNG W. RYU
      A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
      9595 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 900
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (888) 365-8686
      Facsimile: (800) 576-1170
      E-mail: young.ryu@ywrlaw.com
              kelly.kim@ywrlaw.com


MDL 2672: Fleshman's Bid to Depose Va. Class Representative Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Charles R. Beyer of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California denied Ronald Clark
Fleshman Jr.'s motions to intervene and for leave to depose the
Virginia Class Representatives and granted motion to amend in the
case captioned, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This Order Relates
To: ALL ACTIONS (except the securities action), Case No. 2672 CRB
(JSC) (N.D. Cal.).

The multidistrict litigation includes a consolidated class action
lawsuit brought by the Court-appointed Plaintiffs' Steering
Committee (PSC or Plaintiffs) on behalf of consumers and reseller
dealerships. It also includes a lawsuit brought by the United
States on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) against Volkswagen AG; Audi AG; Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc.; Volkswagen Group of America Chattanooga Operations,
LLC; Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG; and Porsche Cars North America
(the United States Action, Case No. 16-cv-295 (CRB)). The United
States asserts claims arising under Section 203 of the Clean Air
Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 7522.

After five months of negotiations supervised by a Court-appointed
Settlement Master, the PSC and the United States filed a proposed
Consumer and Reseller Dealer Class Action Settlement (the
Settlement) and a Partial Consent Decree, respectively. Both
agreements involve Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, and Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc. (collectively, Volkswagen) and concern the 2.0-liter
TDI engine vehicles (Eligible Vehicles). The Court preliminarily
approved the Settlement on July 26, 2016 and entered its Amended
Order on July 29, 2016.

The Court previously denied Fleshman Jr.'s motion to intervene to
object on behalf of all Virginia class members.  Fleshman seeks to
intervene as a matter of right to enforce Virginia's EPA-approved
State Implementation Plan (SIP), and he argues the Clean Air Act
(CAA or Act) provides him an unconditional right to do so.
Fleshman has also filed a Motion to Amend his Reply to his Motion
to Intervene to submit a proposed amended complaint in
intervention.

In his Order dated October 4, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/zgE7F4 from Leagle.com, Judge Breyer found that
Fleshman has not shown that his proposed lawsuit in intervention
seeks to enforce the same standard, limitation, or order as does
the United States such that the CAA mandates his intervention and
as to his motion for leave to depose the six Virginia Class
Representatives, the Court found that he has not shown that
depositions are necessary to test the fairness and adequacy of the
Settlement.

Mr. Ronald Clark Fleshman, Jr., is represented by Don Howarth,
Esq. -- dhowarth@howarth-smith.com -- and Suzelle Moss Smith, Esq.
-- ssmith@howarth-smith.com -- HOWARTH AND SMITH.

He is also represented by:

      James B. Feinman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JAMES B. FEINMAN
      1003 Church St
      Lynchburg, VA 24504
      Tel: (888)691-0140

Daniel Fernandez Abad, et al. are represented by Warren Tavares
Burns, Esq. -- wburns@burnscharest.com -- BURNS CHAREST LLP

Glenn Brittain, et al. are represented by Thomas Andrew Crosley,
Esq. -- tom@crosleylaw.com -- THE CROSLEY LAW FIRM, P.C.

Martha Barrera, et al. are represented by:

      Mark Stephen Cichowski, Esq.
      THE CICHOWSKI LAW FIRM, P.C.
      10500 Heritage Blvd., Suite 102
      San Antonio, TX 78216-6522
      Tel: (210)23-5299

Volkswagen Investor Group is represented by Joshua Seth Devore,
Esq. -- jdevore@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL
PLLC

Chester County Employees Retirement Fund, et al. are represented
by Craig Crandall Reilly, Esq. -- craig.reilly@ccreillylaw.com --
RICHARDS MCGETTIGAN REILLY WEST -- and Joe Kendall, Esq. --
jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com -- KENDALL LAW GROUP PLLC

Dirito Brothers Walnut Creek, Inc., et al. are represented by
Laura Kabler Oswell, Esq. -- oswell@sullcrom.com -- Michael H.
Steinberg, Esq. -- steinberg@sullcrom.com -- and Sverker K.
Hogberg, Esq. -- hogberg@sullcrom.com -- SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

David Fiol, et al. are represented by William M. Audet, Esq. --
waudet@audetlaw.com -- AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP; Jeff D. Friedman,
Esq., Robert B. Carey, Esq. -- rob@hbsslaw.com -- Steve W. Berman,
Esq. -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- and Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
-- toml@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP; and Peter
B. Fredman, Esq. -- peter@peterfredmanlaw.com -- LAW OFFICE OF
PETER FREDMAN

Nicholas Benipayo is represented by Robert B. Carey, Esq. --
rob@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

Donald Ardine, et al. are represented by Amy Williams-Derry, Esq.
-- awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com -- Dean Noburu Kawamoto,
Esq. -- dkawamoto@kellerrohrback.com -- Derek William Loeser, Esq.
-- dloeser@kellerrohrback.com -- Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. --
gcappio@kellerrohrback.com -- Lynn L. Sarko, Esq. --
lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- and Tana Lin, Esq. --
tlin@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK LLP.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: "Hanis" Class Cert. Bid Denied as Moot
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JOHN HANIS, the Plaintiff, v.
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and METLIFE GROUP, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 14-1107-CV-W-FJG (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. entered an order granting MetLife's Motion
for summary judgment, denying Plaintiff's motion for partial
summary judgment, and denying as moot Plaintiff's motion to
certify a class pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).

John Hanis is a former senior insurance underwriter for MetLife.
He sued the Defendants, alleging that MetLife improperly
classified him as exempt from the overtime requirements of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and denied him overtime pay for
time worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff has also
raised a similar claim under the Missouri Wage Law.

The Court finds that the evidence in the case demonstrates that in
his position as an underwriter, the Plaintiff exercised
considerable discretion and independent judgment on matters of
significance in reviewing and analyzing the information necessary
to generate insurance quotes. Therefore, the Court finds that
MetLife has met its burden to show that Plaintiff meets the so-
called second prong of the administrative exemption test. Because
MetLife has shown that Plaintiff meets the salary requirement,
performed work which was directly related to the general business
operations of MetLife and that his primary duties included the
exercise of discretion and independent judgment on matters of
significance, the Court finds that MetLife has demonstrated that
plaintiff is employed in a "bona fide administrative capacity" and
is therefore exempt from paying overtime wages.

MetLife Group and MLIC are separate and distinct wholly owned
subsidiaries of non-defendant, MetLife, Inc., which provides
various insurance, annuities, and employee benefit programs and
products. MetLife Group offers a variety of "Group, Voluntary &
Workplace Benefits" to employers seeking to provide group
insurance coverage or optional benefits to their employees, such
as dental, life, short-term disability, or long-term disability
coverage.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YozD7Tjk


MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: "Schuman" Suit Alleges ERISA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
PETER SCHUMAN, an individual, and WILLIAM COPLIN, an individual,
on behalf of themselves and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED, a
corporation; ATMEL CORPORATION, a corporation; and ATMEL
CORPORATION U.S. SEVERANCE GUARANTEE BENEFIT PROGRAM, an employee
benefit plan, Defendants, Case 4:16-cv-05544-DMR (N.D. Cal.,
September 29, 2016), alleges that the Defendants failed to make
good of its promise that the U.S. Severance Guarantee Program
(Plan) will be in effect, and that every employee terminated
without cause after a merger between Atmel and Microchip would
receive the severance payments guaranteed by the Plan.  The case
alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY INC. -- http://www.microchip.com/-- is a
provider of microcontroller, mixed-signal, analog and Flash-IP
solutions.

ATMEL CORP. -- http://www.atmel.com/-- designs, develops,
manufactures and markets a wide range of semiconductor integrated
circuits.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael Rubin, Esq.
     Connie K. Chan, Esq.
     Raphael N. Rajendra, Esq.
     ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
     177 Post Street, Suite 300
     San Francisco, CA 94108
     Phone: (415) 421-7151
     Fax: (415) 362-8064
     E-mail: mrubin@altber.com
             cchan@altber.com
             rrajendra@altber.com

        - and -

     Cliff Palefsky, Esq.
     Keith Ehrman, Esq.
     MCGUINN, HILLSMAN & PALEFSKY
     535 Pacific Avenue
     San Francisco, CA 94133
     Phone: (415) 421-9292
     Fax: (415) 403-0202
     E-mail: CP@mhpsf.com
             keith@mhpsf.com


MMPB GROUP: Faces "Benegas" Suit Seeking OT Pay, Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANI BENEGAS, JORGE HERNANDEZ, and other similarly situated
individuals, v. MMPB GROUP, LLC. d/b/a Villa Azur, Michael Martin,
Antoine Delgado, and Jean Philippe Bernard, Case No. 1:16-cv-
24134-DPG (S.D. Fla., September 27, 2016), seeks to recover money
damages for alleged unpaid overtime and minimum wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

MMPB GROUP, LLC is a mid-sized, relatively new French restaurant
in Miami Beach, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
     SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
     20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Phone: (305) 503.5131
     Fax: (888) 270.5549
     E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


MYLAN PHARMA: "Product Hopping" Case Dismissal Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a federal appeals court has affirmed a ruling tossing generic
drugmaker Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.'s "product-hopping" claims
against the makers of an acne drug.

Mylan claimed that defendants Mayne Pharma Group Ltd. and Warner
Chilcott plc made only miniscule changes to the acne drug Doryx to
keep generic competitors out of the market by forcing them to re-
enter a lengthy regulatory process.

The district court sided with Mayne and Warner Chilcott, holding
that the changes made to the drug were not anti-competitive.  The
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on Sept. 8 upheld that
decision.

In the court's opinion, Third Circuit Judge Julio Fuentes wrote
that the alterations made to Doryx didn't impede Mylan's ability
to compete in the generic market.

"While product-hopping under certain circumstances may be viewed
as anti-competitive conduct, this is not one of those cases.  As
we explain, Mylan was not foreclosed from the market," Judge
Fuentes said.  "Doryx capsules were available for more than 20
years, and generic companies were free to engineer their own
versions during that time."

The changes included switching Doryx from a capsule form to
tablets and putting grooves on the surface of 150 milligram pills
that would allow patients to break them into two 75 milligram
pieces.  Later, the defendants added three grooves so the pill
could be split into thirds.

According to Fuentes, while Mylan did not consistently produce a
generic version of Doryx, it did receive 180 days of exclusive
rights to do so, and it did so at higher prices than brand-name
Doryx.

"It is clear that Mylan reaped generous profits from its sale of
the generic tablet, in the amount of $146.9 million," Judge
Fuentes said.  "Thus, far from being harmed by defendants' product
changes, Mylan was advantaged in the generic market by its 180-day
exclusivity period and ability to profit generously while raising
prices."

Judge Fuentes added later in the opinion, "Here, there were no
patent cliffs on the horizon, and the evidence demonstrates that
there were plenty of other competitors."

Jonathan M. Jacobson -- jjacobson@wsgr.com -- of Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati in New York represented Mylan and referred a
request for comment to a Mylan representative for comment.  That
spokesperson declined to comment.

John M. Gidley -- mgidley@whitecase.com -- of White & Case, who
represented the defendants, declined to comment.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Jerrick" Files Suit Over Athletes' Safety
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROGER JERRICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. THE BIG TEN CONFERENCE, INC., a Delaware
corporation, and NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-09485 (N.D. Ill., October 4, 2016),
seeks to obtain redress for all persons injured by Defendant's
alleged reckless disregard for the health and safety of
generations of University of Iowa student-athletes.

Defendant NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Phone: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
             brichman@edelson.com

        - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     123 Townsend Street
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Phone: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com

        - and -

     Jeff Raizner
     RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: 713.554.9099
     Fax: 713.554.9098
     E-mail: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Gray" Files Suit Over Athletes' Safety
------------------------------------------------------------
GARY GRAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME DU LAC and
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-02638-WTL-DKL (S.D. Ind., October 4, 2016), seeks to
obtain redress for all persons injured by Defendants' alleged
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of
Notre Dame student-athletes.

Defendant NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: 713.554.9099
     Fax: 713.554.9098
     E-mail: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com

        - and -

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Phone: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
        brichman@edelson.com

        - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     123 Townsend Street
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Phone: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Harvey" Files Suit Over Athletes' Safety
--------------------------------------------------------------
COLE Harvey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE and NATIONAL
COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
02643-WTL-MJD (S.D. Ind., October 4, 2016), seeks to obtain
redress for all persons injured by Defendant's alleged reckless
disregard for the health and safety of generations of University
of Alabama student-athletes.

Defendant NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: 713.554.9099
     Fax: 713.554.9098
     E-mail: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com

        - and -

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Phone: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
        brichman@edelson.com

        - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     123 Townsend Street
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Phone: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Dudley" Files Suit Over Athletes' Safety
--------------------------------------------------------------
DERRICK DUDLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ATLANTIC COAST CONFERENCE and NATIONAL
COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
02639-TWP-DML (S.D. Ind., October 04, 2016), seeks to obtain
redress for all persons injured by Defendants' alleged reckless
disregard for the health and safety of generations of Georgia
Institute of Technology student-athletes.

Defendant NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: 713.554.9099
     Fax: 713.554.9098
     E-mail: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com

        - and -

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Phone: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
        brichman@edelson.com

        - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     123 Townsend Street
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Phone: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Collins" Files Suit Over Athletes' Safety
---------------------------------------------------------------
CONREDGE COLLINS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN ATHLETIC CONFERENCE and
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-02640-JMS-MPB (S.D. Ind., October 4, 2016), seeks to
obtain redress for all persons injured by Defendants' alleged
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of
University of Pittsburgh student-athletes.

Defendant NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: 713.554.9099
     Fax: 713.554.9098
     E-mail: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com

        - and -

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Phone: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
        brichman@edelson.com

        - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     123 Townsend Street
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Phone: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces "Towe" Suit Over Athletes' Safety
------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Towe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Mid-American Conference and National Collegiate
Athletic Association, Case No. 1:16-cv-02629-TWP-DKL (S.D. Ind.,
October 3, 2016), seeks redress for all persons injured by the
Defendants' reckless disregard for the health and safety of
generations of Eastern Michigan University student athletes.

Mid-American Conference is a National Collegiate Athletic
Association (NCAA) Division I collegiate athletic conference with
a membership base in the Great Lakes region from Western New York
to Illinois.

National Collegiate Athletic Association is the governing body of
collegiate athletics that oversees twenty-three college sports and
over 400,000 students who participate in intercollegiate
athletics.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeff Raizner, Esq.
      RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
      2402 Dunlavy Street
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 554-9099
      Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
      E-mail: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com

         - and -

      Jay Edelson, Esq.
      Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 589-6370
      Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
      E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
              brichman@edelson.com

         - and -

      Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      123 Townsend Street
      San Francisco, CA 94107
      Telephone: (415) 212-9300
      Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
      E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Athletes' Safety
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:16-cv-02622-JMS-MPB (S.D. Ind., October 3, 2016), seeks redress
for all persons injured by the Defendants' reckless disregard for
the health and safety of generations of Eastern Michigan
University student athletes.

National Collegiate Athletic Association is the governing body of
collegiate athletics that oversees twenty-three college sports and
over 400,000 students who participate in intercollegiate
athletics.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeff Raizner, Esq.
      RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
      2402 Dunlavy Street
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 554-9099
      Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
      E-mail: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com

         - and -

      Jay Edelson, Esq.
      Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 589-6370
      Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
      E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
              brichman@edelson.com

         - and -

      Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      123 Townsend Street
      San Francisco, CA 94107
      Telephone: (415) 212-9300
      Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
      E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces "Reddick" Suit Over Athletes' Safety
---------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK REDDICK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MID-EAST ATHLETIC CONFERENCE and
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-02631-RLY-TAB (S.D. Ind., October 3, 2016), seeks to
obtain redress for all persons allegedly injured by Defendants'
practice of not informing Florida A&M University student-athletes
about the health dangers of playing football.

Defendant Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference is a corporation
organized under the laws of the State of North Carolina.

Defendant NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: 713.554.9099
     Fax: 713.554.9098
     E-mail: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com

        - and -

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Phone: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
             brichman@edelson.com

        - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     123 Townsend Street
     San Francisco, California 94107
     Phone: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NATIONAL OILWELL: "Furniss" Suit Transferred to Texas
-----------------------------------------------------
ERIC FURNISS 16426 Mesa Point Dr. Houston, Texas 77095, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. NATIONAL OILWELL
VARCO, L.P. c/o C T Corporation System 1999 Bryan Street, STE. 900
Dallas, Texas 75201 Case No. 4:16-cv-02889 (July 27, 2016), was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio.  The case seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO, L.P. is one of the largest oilfield
services companies in the world and provides drilling fluid
products and services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
     Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
     THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
     920 Rockefeller Building
     614 W. Superior Avenue
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Phone: (216) 696-5000
     Fax: (216) 696-7005
     E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
             chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com

        - and -

     Todd Slobin, Esq.
     Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
     SHELLIST | LAZARZ | SLOBIN LLP
     11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
     Houston, TX 77046
     Phone: (713) 621-2277
     Fax: (713) 621-0993
     E-mail: tslobin@eeoc.net
             rprieto@eeoc.net


NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: 6th Cir. Finds Standing in Data Breach Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rajesh De, Esq. -- rde@mayerbrown.com -- Stephen Lilley, Esq. --
slilley@mayerbrown.com -- and Joshua M. Silverstein, Esq. --
jsilverstein@mayerbrown.com -- of Mayer Brown, in an article for
Mondaq, report that on September 12, 2016, the US Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit held in Galaria v. Nationwide Mutual
Insurance Co., Nos. 15-3386/15-3387 (6th Cir. Sept. 12, 2016) that
the plaintiffs in two related lawsuits properly alleged standing
to pursue claims arising from a 2012 attack on the defendant
insurance company's computer network.  The court's unpublished
opinion addressed two questions that are frequently litigated in
data breach cases: whether the plaintiffs had alleged an injury-
in-fact required for constitutional standing; and whether any such
alleged injury was fairly traceable to the acts of the defendants
and thus sufficient to establish the requisite causation.  The
court decided both questions in favor of the plaintiffs.  It did
so over a dissent that concluded that it was unnecessary for the
panel to weigh in on the "existing circuit split regarding whether
an increased risk of identify theft is an Article III injury"
because the plaintiffs had alleged no facts indicating that the
company was responsible for the acts of third-party criminal
hackers.  Defendant has filed a petition asking the Sixth Circuit
to review this decision en banc.

The plaintiffs' claims arose from an cyberattack on the company's
computer network in which criminal hackers allegedly accessed the
plaintiffs' personal information.  The company responded to the
incident by offering "a year of free credit monitoring and
identity-fraud protection of up to $1 million through a third-
party vendor."  The company also advised customers to set up fraud
alerts and place security freezes on their credit reports, while
noting that these steps could impede access to credit and/or cost
a small fee.  The plaintiffs alleged that they took these steps
and thus had "expend[ed] time and money" as a result of the data
breach.

Both plaintiffs filed putative class action complaints alleging
negligence and other claims.  The Southern District of Ohio
dismissed the claims, concluding, among other things, that the
plaintiffs lacked Article III standing.  In reaching this
decision, the district court relied on Supreme Court decisions,
such as Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138 (2013),
holding that a plaintiff lacks standing when she merely alleges a
risk of future harm that is not certainly impending.  The district
court also recognized that courts, including the Third Circuit,
have held that alleged "time and money expenditures" to mitigate
the risk of speculative future injuries are inadequate to
establish standing. E.g., Reilly v. Ceridian Corp., 664 F.3d 38,
46 (3d Cir. 2011).

The Sixth Circuit reversed.  The majority held that the
"[p]laintiffs' allegations of a substantial risk of harm, coupled
with reasonably incurred mitigation costs, [were] sufficient to
establish a cognizable Article III injury at the pleading stage."
It said that, because the plaintiffs' data had already been
stolen, there was "no need for speculation" that the plaintiffs
faced a substantial risk and were thus justified in taking action
to mitigate it.  Defendant's letter to the plaintiffs and its
decision to offer free credit monitoring services were cited as
indicative of the "severity of the risk."  The court concluded
that "[w]here a data breach targets personal information, a
reasonable inference can be drawn that the hackers will use the
victims' data for the fraudulent purposes alleged in Plaintiffs'
complaints."  The court noted that "[a]lthough [Defendant] offered
to provide some [risk mitigation] services for a limited time,
Plaintiffs allege that the risk is continuing, and that they have
also incurred costs to obtain protections -- namely, credit
freezes -- that [Defendant] recommended but did not cover." The
court thus viewed the case not as one in which plaintiffs sought
to manufacture standing through incurring unreasonable mitigation
costs but rather as one in which the costs were "a concrete injury
suffered to mitigate an imminent harm."

The panel described this analysis of constitutional injury as
consistent with that of the Seventh and Ninth Circuits in Lewert
v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc., 819 F.3d 963 (7th Cir. 2016);
Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Grp., LLC, 794 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2015);
and Krottner v. Starbucks Corp., 628 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2010).
The panel acknowledged that the "Third Circuit reached a different
conclusion in Reilly v. Ceridian Corp.," but found it distinct
because the plaintiffs there had not alleged "the intentional
theft of their data."

The panel went on to hold that the plaintiffs had adequately pled
the other two elements of Article III standing: causation and
redressability.  The court's decision was not recommended for
publication, meaning that it will not bind future Sixth Circuit
panels.

Judge Alice Batchelder dissented from the majority's finding that
the plaintiffs had adequately pled a causal connection between the
company's alleged conduct and their alleged injury, noting that
the "plaintiffs make no factual allegations regarding how the
hackers were able to breach [the company]'s system, nor do they
indicate what [it] might have done to prevent that breach but
failed to do."  The dissent also concluded that the plaintiffs did
not allege causation sufficient to satisfy the second element of
Article III standing because, "[i]n short, there is no allegation
of fact in either complaint that makes plausible the notion that
[Defendant] is at all responsible for the criminal acts that
increased the plaintiffs' risk of identity theft."  In other
words, the alleged injury was a direct result of the criminal
actions of a third party and not of the Defendant insurance
company.  Because the dissent found the causation element of
standing not satisfied, it did not comment on "whether an
increased risk of identity theft is an Article III injury," but
concluded instead that it was not necessary for the court to "take
sides in the existing circuit split" on that question.

As the Galaria dissent emphasizes, judicial consensus remains
elusive as courts analyze standing in data breach litigation.
While the impact of this unpublished opinion remains to be seen
and the rehearing petition is pending, this decision confirms that
litigation over Article III standing in data breach cases is
likely to continue as judges evaluate how the concepts of injury-
in-fact and causation apply in the wake of criminal attacks on
company networks and systems.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Charlie Wysocki Joins Concussion Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Markus, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports that
Charlie Wysocki, who left Maryland as its leading rusher in 1981,
is part of a class action suit of 43 former college football
players against the NCAA and a variety of conferences and schools
for failing to protect the athletes from life-threatening
emotional and neurological conditions caused by repetitive
concussions.

In a suit filed in Indianapolis, Mr. Wysocki claims that the head
injuries he suffered while playing for the Terps led to a
long-term battle with depression and bipolar disorder.
Mr. Wysocki lists the NCAA and the Atlantic Coast Conference as
the defendants.

"Certainly consequences of repeated head injuries can create
conditions like depression and bipolar disorder and emotional
issues like that," said Chris Dore, a Chicago attorney whose firm
is representing Mr. Wysocki and the other former athletes who are
part of the class action suit.  "One of the conditions he's
suffering from is depression."

Mr. Dore said in an interview on Oct. 6 that the University of
Maryland was not named in the suit because as a member of the
University of Maryland System, it is given state tort immunity.
The handful of schools that were named in the suit were private
universities, Mr. Dore said.

"That is not to say they [Maryland] won't be involved in the case,
state schools will not be involved," Mr. Dore said.  "They will be
third parties who have relevant discovery and other information,
but they don't get named in the same way."

A spokeswoman for the law firm representing the athletes said on
Oct. 6 that the suit is expected to grow shortly to as many as 50
former athletes.

In his lawsuit, Mr. Wysocki said he is hoping "to obtain redress
for all persons injured by their reckless disregard for the health
and safety of generations of University of Maryland, College Park
("University of Maryland") student-athletes."

Mr. Wysocki went on to claim in the lawsuit that the ACC and the
NCAA, should have been more responsible caring for its athletes
"but, unfortunately, Defendants ACC and the NCAA did not care
about the off-field consequences that would haunt their students
for the rest of their lives."

Mr. Dore said that Mr. Wysocki was not available for comment.

In a Sept. 1 story about Mr. Wysocki on ESPN's "The Undefeated"
website, Mr. Wysocki said that he was diagnosed with bipolar
disorder 27 years ago and had spent most of the ensuing years
either homeless or hospitalized.  It was not until Mr. Wysocki got
in touch with former Maryland teammate Dave Pacella 3 1/2 years
ago that he started to get his life back in some sort of order.

With the help of Mr. Pacella and another former teammate,
Mark Sobel, Mr. Wysocki was able to stay out of hospitals and
start raising awareness for mental illness.  He had a major
setback in mid-June, when he was involved in a serious car
accident that left him with a number of injuries.

Mr. Sobel, who heads up Mr. Wysocki's medical team, said that his
former teammate returned to the hospital after suffering from head
trauma, rib and vertebrae fractures, a lacerated kidney and
spleen.

Mr. Wysocki had his best season at Maryland as a junior, when he
rushed for 1,359 yards and 11 touchdowns.  His numbers dropped as
a senior, when he rushed for 915 yards and seven touchdowns.
Mr. Wysocki went undrafted by the NFL in 1982.

Mr. Wysocki was eventually passed as Maryland's leading rusher by
LaMont Jordan.


NEVSUN RESOURCES: Averts Eritrean Workers' Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Henry Lazenby, writing for miningweekly.com, reports that the
British Columbia Supreme Court on Oct. 6 rendered a precedent-
setting decision allowing Eritreans to bring civil action against
Nevsun Resources.

While the court refused to allow a class-action claim to proceed
in court, Nevsun said it would consider appealing a court decision
allowing three plaintiffs to bring forward a lawsuit regarding
allegations of human rights abuses on Nevsun property.

The decision impacts every Canadian oil or mining firm operating
internationally and places their project-level actions under the
microscope.  The case will enter murky legal territory as the case
raises novel and complex legal questions, including on
international law, which have never before been considered in
Canada.

The TSX- and NYSE MKT-listed company stressed that the judgment
makes no findings on the plaintiffs' allegations, including
whether any of the actions amounted to human rights abuses taking
place at the Bisha mine.

The case involves three Eritrean workers alleging Nevsun was
involved in the Eritrean government's use of slave labor.  The
plaintiffs argue they were forced to work at Nevsun's Bisha
copper/zinc mine, in Eritrea.

Vancouver-based Nevsun said it was studying the court's decision
and considering an appeal of the decision that the action can
proceed at all.

The Canadian court has been loath to enforce its jurisdiction to
try Canadian companies for alleged criminal acts that took place
in other countries.

Nevsun said it remains confident that its indirect 60%-owned
Eritrean subsidiary, Bisha Mining Share Company (BMSC), operates
the Bisha mine according to international standards of governance,
workplace conditions, health, safety and human rights.  It
highlighted contractual commitments in place that strictly
prohibit the use of national service employees by BMSC's
contractors and subcontractors.

Previous Challenges

Nevsun is one of three Canadian mining companies that have had
civil actions brought against them in Canadian courts over cases
that occurred in other countries.

TSX-listed HudBay Minerals faces three separate claims, which
include claims of rape and murder committed by security forces
acting on behalf of HudBay at Guatemala's Fenix mine, which it
acquired through a merger in 2008 and sold in 2011.

Seven Guatemalans accused fellow TSX-listed miner Tahoe Resources
of using excessive force with a private security force employed by
Tahoe at its Escobal silver mine when breaking up a violent
protest.  In the Tahoe case, the British Columbia Supreme Court
dismissed the case, deferring the case to Guatemala courts.  The
CCIJ has appealed that decision on the Guatemalan protestors'
behalf.


NFI INTERACTIVE: "Marsh" Suit Seeks to Recoup Pay Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
LUTRACY MARSH, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NFI INTERACTIVE LOGISTICS LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:16-cv-02799-D (N.D. Tex., October 3, 2016), seeks to
recover alleged unpaid compensation under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

NFI INTERACTIVE LOGISTICS LLC is a national provider of logistics,
warehousing, and distributing services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
     Jay Forester, Esq.
     LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
     1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Phone: (214) 749-1400
     Fax: (214) 749-1010
     Email: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com
            forester@l-b-law.com


OREGON: Linn County Class Action v. Forestry Dep't Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Paul, writing for Albany Democrat-Herald, reports that
Linn County's $1.4 billion breach-of-contract lawsuit against the
Oregon Department of Forestry can move forward as a class action
suit, Circuit Court Judge Daniel Murphy rule.

That means nearly 150 taxing districts will have the choice of
remaining participants in the lawsuit, or opting out, Linn County
Commissioner Roger Nyquist said.

Litigants were informed of Judge Murphy's decision during a status
conference call on Oct. 4, although the order had not been signed
as of Oct. 6.

Judge Murphy said the class will include "Linn County and all
other Oregon counties that conveyed forest lands to the State of
Oregon pursuant" to state laws.

He also ordered the plaintiffs and defendants to cooperate in the
preparation of a proposed notice to class members and to present
their proposal to the court.

"We believe this means we are headed to a trial in early 2017,"
Mr. Nyquist said.  "It's a welcome development in our pursuit of
the state's breach of contract. Most importantly, it's important
to rural communities all over Oregon."

Mr. Nyquist said the affected taxing districts can decide
individually whether they want to participate.  For example, a
county may opt out of the lawsuit, but a fire district within that
county may decide to remain a participant.

"This is an asset to all of the taxing districts.  The elected
officials and policy makers have a fiduciary responsibility to all
of their citizens to pursue the inherent value of the contract to
them," Mr. Nyquist said.

In March, Mr. Nyquist and fellow commissioners John Lindsey and
Will Tucker filed a breach of contract lawsuit seeking $1.4
billion in past and future damages, naming as defendants the
Oregon Department of Forestry and the state of Oregon.

The commissioners contend that the state and the Department of
Forestry have reduced timber sales on state forests and that those
reduced sales have meant a drop in revenue for affected counties
and taxing districts.

The lawsuit rests in large part on the definition of "greatest
permanent value."  When the lands in question were conveyed to the
state, state officials said that the lands would be managed for
their "greatest permanent value."  At the time, the counties and
other taxing jurisdictions believed that meant they'd be managed
for the largest sustainable timber harvest, the lawsuit claims.

Over the years, however, the state has expanded the definition of
"greatest permanent value" so that it includes other factors as
well, such as wildlife protection, watershed enhancement projects
and recreation.  As timber sales reduced, the amount of money
funneled back to the counties and other taxing districts
diminished.  The county's lawsuit charges that's a breach of the
original contract between the state and the counties.

Starting in the 1930s, the state began taking over mostly
cut-over timber lands from counties throughout Oregon, because the
previous owners had failed to pay property taxes on them, creating
a financial burden for the counties.

Today, the state has more than 700,000 acres of forest lands. Linn
County has the Santiam State Forest, which encompasses 47,871
acres.  Others are Clatsop State Forest, 136,000 acres in Clatsop
and Columbia counties; Elliott State Forest, 93,000 acres in Coos
County; Gilchrist State Forest, 70,000 acres in Klamath County;
Sun Pass State Forest, 21,317 acres in Klamath County; and
Tillamook State Forest, 364,000 acres in Washington County.


PAOLA PAINTING: Faces "Maisanche" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
KLEVER MAISANCHE, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff, v. PAOLA PAINTING AND
RENOVATIONS LLC d/b/a SUREGREEN, and RAUL CASTANEDAS, Case No.
1:16-cv-07697 (S.D.N.Y., September 30, 2016), seeks to recover
alleged unpaid overtime compensation, statutory penalties,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Defendants operate a construction and painting business under the
trade name "SureGreen."  SureGreen business offers construction
and painting services to clients throughout New York, Bronx,
Kings, Queens, Richmond, and Westchester Counties.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     Anne Seelig, Esq.
     LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
     30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 465-1188
     Fax: (212) 465-1181


PENN STATE: Faces "Chase" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Penn. Wage Laws
-------------------------------------------------------------
KELLY CHASE, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
3008 Livingston Street Philadelphia, PA 19115 v. PENN STATE
INDUSTRIES 9900 Global Road Philadelphia, PA 19115 and JOHN DOES
1-10 Case No. 2:16-cv-05148 (E.D. Pa., September 28, 2016), is an
individual And Collective Action For Unpaid Overtime under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and
the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Family owned and operated since 1936, Penn State Industries has
been assisting woodturners and woodworkers across the country for
decades.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel A. Horowitz, Esq.
     SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
     1101 North Kings Highway, Suite 402
     Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
     Phone: (856) 685-7420
     Fax: (856) 685-7417


PHOENIX FINANCIAL: Konings Seeks Certification of Damasco Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled ERIC KONINGS, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. PHOENIX
FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC, and PENDRICK CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-1308 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff moves
the court to certify a class.

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


POST FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Cereal Box Ads
------------------------------------------------------------
Tara Mapes, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that two
California consumers are suing Post Foods, alleging false
advertising and unfair competition.

Debbie Krommenhock of Dublin, California, and Stephen Hadley of
Monterey, California, filed a class action complaint, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, against Post Foods
LLC, requesting damages of more than $5 million.  The complaint,
filed Aug. 29 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, alleges violation of California's False Advertising
Law through deceptive advertising.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs and class members were
lured to purchase Post's products, centered mainly on packaging
labels advertising its cereals as healthy food choices to obscure
the dangers of added sugars.

The complaint is a gigantic 193 pages and includes pictures of
cereal boxes to demonstrate advertising and the products' labels.
It contends the sugar used in Post's cereals caused the plaintiffs
to suffer from unnecessary increased risks of metabolic syndrome,
cardiovascular disease, diabetes, stroke and other chronic
morbidity.  It alleges Post targets children and violates U.S.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labeling requirements.

The lawsuit begins its argument with a scientific summary of
adverse health effects excessive sugar consumption causes.

"The scientific evidence is compelling: Excessive consumption of
added sugar is toxic to the human body," the lawsuit states.
"Experimentally sound, peer-reviewed studies and meta-analyses
convincingly show that consuming excessive added sugar -- any
amount above approximately 5 percent of daily caloric intake --
greatly increases the risk of heart disease, diabetes, liver
disease and a wide variety of other chronic morbidity."

Naming more than 50 cereals in the lawsuit, the plaintiffs allege
Post falsely represents its cereals are "healthy," "nutritious" or
"wholesome," and that its cereals will "promote health, prevention
of disease or weight loss."  It also argues Post conceals dangers
of added sugar by advertising its cereals with labels such as "No
High Fructose Corn Syrup" or "Natural Wildflower Honey."

The complaint argues the nation has seen a rise in human sugar
consumption, which produces cravings, withdrawals and chemical
changes in the brain likened to those addicted to drugs such as
cocaine and alcohol.

The plaintiffs allege Post knew, or reasonably should have known,
that the challenged health and wellness claims were untrue or
misleading.

Michael Reese, attorney and food litigation lecturer, told Legal
Newsline, "The Ninth Circuit ruled in William v. Gerber that
consumers should be able to rely upon what's on the front of a
food package and not drill down on the small print on the back to
ensure the claims are accurate.  In other words, if you're
misleading consumers by the way you portray the front of the
packaging, regardless of the labeling on the back, that's not
enough and it can be considered misleading."

Mr. Reese said the focus of the lawsuits is not as much about
requiring companies to educate consumers but in how they market a
product to consumers.

"Marketing is a big part of it, most consumer protection claims
are based on affirmative misrepresentation claims," he said.
"There are circumstances where you can hold a company responsible
under strict product liability. Especially with cereals, they are
presented as a health food."

Mr. Reese said it doesn't shock him that sugar is becoming a focal
point.  He said there are a number of books published that examine
food companies and how they are using sugar.

"There is something called the 'bliss point' referenced in Michael
Moss' book 'Sugar, Fat, Salt,' which is a term used by companies
to describe an optimal level of sugar, fat and salt that keep
people wanting more of that product," he said.  "It makes you want
more, but you're never really satisfied.  He compares those
tactics used to those used by tobacco companies."

Mr. Reese continued, "The FDA is taking a firmer stance on this
subject as well.  There is a new nutrition fact panel coming out
that requires an additional line for added sugar.  If you buy
apple juice, for instance, you expect sugar to be a part of the
juice because apples are sweet, but companies add additional
sugar.  That added sugar is not currently disclosed on the label."

The panel will break out how much sugar is actually added by the
companies.  Mr. Reese said he thinks it will be really beneficial
to consumers.

"I think these are noble cases; like any consumer cases they are
often not the easiest, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be
brought," Mr. Reese said.  "Sometimes the greatest social change
comes from the hardest things to do.  What I hope is that the
industry will wake up.

"I believe there are many good operators in the industry and want
to best serve their customers.  We don't need sugar.  Hopefully
they aren't putting more sugar in their products just to sell more
of it.  I think good companies want complete transparency so
consumers know exactly what they're getting."

He said he believes it takes a class action to effect change
rather than making changes first because every company is
different, but there are competitive pressures they all face.

"Class actions are good because they bring issues to the
forefront," Mr. Reese told Legal Newsline.  A company might be
afraid to stick its neck out and change the way it does business
because they may get hurt, or a competitor may get a leg up on
them, but with public litigation in a public court, everyone comes
under scrutiny, and I think that's a good thing for all of us."

This action is not the only lawsuit Post and other cereal
manufacturers are facing for allegations of misleading marketing.
At least three other lawsuits were filed against Post and other
cereal firms alleging they falsely advertised their products were
100 percent natural while they actually contained a chemical used
in weed killer called glyphosate.

Ms. Krommenhock and Mr. Hadley seek trial by jury, certification
as a class action suit, a corrective advertising campaign,
restitution, interest, costs, expenses, attorneys fees and all
other relief the court deems just.

They are represented by attorneys Jack Fitzgerald, Trevor M. Flynn
-- trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- and Melanie Presinger --
melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- of The Law Office of Jack
Fitzgerald PC in San Diego.

Jack Fitzgerald -- jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- attorney for the
plaintiffs, declined Legal Newsline's request for comment.


PROCTER & GAMBLE: "Colley" Suit Over Old Spice Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Timothy S. Black of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted Defendant's motion
to strike and motion to dismiss in the case captioned, RODNEY
COLLEY, et al. (on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated), Plaintiffs, v. PROCTER & GAMBLE CO. D/B/A OLD SPICE,
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-CV-918 (S.D. Ohio)

The consumer class action has been brought by individuals who
allegedly suffered damages after purchasing and applying the Old
Spice deodorant manufactured and sold by P&G. While the amended
complaint lists 13 separate Old Spice deodorant products as
allegedly causing injury to consumers, Plaintiffs do not identify
what Old Spice product any particular Plaintiff used. Instead,
Plaintiffs allege generically that each purchased "Old Spice
Deodorants." Based on these asserted causes of action, Plaintiffs
demand a wide range of relief against P&G, including compensatory
damages, punitive damages, and various forms of injunctive relief.

Plaintiffs asked the Court to certify a nationwide class and 44
state subclasses of every person who purchased one of the 13
listed Old Spice deodorant products since 2012. Plaintiffs
proposed nationwide class is defined as "persons in the United
States who purchased for their own use Old Spice deodorant which
was manufactured, produced, or supplied by Defendant between 2012
to the present."

Plaintiffs assert nationwide claims for breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of
warranty under the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, unjust enrichment,
negligence/gross negligence, and certain common law product
liability claims. Plaintiffs assert state statutory consumer
protection claims on behalf of 35 separate state subclasses.

In the motion, P&G argues that the Court should strike the class
claims because this case is a collection of individual product
liability claims which are unsuited for class treatment.
Plaintiffs argue that the case is at the earliest stages and that
they have not yet been afforded the opportunity to conduct the
necessary discovery to support their allegations and class status.

In his Order dated October 4, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/XlSacm from Leagle.com, Judge Black concluded that
there is no class maintainable based on the absence of alleged
facts to support a putative class under Rule 23(b)(1), (b)(2), or
(b)(3), and based on the individualized issues posed by
Plaintiffs' demand for monetary damages and that the unjust
enrichment claim is precluded in many states because either P&G is
a remote seller or the unjust enrichment is not a recognized cause
of action.

However, at this stage in the litigation the Court affords
Plaintiffs the opportunity to cure their deficiencies.  Plaintiffs
are granted leave to amend the class allegations and disputed
claims within 21 days of the date of the Order.

Rodney Colley is represented by Thomas J. Connick, Esq. --
tconnick@connicklawllc.com -- and -- Edward A. Proctor, Esq. --
eproctor@connicklawllc.com -- CONNICK LAW, LLC

Matthew Farber, et al. are represented by Edward W. Cochran, Esq.
-- tcochran@lozanosmith.com -- Edward A. Proctor, Esq. --
eproctor@connicklawllc.com -- and Thomas J. Connick, Esq. --
tconnick@connicklawllc.com -- CONNICK LAW, LLC

Procter & Gamble Co. is represented by Scott A. Kane, Esq. --
scott.kane@squirepb.com -- SQUIRE SANDERS

Procter & Gamble Co. is represented by Aneca E. Lasley, Esq. --
aneca.lasley@squirepb.com -- C. Craig Woods, Esq. --
craig.woods@squirepb.com -- and Lauren Kuley, Esq. --
lauren.kuley@squirepb.com -- SQUIRE SANDERS LLP


QUALITY SEAL: Faces "Xaca" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Wis. Wage Law
------------------------------------------------------------
ZEFERINO XACA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. QUALITY SEAL ROOFING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-
1307 (E.D. Wis., September 29, 2016), seeks to recover lost wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Wisconsin wage law.

Quality Seal Roofing is Milwuakee's commercial and residential
roofing contractor.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Sara J. Geenen, Esq.
     Jack L. Davila, Esq.
     THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C.
     310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW
     Milwaukee, WI 53203
     Phone: 414-271-4500
     Fax: 414-271-6308
     E-mail: sjg@Previant.com


ROCKFORD PRODUCTS: Faces "Fair" Suit Alleging WARN Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA FAIR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. ROCKFORD PRODUCTS, LLC, BEP/ROCKFORD
PARTNERS, LLC, and BLACKEAGLE PARTNERS, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
3:16-cv-50312 (N.D. Ill, September 30, 2016), seeks alleged unpaid
wages and benefits for 60 calendar days pursuant to the Workers
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

Defendant RPL is a vertically integrated manufacturer of cold
formed components.

     Gary Martoccio, Esq.
     SPIELBERGER LAW GROUP
     202 S. Hoover Blvd.
     Tampa, FL 33609
     Phone: (800) 965-1570
     Fax: (866) 580-7499
     E-mail: Gary.Martoccio@spielbergerlawgroup.com


SAFEWAY INC: Must Pay $516,484 Discovery Sanction in "Rodman"
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California granted in part
Plaintiff's motion for sanctions and ordered Safeway to pay class
counsel $516,484 as a discovery sanction under Rule 26(g)in the
case captioned, MICHAEL RODMAN, Plaintiff, v. SAFEWAY INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 11-CV-03003-JST (N.D. Cal.).

In the certified class action for breach of contract, the Court
previously granted Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment
that Defendant Safeway, Inc. breached its contract with class
members who registered to shop online after 2006 "by charging
higher prices for groceries on its online Safeway.com delivery
service than it charged in the stores where the groceries were
selected." The Court found that the terms and conditions of
Safeway's online contract with customers had promised, with
certain exceptions, that the prices charged on Safeway.com would
be the same as the prices charged in the physical store from which
the groceries were selected and delivered. However, the Court
denied Plaintiff's subsequent motion for partial summary judgment
regarding Safeway's liability to class members who registered to
shop in the online store prior to 2006 because "Plaintiff had not
met its burden of demonstrating that class members who registered
prior to 2006 ever assented to the same Special Terms" as class
members who registered after 2006.

After the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for partial summary
judgment regarding pre-2006 liability, only one issue remained to
be tried: whether class members who registered for the delivery
service prior to 2006 had agreed to the same contract as class
members who registered after 2006. As a result, on February 3,
2015, Plaintiff requested documents showing the Special Terms and
registration process in effect from 2001 to 2005. On April 7,
2015, Safeway reported to Plaintiff that "as for the pre-2006
Special Term and Registration documents, Safeway has not located
any responsive documents."

In the motion, Plaintiff moves for sanctions under Rule 26(g)
based primarily on Safeway's "false and inaccurate statements in
response to Interrogatories 13-15 and Document Requests 50, 52,
and 53 concerning the non-existences of documents reflecting
historic copies of" Safeway's pre-2006 terms and conditions.
Plaintiff seeks attorneys' fees totalling to $1,032,968.75 for
work conducted.

Safeway responds that "no sanctions are warranted under Rule 26(g)
because Safeway made a reasonable inquiry into the factual basis
for its discovery responses."

In his Order dated October 4, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/6YJMik from Leagle.com, Judge Tigar concluded that
Safeway's failure to search within the contents of the legacy
drive constituted an unreasonable inquiry and that Safeway has
offered no substantial justification for its violation of Rule
26(g). However, the Court reduced by one-third resulting in a fee
award of $688,646 because a large portion of the subsequent work
completed by Plaintiff's attorneys may have been avoided because
Plaintiff failed to follow up Safeway of its discovery obligations
to produce responsive documents.

Michael Rodman is represented by James C. Shah, Esq. --
jshah@sfmslaw.com -- Kolin Tang, Esq. -- ktang@sfmslaw.com -- and
Scott Rhead Shepherd, Esq. -- sshpherd@sfmslaw.com -- SHEPHERD,
FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP; Steven Alan Schwartz, Esq. --
SteveSchwartz@chimicles.com -- and Timothy Newlyn Mathews, Esq. --
TimothyMathews@chimicles.com -- CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP

Safeway Inc. is represented by Scott D. Baker, Esq. --
sbaker@reedsmith.com -- Adaline J. Hilgard, Esq. --
ahilgard@reedsmith.com -- Christine Marie Morgan, Esq. --
cmorgan@reedsmith.com -- James A. Daire, Esq. --
jdaire@reedsmith.com -- and Jonah Dylan Mitchell, Esq. --
jmitchell@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP


SAINT JEAN: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Thomas" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amber Thomas and Terry Ronning, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Saint Jean Industries, Inc., Case No.
1:16-cv-00142-JLH (E.D. Ark., October 3, 2016), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in
excess of 40 per workweek.

Saint Jean industries is a worldwide tier one supplier for the
automotive and aeronautical market.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steve Rauls, Esq.
      Josh Stanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 S. Shackleford, Suite 411
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Telephone: (501) 221-0088
      Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
      E-mail: steve@sanfordlawfirm.com
              josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


SANOFI SA: Faces Various Suits Over Taxotere-Related Hair Loss
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that more than 135
lawsuits across the country allege that a leading chemotherapy
drug has caused women undergoing treatment for breast cancer to
lose their hair -- permanently.

The suits allege that Paris-based Sanofi S.A. and its subsidiaries
failed to warn that Taxotere could cause permanent alopecia, the
medical term for hair loss.  The suits come after the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration approved a labeling change on Dec. 11 to
warn of the side effect.

"Now, having overcome breast cancer and the concomitant
indignities of the disease as well as the treatment an all that it
entails, movants -- and all women impacted -- are forced to live
their lives with significant degrees of hair loss, forever," wrote
Christopher Coffin and J. Kyle Bachus and Darin Schanker, who
moved on July 22 to coordinate all the cases before a single
judge.  Bachus & Schanker, based in Denver, filed the first
Taxotere case on Dec. 21.

Plaintiffs lawyers expect thousands of cases to be filed over
Taxotere -- making it the largest potential federal docket on
Sept. 29 in an already packed hearing in Washington before the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. The panel also
heard arguments over whether to coordinate mass torts including
talcum powder, Monsanto Co.'s RoundUp herbicide, text messages
sent by Uber Technologies Inc., an alleged gearshift defect in
Chrysler vehicles and antipsychotic drug Abilify.

"It was a pretty stacked docket," said Karen Barth-Menzies, a Los
Angeles partner at Gibbs Law Group, which has filed four cases in
federal courts in California over Taxotere.  She said the hearing
was standing room only.

Ms. Menzies argued that the Taxotere cases should go before U.S.
District Judge David Herndon of the Southern District of Illinois,
a longtime MDL judge whose name also came up in arguments on Sept.
30 over the talcum powder and Monsanto cases.

Messrs. Schanker and Coffin, of New Orleans-based Pendley, Baudin
& Coffin, and Sanofi spokeswoman Ashleigh Koss and Jon Strongman,
-- jstrongman@shb.com -- an attorney for Sanofi, did not respond
to requests for comment.

Taxotere was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in
1996 for use in treating patients with advanced or metastatic
breast cancer.

The suits allege that Sanofi and its subsidiaries, Aventis Pharma
S.A. and Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, knew about a 2005 study finding
that 9.2 percent of patients who took Taxotere had permanent hair
loss.  Also, a Denver oncologist in 2006 found that patients who
had taken the drug had a 6.3 percent increased risk of suffering
from permanent hair loss.

"We're still learning about what the company knew, but just from
public documents it looks like they had been aware of or should
have been aware of it for many, many years," Ms. Menzies said.

The Denver oncologist's findings could be central to the case,
wrote Strongman in an Aug. 16 filing.  Mr. Strongman, a partner at
Shook, Hardy & Bacon in Kansas City, Missouri, wants the cases
coordinated in Colorado, where the first lawsuit was filed, or in
New Jersey, where Sanofi-Aventis U.S. is based in Bridgewater.

The panel's decision would affect more than 85 lawsuits in federal
courts in 15 states. Another 50 women have sued in Missouri's
state court in the city of St. Louis.


SCHLUMBERGER TECH: Class of Specialists Certified in "Levy" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Hanna entered a memorandum ruling in
the lawsuit entitled CONRAD LEVY, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated v. SCHLUMBERGER TECH CORP., Case No.
6:16-cv-00043 (W.D. La.), granting in part and denying in part the
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification, for approval of
a proposed notification to putative class members, and for
approval of a proposed consent form.

The Motion is granted to the extent that the action is
conditionally certified as a collective action pursuant to Section
216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, with the plaintiff class
defined as "technical specialists working for Schlumberger
Technology Corporation and/or Smith International Inc. over the
past three years who were paid a salary and job bonus."

In all other respects, the Motion is denied, Judge Hanna ruled.
Judge Hanna also ordered that the Defendant will have 14 days from
the date of the order to provide the Plaintiff with the names of
all potential members of the collective class.  The parties will
meet, confer, and thereafter submit to the Court a joint proposed
notice and consent forms no later than 21 days after the date of
the order.  If the parties are unable to agree on the content of
the proposed notice and consent forms, the parties will telephone
chambers and request a telephone status conference with the Court.

The potential class members may opt in to the collective action
if: (1) they have mailed, faxed, or e-mailed their consent form to
counsel for the class within 60 days after the notice and consent
forms have been mailed, e-mailed, or posted; or (2) they show good
cause for any delay.

A copy of the Memorandum Ruling is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/r63bpQ from Leagle.com.

Plaintiff Conrad Levy is represented by:

          Matthew Scott Parmet, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: mparmet@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, L.L.P.
          1150 Bissonnet
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 751-0025
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
          E-mail: adunlap@fibichlaw.com
                  mjosephson@fibichlaw.com

               - and -

          Kenneth W. DeJean, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH DEJEAN
          417 W. University Ave. (70506)
          Post Office Box 4325
          Lafayette, LA 70502
          Telephone: (337) 235-5294
          Facsimile: (337) 235-1095
          E-mail: kwdejean@kwdejean.com

Defendant Smith International Inc. is represented by:

          Sam Zurik, III, Esq.
          Martin Joseph Regimbal, Esq.
          Robert P. Lombardi, Esq.
          THE KULLMAN FIRM
          1600 Energy Centre
          1100 Poydras Street
          New Orleans, LA 70163
          Telephone: (504) 596-4191
          Facsimile: (504) 596-4114
          E-mail: sz@kullmanlaw.com
                  rpl@kullmanlaw.com
                  mjr@kullmanlaw.com


SEDGE ISLAND CORP: Faces "Sanchez Vasquez" Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sedge Island Corp.
The case is entitled SANCHEZ VAZQUEZ, ENRIQUE C. OBO HIMSELF AND
THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. SEDGE ISLAND CORP
D/B/A DOCKERS WATERSIDE MARINA AND RESTUARANT, AND LARRY HOFFMAN,
INDIV, AND AS OWNER AND CEO OF SLEDGE ISLAND CORP DBA DOCKERS
WATERSIDE MARINA AND RESTAURANT, the Defendants, Case No.
608072/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Oct. 3, 2016). The case is assigned to
Hon. Judge John H. Rouse.

Sedge Island Corp is engaged in the restaurant business in
Suffolk, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP
          600 Old Country Road
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7180

The Defendant is represented by:

          CULLEN & DYKMAN, LLP
          100 Quentin Roosevelt Blvd.
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 357 3700


SHERIDAN PRODUCTION: "Whisenant" Suit Stays in W.D. Okla. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Oklahoma denied Plaintiff's
renewed motion to remand the case captioned, TONY R. WHISENANT, on
behalf of Himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. SHERIDAN PRODUCTION COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. CIV-15-
81-M (W.D. Okla.).

The action was filed on December 16, 2014, in the District Court
of Beaver County, State of Oklahoma, and stems from plaintiff's
allegations of defendant's prior underpayment or non-payment of
royalties owed to plaintiff on natural gas and/or constitutes of
the gas stream produced from wells in Beaver County, Oklahoma. On
February 26, 2015, plaintiff initially filed his motion to remand,
and on July 1, 2015, the Court denied plaintiff's motion to remand
ruling that defendant had satisfied the jurisdictional
requirements under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA).
Specifically, the Court found that the undisputed damages of $3.7
million along with the statutory 12% per annum interest on
proceeds that were not timely paid, pursuant to the Production and
Revenue Standards Act (PRSA), exceeded the $5,000,000.00
jurisdictional amount required by CAFA.

On August 12, 2015, plaintiff filed his Notice of Appeal,
appealing the Court's Order denying his motion to remand to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. On October
10, 2015, the Tenth Circuit issued its Order and Judgment
reversing this Court's Order and remanding this matter back to the
District Court for further proceedings, finding that the PRSA's
statutory interest provision was the type of interest that 28
U.S.C. Section 1332 prohibited the Court from considering.
Further, the Tenth Circuit remanded the matter back to the Court
for "a determination of whether any amounts other than interest
under Oklahoma's Production Revenue Standards Act may be added to
the alleged unpaid royalties to satisfy CAFA's amount-in-
controversy requirement."

In the motion, Plaintiff contends that it is not appropriate to
consider statutory attorney fees when determining the amount in
controversy since his claim was not pled pursuant to the PRSA but
is a common law breach of lease claim in which he seeks attorney's
fees out of the recovered damages amount.

Defendant contends that, pursuant to Oklahoma's Energy Litigation
Reform Act (ELRA), the exclusive remedy for plaintiff's claim of
under/non-payment of royalties on gas leases is governed by the
PRSA.

In her Order dated September 23, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/VSz8Oz from Leagle.com, Judge Miles-LaGrange found
that the matter should not be remanded back to state court since
defendant has established by a preponderance of the evidence that
the amount in controversy in this matter could exceed $5,000,000.
It was reasonable for defendant at the time of removal to
determine that the amount in controversy would include damages up
until the time the class was given notification, which would
exceed the CAFA jurisdictional requirement of $5,000,000.

Tony R. Whisenant is represented by Rex A. Sharp, Esq. --
rsharp@midwest-law.com -- REX A SHARP PA

He is also represented by:

      Michael E. Grant, Esq.
      GRANT LAW FIRM
      512 Northwest 12th Street
      Oklahoma City, OK 73103-2407
      Tel: (405) 232-6357

Sheridan Production Company LLC is represented by John J. Griffin,
Jr., Esq. -- john.griffin@crowedunlevy.com -- Erin P. Sullenger,
Esq. -- erinpotter.sullenger@crowedunlevy.com -- and L. Mark
Walker, Esq. -- mark.walker@crowedunlevy.com -- CROWE & DUNLEVY


SNYDERS-LANCE: Faces "Roxberry" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Roxberry, Randy Perdue, Britt Manning, Tom Grutsch, Thomas
Lee Smawley, Bob Johnson, Renae Riddle and Makenzie Snyder,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v.
Snyders-Lance, Inc., S-L Routes, LLC, and S-L Distribution
Company, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-02009-JEJ (E.D. Tenn., October 3,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are in the business of distributing certain brands
of snack foods to stores throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Chadwick Hatmaker, Esq.
      J. Keith Coates, Jr., Esq.
      WOOLF, McCLANE, BRIGHT, ALLEN & CARPENTER, PLLC
      Post Office Box 900
      Knoxville, TN  37901-0900
      Telephone: (865) 215-1000
      Facsimile: (865) 215-1001


SOLARCITY CORP: Faces "Diwana" Suit Over Acquisition by Tesla
-------------------------------------------------------------
PYARE DIWANA, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated stockholders of TESLA MOTORS, INC., and derivatively on
behalf TESLA MOTORS, INC., Plaintiff, vs. ELON MUSK, BRAD W. BUSS,
ROBYN M. DENHOLM, IRA EHRENPREIS, ANTONIO J. GRACIAS, STEPHEN T.
JURVETSON, KIMBAL MUSK, LYNDON RIVE, PETER RIVE, JOHN
H. N. FISHER, JEFFREY B. STRAUBEL, NANCY E. PFUND, THE GOLDMAN
SACHS GROUP, INC., EVERCORE GROUP L.L.C., D SUBSIDIARY, INC., and
SOLARCITY CORPORATION, Defendants, and TESLA MOTORS, INC., a
Delaware Corporation, Nominal Defendant, Case No. 12796- (Del.
Ch., October 3, 2016), is a stockholder class action and
derivative lawsuit arising out of Elon Musk's alleged attempt to
bail out one of his failing companies, SolarCity, by forcing
Tesla, one of his other companies, to acquire it for a vastly
inflated price.

SOLARCITY CORPORATION -- http://www.solarcity.com/-- offers solar
power energy services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael P. Kelly, Esq.
     Daniel J. Brown, Esq.
     Benjamin A. Smyth, Esq.
     MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
     Renaissance Centre
     405 N. King Street, 8th Flr.
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: (302) 984-6301

        - and -

     Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
     Amy Miller, Esq.
     William J. Fields, Esq.
     Jonathan D. Lindenfeld, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
     30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: (212) 363-7500
            (212) 363-7171


SONAM'S STONEWALLS: Faces "Gonpo" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMPA GONPO, On behalf of himself and others Similarly situated,
v. SONAM'S STONEWALLS & ART, LLC d/b/a SONAM'S STONEWALLS AND ART;
and SONAM RINCHEN LAMA, Case No. 3:16-cv-40138-KAR (D. Mass.,
September 27, 2016), alleges wilful and unlawful employment
policies, patterns and/or practices that violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

SONAM'S STONEWALLS & ART, LLC -- http://www.sonamsstonewalls.com/
-- is a stone mason that has been providing custom stonework.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Rebecca G. Pontikes, Esq.
     PONTIKES LAW LLC
     10 Tremont Street, Second Floor
     Boston, MA 02108
     Phone: (617) 357-1888
     E-mail: rpontikes@pontikeslawllc.com


SURVILLE ENTERPRISES: "Rodriguez" Suit Moved to S.D. Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Maria Rodriguez, and other
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Surville
Enterprises Corp., a Florida profit corporation; Hubert Surville,
individually; and Steven A. Edelstein, individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 16-021108 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 District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-24190-PAS to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to Hon. Judge Patricia A. Seitz.

Surville is an electrical apparatus and equipment company located
in Miami, Florida.

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:

          Mendy Halberstam, Esq.
          Pedro Jaime Torres-Diaz, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          One Biscayne Tower
          Two South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3500
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 577 7600
          Facsimile: (305) 373 4466
          E-mail: mendy.halberstam@jacksonlewis.com
                  torresdp@jacksonlewis.com


SWAMIJI MANAGEMENT: Faces "Contreras" Suit Seeking to Recoup Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
YULITH CONTRERAS, and other similarly situated individuals, v.
SWAMIJI MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED d/b/a Best Western Windsor Inn,
Case No. 1:16-cv-24118-RNS (S.D. Fla., September 27, 2016), seeks
to recover money damages for unpaid minimum and overtime wages and
retaliatory discharge under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Best Western Windsor Inn offers convenient access to the
Shakespeare Festival, Southern Oregon University and the Mount
Ashland Ski Resort.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
     SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
     20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Phone: (305) 503-5131
     Fax: (888) 270-5549
     E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


T&T ENERGY: "Goree" Lawsuit Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
AVIDAN GOREE & JOSHUA PETERS, both individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. T&T ENERGY SERVICES,
LLC, & KENNETH STEVENS, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-
cv-01094 (D. N. Mex., October 4, 2016), seeks to recover overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants have been involved in the business of providing
oilfield services in New Mexico and Texas over the last three
years.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jack Siegel, Esq.
     SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
     10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 1040
     Dallas, TX 75231
     Phone: (214) 706-0834
     Fax: (469) 339-0204
     Web site: http://www.4overtimelawyer.com

        - and -

     J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
     Jay Forester, Esq.
     LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
     1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Phone: (214) 749-1400
     Fax: (214) 749-1010
     Web site: http://www.overtimelawyer.com


TITLEMAX OF TENNESSEE: "Curatola" Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
VINCENT CURATOLA, individually on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TITLEMAX OF TENNESSEE, INC., and
TMX FINANCE OF TENNESSEE, INC. Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01263
(W.D. Tenn., October 4, 2016), seeks to recover overtime pay under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

TitleMax provides title loans and title pawns.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael L. Russell, Esq.
     Emily S. Emmons, Esq.
     GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
     341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230
     Franklin, TN 37067
     Phone: 615-354-1144
     Email: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com
            eemmons@gilbertfirm.com


TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS: "Doshi" Suit Transferred to D. Mass.
-----------------------------------------------------------
VAIBHAV DOSHI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
JODIE POPE MORRISON, and LEE H. KALOWSKI, Defendants," Case 1:16-
cv-11992-MLW (August 1, 2016), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York to the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The case alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about its Phase 3 galeterone study, ARMOR3-SV, in violation of the
Securities and Exchange Act.

TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. is a biopharmaceutical company focused
on developing and commercializing innovative therapies for
prostate cancer and other hormonally-driven diseases.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
     J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
     Marc Gorrie, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 661-1100
     Fax: (212) 661-8665
     Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
            ahood@pomlaw.com
            mgorrie@pomlaw.com

        - and -

     Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 377-1181
     Fax: (312) 377-1184
     Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

        - and -

     Michael Goldberg, Esq.
     Brian Schall, Esq.
     GOLDBERG LAW PC
     13650 Marina Pointe Dr. Ste. 1404
     Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
     Phone: 800-977-7401
     Fax: 800-536-0065
     Email: michael@goldberglawpc.com
            brian@goldberglawpc.com


TRUEACCORD CORP: Faces "Coffman" Suit in M.D. Fla.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trueaccord Corp. The
case is styled Michael Coffman, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Trueaccord Corp., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01262-HES-JRK (M.D. Fla., Oct. 3,
2016). The case is assigned to Senior Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger.

TrueAccord Corp. provides an automated platform for debt recovery.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNILEVER UNITED STATES: Faces "Cruz-Acevedo" Suit in N.D. of Ca.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unilever United
States Inc. The case is captioned Margaret Cruz-Acevedo,
Individually on her own behalf and others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Unilever United States Inc., a Delaware Corporation;
Pepsico Inc., a North Carolina Corporation; and The Pepsi Lipton
Tea Partnership, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-05599-MEJ (N.D.
Cal., Oct. 3, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Magistrate Judge
Maria-Elena James.

Unilever United States, a fast moving consumer goods company,
manufactures and sells food, refreshments, home, and personal care
products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jose R. Franco-Rivera, Esq.
          JOSE R. FRANCO RIVERA
          B-24 Mirador de Borinquen Gardens
          San Juan, PR 00926
          Telephone: (787) 407 7041
          E-mail: jrfrancolaw@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David C. Indiano-Vicic, Esq.
          Claudia Quinones-Vila, Esq.
          Vanesa Vicens Vanesa Vicens
          INDIANO & WILLIAMS, PSC
          207 Del Parque Street, Third Floor
          San Juan, PR 00912
          Telephone: (787) 641 4545
          Facsimile: (787) 641 4544
          E-mail: david.indiano@indianowilliams.com
                  claudia.quinones@indianowilliams.com
                  vanesa.vicens@indianowilliams.com


UNIQUE FREIGHT: "Morales-Ortega" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS R. MORALES-ORTEGA, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs, v. UNIQUE FREIGHT LINES, INC., ROADTEX TRANSPORTATION
CORP., and DAVID PADRON, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-24156-KMW
(S.D. Fla., September 29, 2016), seeks to recover money damages
for alleged unpaid overtime and minimum wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

UNIQUE FREIGHT LINES, INC. -- http://www.uniquefreightlines.com/-
- is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking company
running a freight hauling business from Miami, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
     R. Edward Rosenberg, Esq.
     SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
     20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Phone: (305) 503-5131
     Fax: (888) 270-5549
     Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com
            ed@saenzanderson.com


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Customers File Fraud Class Action in Minn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jef Feeley, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that some
UnitedHealth Group Inc. customers claim the health insurer
defrauded them by setting up a system that secretly overcharged
for prescription drugs.

UnitedHealth customers made co-payments far in excess of the costs
of actual drugs, sometimes paying $50 for a drug that cost the
insurer less than $15, according to a lawsuit filed on Oct. 4 in
Minnesota.

The accusations follow recent scandals over inflated drug prices
involving Mylan NV's EpiPen allergy treatment and former Turing
Pharmaceuticals Chief Executive Officer Martin Shkreli's more than
5,000 percent price hike for the drug Daraprim in 2015. Turing's
medicine treats a rare parasitic disease.

UnitedHealth's overcharges were "improper and illegal" since the
insurer was already paid to provide prescription drugs through
health-insurance premiums, according to the complaint.  The
lawsuit, which seeks class-action status on behalf of tens of
thousands of customers, also accuses the insurer of clawing back
the excess payments from pharmacies to improve its bottom line.

Pharmacy Benefits

UnitedHealth hasn't yet been served with the complaint, spokesman
Tyler Mason said on Oct. 5.

"Pharmacy benefits are administered in line with the coverage
described in the plan documents," Mr. Mason said in an e-mail.
It's not the first time UnitedHealth has been accused of
overcharging customers for prescription drugs.  The Minnetonka,
Minnesota-based insurer was sued in 2000 for allegedly forcing
consumers to hand over co-payments higher than specified by their
plan contracts.

UnitedHealth agreed to pay about $10 million to resolve the
over-charging claims spanning a three-year period starting in
1997.  The insurer didn't admit wrongdoing as part of the
settlement, according to court filings.

The new case is Mohr v. UnitedHealth Group Inc., 16-cv-03352, U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota.


UNIVERSAL HANDICRAFT: "Mollicone" Files Suit Over Adore Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
LISA MOLLICONE, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSAL
HANDICRAFT, INC., d/b/a "Deep Sea Cosmetics" d/b/a "Adore Organic
Innovations;" and SHAY SABAG SEGEV, Defendants, Case 2:16-cv-07322
(C.D. Cal., September 29, 2016), alleges that Plaintiff was misled
by Defendants' advertising and labeling of the Adore Products and
would have not purchased the products if she would have known that
the Products do not provide the touted anti-aging benefits.

The Plaintiff alleges intentional fraud and deceit, fraud by
omission, negligent misrepresentations violations of California's
Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law,
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Breach of Express
Warranties under the laws of ten jurisdictions, Breach of Implied
Warranties, violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and
violations of the Federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Defendants manufacture, distribute, market, advertise, and sell a
line of super premium cosmetics under their "Adore Organic
Innovation" Product line.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
     Skye Resendes, Esq.
     Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
     651 Arroyo Drive
     San Diego, CA 92103
     Phone: (619) 696-9006
     Fax: (619) 564-6665
     E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
             skye@consumersadvocates.com
             mike@consumersadvocates.com


UNIVERSITY OF DENVER: EEOC Files Suit Over Pay Disparity
--------------------------------------------------------
Karen Sloan, writing for Law.com, reports that the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission on Sept. 30 sued the University
of Denver, alleging its law school underpaid at least eight female
law professors compared with their male colleagues.

The agency in August 2015 issued a finding that the private law
school had violated the Equal Pay Act, but the university said at
the time that it planned to mediate a resolution.

Those efforts failed, according to the suit, filed in U.S.
District Court for Colorado. Last year, attorneys representing the
law school's female professors said the university owed them as
much as $1.2 million in back wages.

"The Commission was unable to secure from Defendant an agreement
acceptable to the Commission through the conciliation process,"
according to the complaint.

Officials from the university did not respond to calls for
comment.

Mary Jo O'Neill, head of the EEOC's Phoenix district office, said
that enforcing the Equal Pay Act and closing the pay gap are
priorities for the commission.  "The guarantee of equal pay for
equal work applies to the professional academic setting of a
university just the same as any other workplace," O'Neill said.
University of Denver Sturm College of Law professor Lucy Marsh
filed a complaint with the commission in 2013 after learning from
former dean Martin Katz that she was the lowest-paid full-time
professor at the school, where she had worked since 1976.  The
previous year, Katz issued a memo outlining raise allocations
intended to keep salaries competitive that said female faculty on
average earned salaries nearly $16,000 less than their male
colleagues.

At a subsequent meeting with at least five female law professors,
Katz speculated that the pay disparity may be the result of the
women "not performing as well as male full professors," the
complaint alleges.  Women make up 42 percent of the school's full-
time faculty.

The commission concluded that in October 2013 the average salary
for female full-time law professors at Denver was $139,940, while
men earned an average $159,721 -- a difference of nearly $20,000
and a "statistically significant amount," according to the suit.
No female law professors earned salaries that were greater than
the average among men, the commission found.

According to the suit, Ms. Marsh has been underpaid since she
started at the law school, almost 40 years ago.  She was hired as
an assistant professor at a salary of $16,800, while a male
professor was hired in the same position the same year for
$19,000, the suit alleges. By 2013, Marsh was earning $111,977 a
year, while that same male colleague made $75,000 more.

The university has previously attributed Ms. Marsh's lower pay to
her job performance, including her teaching and scholarship.  Her
lawyers countered that Marsh was awarded the school's Excellence
in Teaching award in 2010.

After the commission released its finding last year, the
university pointed to an independent consultant's report that law
school faculty pay is based on current rank, performance
evaluations, administrative roles and age when a faculty member's
current rank was attained.  Any links between pay and gender were
too weak to draw conclusions, the consultant found.

The commission's suit seeks to enjoin the university from paying
women lower wages, to pay back wages to female professors who have
been underpaid, and recover punitive damages.


USA ROOFING: NY Court Denies Class Certification in "Juarez"
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Anil C. Singh of the New York Supreme Court denied class
certification, and Defendants' USA Roofing Company Corp., Neelam
Construction Corporation, Olympic Contracting Corp., Padilla
Construction Services, Inc., Tribeca Contracting Corp., Dean
Builders Group, Inc. and Zoria Housing LLC's cross motion in the
case captioned, JACOBO JUAREZ and NOEL VELASCO, individually and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were
employed by USA ROOFING COMPANY CORP. and TRIBECA CONTRACTING
CORP., along with other entities affiliated or controlled by USA
ROOFING COMPANY CORP. with respect to certain Public Works
Projects awarded by THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE NEW YORK CITY
HOUSING AUTHORITY, and THE NEW CITY SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY,
Plaintiffs, v. USA ROOFING COMPANY CORP., DEAN BUILDERS GROUP,
INC., NEELAM CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, OLYMPIC CONTRACTING, CORP.,
P&K CONTRACTING, INC., PADILLA CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC.,
TRIBECA CONTRACTING CORP., ZORIA HOUSING LLC and JOHN DOE BONDING
COMPANIES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 651437/13, Motion Seq. No.
006 (N.Y. Sup.).

Plaintiffs Jacobo Juarez and Noel Velasco, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, contend that they and the
putative class are entitled to wages and benefits for work
performed on various public works projects under contract with New
York City, New York State, and other government authorities.
Plaintiffs contend that defendants compensated them at a lower
prevailing wage and benefit rate than plaintiffs were entitled to
receive for their work, and that defendants failed to pay
plaintiffs for all the hours worked.

The second amended complaint alleges that USA Roofing and Tribeca
employed plaintiffs to work on projects where Dean, Neelam,
Olympic, Padilla, and Zoria were the general contractors. It is
alleged that each contractor set work schedules, directed the
work, and had substantial control over plaintiffs' working
conditions. It is alleged that the public works contracts required
the general contractors to oversee the performance of the work and
to ensure that workers were paid prevailing wages and supplemental
benefits, including overtime wages. It is alleged that the general
contractors failed to ensure that USA Roofing and Tribeca made the
appropriate payments.

Plaintiffs move to certify the action as a class action pursuant
to CPLR 901. They submit affidavits in support of class
certification.

Defendants argue that commonality and typicality are lacking in
the case, as plaintiffs do not have claims against all the
defendants.

Defendants' cross motions contend that plaintiffs destroyed or
lost evidence which would have supported their claims.
Accordingly, defendants argue, the court should determine the
hours that plaintiffs allegedly worked, prohibit them from
supporting any claims that they worked additional hours, strike
their second amended complaint, dismiss it as against all
defendants, and render judgment for defendants.

In the Order dated September 16, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/craBW7 from Leagle.com, Judge Singh found that
Plaintiffs fail to satisfy the numerosity requirement. They have
not shown that there are more than 25 members of the proposed
class and that joining them would be impracticable.


VALVE CORP: Court Dismisses Class Suit Over Counter Strike Game
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John C. Coughenour of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington granted Defendants
CSGO Lotto, Inc. and Trevor A. Martin's motion to dismiss the
first amended complaint in the case captioned, MICHAEL JOHN
McLEOD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VALVE CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. C16-1227-JCC (W.D. Wash.).

Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Valve Corporation, through its
video game Counter Strike Global Offensive (CSGO) "allowed an
illegal online gambling market" through "its Steam platform." CSGO
is a popular online video game that is the subject of weekly
online gaming matches that are broadcast on television. Steam is
Valve's online marketplace where players can "list items for sale,
buy games, buy items, and deposit money into their 'Steam
Wallet.'"

Plaintiffs allege that "Valve is aware that rigged third-party
sites are taking money from Valve's teenage customers." Plaintiffs
also allege that Mr. Trevor Martin, a defendant and owner of CSGO
Lotto, "actively promotes Lotto as a gambling service" through his
YouTube channel, which "generates excitement." Plaintiffs contend
that Mr. Martin's alleged failure to disclose that he was a
partial owner of CSGO Lotto means that he "rigged the results" of
games played on CSGO Lotto. With respect to damages, Plaintiffs
allege that they lost the value of their Skins, but they "knew"
they could "cash out" the value of their Skins "for real money
prior to losing them while gambling."

On August 16, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint. The Plaintiffs allege their class action is proper
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The class includes
individuals "who (1) purchased Skins and/or (2) are
parents/guardians of a minor child who has purchased Skins." The
amended complaint alleges ten different statutory and common law
violations, some including dozens of individual state law
violations, but contains only one federal claim: violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18
U.S.C. Section 1962.

On September 1, 2016, Defendants CSGO Lotto and Mr. Martin filed a
motion to dismiss the first amended complaint pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) for lack of personal jurisdiction,
lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim.

In his Order dated October 4, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/yt6rlI from Leagle.com, Judge Coughenour concluded
that (1) Plaintiffs have failed to allege concrete injury for RICO
standing; (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332
is unavailable because there is not complete diversity of
citizenship between Plaintiffs and Defendants; (3) the Court does
not have jurisdiction over the state law claims under CAFA because
CAFA jurisdiction was never alleged in the amended complaint; and
(4) having dismissed Plaintiffs' RICO cause of action, and finding
no CAFA jurisdiction, lacks federal subject matter jurisdiction
over these state law claims under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331.

Michael John McLeod, et al. are represented by Jasper D. Ward, IV,
Esq. -- jasper@jonesward.com -- JONES WARD PLC; Kim D. Stephens,
Esq. -- kstephens@tousley.com -- and Jason T. Dennett, Esq. --
jdennett@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS

McLeod et al. are also represented by:

      Paul C. Whalen, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF PAUL C. WHALEN, P.C.
      565 Plandome Rd #212
      Manhasset, NY 11030
      Tel: (516)627-5610

Valve Corporation is represented by Charles B. Casper, Esq. --
ccasper@mmwr.com -- MONTGOMERY MCCRACKEN WALKER & RHOADS -- James
Harlan Wendell, Esq. -- jwendell@riddellwilliams.com -- Shata L.
Stucky, Esq. -- sstucky@riddellwilliams.com -- and Gavin William
Skok, Esq. -- sskok@riddellwilliams.com -- RIDDELL WILLIAMS

Trevor A. Martin is represented by Coleman Watson, Esq. --
coleman@watsonllp.com -- WATSON LLP; and Ada Ko Wong, Esq. --
ada@AKWLawPLLC.com -- AKW LAW PLLC


VALVE CORP: Players Can Still Appeal CS:GO Class Action Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Barrett, writing for PCGames, reports that the CS:GO gambling
scandal rolls ever onward, with lawsuits now reaching the rulings
stage.  The first major decision has been made in the combined
class action suing of YouTuber TmarTn and Valve by a group of
disgruntled players, and it's a win for Valve.  The case has been
dismissed at a federal court on jurisdictional grounds.  While
this doesn't mean the case is dead, it does require a
restructuring from Michael John Mcleod et al.

The short version is that the federal court decided the RICO
elements of the case -- i.e. why it was being brought to federal
court in the first place -- didn't stand up, and therefore
dismissing it.  There's an appeal opportunity to go through, but
if that's unsuccessful it means state courts will have to be used
if the plaintiffs want to continue.

The major impacts of this decision are financial.  RICO trials
have special rules for who pays for the time of lawyers once
they're finished, and mean things could have been a lot cheaper
for the side of the case that isn't multi-national corporations
and YouTube superstars.  However, as mentioned, the case can
continue in other courts if wished.


VERTEX PHARMA: 1st Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge William J. Kayatta, Jr. of the Court of Appeals,
First Circuit, affirmed the district court's dismissal of the
complaint in the case captioned, LOCAL NO. 8 IBEW RETIREMENT PLAN
& TRUST, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, Appellant, v. VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JOSHUA
BOGER, Ph.D.; JEFFREY LEIDEN, Ph.D.; PETER MUELLER, Ph.D.; PAUL
SILVA; ELAINE ULLIAN; NANCY J. WYSENSKI, Defendants, Appellees,
Case No. 15-2250 (1st Cir.)

Acting on behalf of all those who acquired Vertex stock during the
period in which the overstatement stood uncorrected, Local No. 8
IBEW Retirement Plan & Trust (Local No. 8) filed the securities
fraud class action complaint against Vertex and six past and
current Vertex employees.

During the course of clinical trials for an experimental drug
combination intended to treat a fatal lung disease, Vertex
announced interim results that overstated the improvement in lung
function exhibited in a group of patients receiving the
combination treatment. Following this announcement, Vertex's stock
price rose from $37.41 per share to close at $64.85 three weeks
later. It then lost some of its gain, dropping to $57.80, after
Vertex corrected the initial release's overstatement.

The defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, see
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing that the facts alleged in the
complaint fail to generate a strong inference that the defendants
acted with the mental state required to render them liable under
section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. The district court dismissed the
complaint, finding that it failed to create a strong inference
that the defendants had acted with scienter, the requisite mental
state.

On appeal, Local No. 8 argues that the complaint adequately
alleges facts making it as likely as not that the defendants
recklessly turned a blind eye to an obvious danger that the
announced interpretation of the initial results was wrong.

In his Order dated October 3, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/0HBrZu from Leagle.com, Judge Kayatta concluded that
the Court properly dismissed the matter, holding that the
allegations underlying Local No. 8's claim that the defendants
acted with scienter fall short of what Congress demands in the
securities fraud context.  Because the remaining claims are
derivative of its section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim, it follows
that the district court properly dismissed the former, the Appeals
Court said.

Local No. 8 IBEW Retirement Plan & Trust is represented by Amanda
F. Lawrence, Esq. -- alawrence@scott-scott.com -- David R. Scott,
Esq. -- david.scott@scott-scott.com -- Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. -
- jguglielmo@scott-scott.com -- Beth A. Kaswan, Esq. --
bkaswan@scott-scott.com -- and Donald A. Broggi, Esq. --
dbroggi@scott-scott.com -- SCOTT + SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP

Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. are represented by John F.
Sylvia, Esq. -- JSylvia@mintz.com -- Andrew Nathanson, Esq. --
ANNathanson@mintz.com -- Matthew D. Levitt, Esq. --
MDLevitt@mintz.com -- and Rebecca L. Zeidel, Esq. --
RLZeidel@mintz.com -- MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND
POPEO, P.C.


VIM RECYCLING: Insurer's Counterclaim Tossed
--------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Michael G. Gotsch, Sr. of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Indiana granted in
part Westfield Insurance Company's Motion for Pleadings in the
case captioned, CARMINE GREENE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KENNETH R.
WILL, et al., Defendants, and WESTFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY,
Garnishee-Defendant, Case No. 3:09-CV-510-PPS-MGG (N.D. Ind.).

In his Opinion and Order dated October 3, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/equtVk from Leagle.com, Judge Gotsch, Sr. found that
Westfield's counterclaim is redundant and unwarranted.  The Court,
however, will afford Westfield sufficient time to amend its
proposed answer and affirmative defenses to ensure that its
pleadings are complete.

Plaintiffs initiated the class action under 42 U.S.C. Section
9601, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA), with its original complaint on October 27,
2009. On April 18, 2011, Westfield filed a separate complaint for
declaratory judgment seeking a declaration that it owed no duty to
defend or indemnify Kenneth R. Will (Will), VIM Recycling, Inc.
(VIM), and K.C. Industries, LLC (KCI), against a state court
lawsuit against them. In Westfield's 2011 Dec Action, the Court
found that Westfield has no duty to defend or indemnify Will, VIM,
or KCI against the state court lawsuit.

On November 24, 2015, the Court then entered default judgment in
the instant action against VIM and KCI for $50,568,750 and awarded
litigation costs in the amount of $273,399.85 against Will, VIM,
and KCI. On May 23, 2016, Plaintiffs filed their Verified Motion
for Proceedings Supplemental to Execution (Motion for Pro Supp)
that sought, among other things, to attach four insurance policies
issued by Westfield to VIM, KCI, and Will.

Westfield filed the Motion for Pleadings based on its assertion
that it has no duty under its policies to defend and indemnify
VIM, KC, and Will against Plaintiffs' claims; and that it is not
liable under its policies to pay any of the judgments against VIM,
KC, and Will.

In their response brief, and later at the motion hearing,
Plaintiffs indicated that they do not oppose Westfield's request
to file an answer and affirmative defenses, but that they do
object to Westfield's request to file the proposed
counterclaim/cross-claim for declaratory judgment.

Rob Pedzinski, et al. are represented by Richard C. Richmond, III,
Esq. -- rrichmond@taftlaw.com -- Donald C. Biggs, Esq. --
dbiggs@taftlaw.com -- and Frank J. Deveau, Esq. --
fdeveau@taftlaw.com -- TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP; Kim E.
Ferraro, Esq. -- kferraro@hecweb.org -- HOOSIER ENVIRONMENTAL
COUNCIL; and Dennis A. Ferraro, Esq. -- dferraro@hecweb.org --
CHUHAK & TECSON PC

Westfield Insurance Company is represented by John J. Haggerty,
Esq. -- jhaggerty@foxrothschild.com -- FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP -- and
Mark R. Smith, Esq. -- msmith@smithfisher.com -- SMITH FISHER MAAS
HOWARD & LLOYD PC


VOLKSWAGEN AG: James Liang Indicted in Emissions Scandal
--------------------------------------------------------
Edward J. Heath, Esq. -- eheath@rc.com -- and Kelly Frye Barnett,
Esq. -- kbarnett@rc.com -- of Robinson & Cole, in an article for
The Connecticut Law Tribune, report that on Sept. 9, the U.S.
Department of Justice publicly announced the indictment and guilty
plea of James Liang, the first Volkswagen executive to be charged
in connection with the company's ongoing emissions scandal.  The
plea was entered on the one-year anniversary of the DOJ's release
of the so-called Yates Memo, which sent a stern warning to the
business world that company executives were now more likely to be
held individually accountable for criminal and civil liability
arising from corporate misconduct.  Even at this early stage in
the government's investigation of Volkswagen, the prosecution of
Liang reflects the DOJ's commitment to the philosophy of the Yates
Memo and reveals some practical guidance for lawyers and other
personnel responsible for corporate compliance.

The Yates Memo
Named after its author, Sally Quillian Yates, deputy attorney
general of the United States, the Yates Memo is the most recent
articulation of the DOJ's approach to investigating and resolving
allegations of corporate misconduct.  Its philosophy is
crystallized in six steps that assistant U.S. attorneys should
take in the course of handling investigations, and it places a
heavy emphasis on individual accountability.  It instructs DOJ
lawyers to focus on individual criminal and civil liability from
the inception of the investigation, and it directs that any
settlement with a target company should not include a release of
culpable directors, officers, or employees "[a]bsent extraordinary
circumstances."

The Yates Memo takes the position that culpable employees
generally should not be allowed to escape liability to the
government by hiding behind the corporate form, but it also can be
read to urge DOJ lawyers to use individual employee liability as
leverage to obtain a more favorable settlement from the target
company.  In articulating this strategy, the Yates Memo did not
break new ground as much as it confirmed an evolving federal
trend, of which the prosecution of Liang is the latest
high-profile example.

Liang's Prosecution
News of Volkswagen's emissions crisis broke in September 2015,
mere days after the Yates Memo was issued.  It has become one of
the most significant ongoing government investigations in the
country, if not the world.  At the core of the crisis is a decade-
long conspiracy perpetrated on consumers and environmental
regulators worldwide to use software in its vehicles to
fraudulently defeat emissions testing.

Mr. Liang has now admitted to being a key figure in that criminal
conspiracy.  His employment with Volkswagen AG began in 1983 and
focused on diesel development at the company's facilities in
Wolfsburg, Germany.  The DOJ has alleged that Mr. Liang and other
company personnel realized that they would not be able to design a
diesel engine that would meet both U.S. emissions standards and
customer expectations.  Mr. Liang and other company employees
thereafter designed software or a "defeat device" that was to be
installed in each vehicle.  When the software detected emissions
testing, the vehicle would perform in a mode that satisfied
standards.  Otherwise, the emissions control systems were scaled
back, causing the vehicle to emit significantly higher amounts of
nitrogen oxide pollutants, sometimes 40 times greater than U.S.
standards.

In 2008, Mr. Liang moved to California as Volkswagen's leader of
diesel competence.  While in that role, Mr. Liang and other
co-conspirators allegedly met with federal and state environmental
regulators on several occasions to seek the certifications
required to sell to U.S. customers the vehicles fitted with the
defeat devices.  Mr. Liang has admitted that during some of these
meetings he and his co-conspirators knowingly misrepresented that
the vehicles complied with emissions standards and intentionally
hid the existence of the defeat devices.

Consistent with the Yates Memo, Mr. Liang was indicted under seal
while the government and Volkswagen were involved in ongoing
settlement negotiations.  According to counsel for Mr. Liang, he
is "one of many" at Volkswagen involved in the scheme, and it
appears that he has been cooperating with the government's
investigation.  Approximately a month after Liang was indicted,
Volkswagen reached a settlement with the DOJ under which it
admitted wrongdoing and agreed to pay $15.3 billion to its
customers and regulators.

The settlement left open the possibility of criminal charges.
Yates has since confirmed that the DOJ is looking at "multiple
companies and multiple individuals" in this investigation. Liang's
indictment may be the first of many to follow.

Compliance Warning Signs
It remains unclear whether and to what extent Volkswagen employees
in supervisory or compliance roles may have been aware of the
criminal conspiracy to which Mr. Liang has admitted.  But his
indictment and numerous media reports suggest that others may have
been in a position to observe warning signs.

For example, a civil lawsuit filed in federal court in New Jersey
last year cites German and French newspaper reports for the
allegation that Robert Bosch GmbH, a business that supplied
software and components to Volkswagen, warned the company in a
2007 letter that it would be illegal to use the emissions software
in vehicles sold to U.S. consumers.

Other media reports indicate that one or more Volkswagen
technicians may have warned the company in 2011 about concerns
regarding emissions testing practices.

In 2012, West Virginia University received a private grant to
perform emissions tests on a variety of diesel vehicles in the
U.S. WVU tested two Volkswagen diesel cars, which repeatedly
failed to match the company's marketing hype.  That testing data
was first presented at an industry conference in 2014 and was
later provided to federal and state regulators, whose
confrontation of Volkswagen was initially met with denials.

The indictment of Liang does not refer to any of those media
reports or to the third-party testing, but it does rely heavily on
incriminating internal emails exchanged between Volkswagen
employees in response to their dealings with regulators.

Referring to an engine at issue, one employee wrote in 2015, "We
must be sure to prevent the [California] authority from testing
the Gen 1!" An email also noted that if the Gen 1 engine were
tested by regulators, "then we'll have nothing more to laugh
about!!!!!" One Volkswagen employee sent Mr. Liang and others an
email in 2015 seeking input on how to respond to regulators,
stating (in German): "The key word 'creativity' would be helpful
here."  Another employee email stated, "We 'only just need a
plausible explanation' as to why the emissions are still high!!!"
Avoiding the Crisis

The scant information and allegations available to the public
about the Volkswagen crisis already reveal some practical guidance
for lawyers and other company personnel responsible for corporate
compliance.

It is important for lawyers and compliance personnel to be "on the
ground" with company employees to the extent reasonably
practicable, particularly with regard to employees involved in
company initiatives that are subject to heavy regulation.

Fostering a close and trusting working relationship with employees
helps to maintain an open line of communication to share concerns,
even those that come from outside of the company, such as from
vendors or at industry conferences.

Lawyers and compliance personnel should also consider educating
company employees about the internal and external risks of
noncompliance, including the DOJ's avowed commitment to pursuing
individual liability, and the company's existing reporting
channels and whistleblower protections.

Regulators expect that supervisory and compliance personnel will
swiftly respond to indications of possible employee misconduct.
Acquiring the information necessary to make informed judgments is
often challenging, but, as the emails cited in Mr. Liang's
indictment strikingly illustrate, reviewing employee emails can be
an effective investigation starting point, even before any
employees are questioned.  Although the primary mode of
communication among employees in most companies, emails,
unfortunately, are often sent with little or no forethought
despite their permanence and likelihood of ending up as evidence
in criminal and civil cases.  That initial step of email review
typically can be performed remotely through the company's IT
department and without advising the targeted employees of the
review.  If the volume of email generated by the employees is too
great to review in short order, as will almost certainly be the
case, keyword terms can be searched to expedite the review.

This kind of relationship building, internal education, and
monitoring efforts are burdensome and time-consuming but, as
Volkswagen's woes have already demonstrated, the cost of
compliance is always less than the cost of a crisis.

Edward Heath is a Robinson & Cole partner who chairs the firm's
Business Litigation Group and leads its Government
Investigations, Corporate Compliance, and Criminal Defense Team.

Kelly Frye Barnett, an associate in the firm, is a member of the
Business Litigation Group and the Government Investigations,
Corporate Compliance, and Criminal Defense Team.


WASHINGTON COUNTY WATER: Utah High Court Nixes Townhomes Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Associate Chief Justice Thomas R. Lee of the Utah Supreme Court
dismissed on jurisdictional grounds the case captioned, WASHINGTON
TOWNHOMES, LLC, et al., Appellants, v. WASHINGTON COUNTY WATER
CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, Appellee, Case No. 20150258 (Utah).

The case is a putative class action aimed at challenging the
legality of certain impact fees imposed by the Washington County
Water Conservancy District. The case was filed by a group of
property owners who paid impact fees -- a "water availability
charge" -- to the District within a specific time period. The
plaintiffs claim that the impact fees run afoul of the Impact Fees
Act, UTAH CODE Section 11-36a-201 to -205, and amount to a taking
under the Utah and United States Constitutions.

The District defends its impact fees by asserting that they were
based on a "level of service" standard imposed on the District
through a minimum source capacity standard adopted by the Utah
Division of Drinking Water (DDW). It asserts that the adoption of
the level of service standard is a "legislative" judgment that
survives scrutiny under the Impact Fees Act and constitutional
takings provisions.

The trial court endorsed the District's position in a decision
granting its motion for partial summary judgment. In granting that
motion, the court held "that the Level of Service adopted by and
for the purposes of the District's 2006 Capital Facilities Plan
and Impact Fee Analysis based upon a standard established by the
DDW was legal and reasonable as a matter of law." In addition,
pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, the court certified the
case for an immediate appeal under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure
54(b) concluding that "a determination of the critical threshold
issue at the appellate level would be the most efficient use of
judicial resources" and accordingly found "that there was no just
reason for delay."

On appeal, the parties contend that the standard is met. They
claim that the input on the reasonableness or legality of the
District's "level of service" standard will advance the timely
disposition of the case and that the district court's decision
implicates threshold "principles of law" that will serve as a
"necessary foundation" on which further proceedings will be based.

In his Opinion dated October 3, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/FwfkXe from Leagle.com, Judge Lee dismissed the case
for lack of jurisdiction because the case was not properly
certified under Rule 54(b) and declined to resolve threshold
"principles of law" concluding that the issues on the merits are
insufficiently presented on the briefs and record on appeal.

Washington Townhomes, LLC, et al. are represented by:

      Craig M. Call, Esq.
      Kevin E. Anderson, Esq.
      Jonathan W. Call, Esq.
      ANDERSON CALL & WILKINSON
      999 N. Washington Blvd.
      Harrisville, UT 84404
      Tel: (801)371-4041

Washington County Water Conservancy District is represented by
Jody K. Burnett, Esq. -- jkb@scmlaw.com -- Robert C. Keller, Esq.
-- rck@scmlaw.com -- and John M. Zidow, Esq. -- jmzidow@scmlaw.com
-- SNOW CHRISTENSEN & MARTINEAU


WASHINGTON INVENTORY: Simon-Wilson Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Simon-Wilson, on her own behalf and others similarly
situated v. Washington Inventory Service, Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-
02810-MSS-MAP (M.D. Fla., October 3, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Washington Inventory Service, Inc. provides retail stock counts,
library inventory, medical inventory, merchandising, and store
mapping services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      W. John Gadd, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF W.JOHN GADD
      Bank of America Building
      2727 Ulmerton Rd. Ste. 250
      Clearwater, FL 33762
      Telephone: (727) 524-6300
      E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com

         - and -

      Kyle J. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LAW, PLLC
      PO Box 4476
      Brandon, FL 33509-476
      Telephone: (813) 343-2813
      E-mail: Kyle@KyleLeeLaw.com


WELLS FARGO: "Gardner" Files Suit Over "Unauthorized Accounts"
--------------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA GARDNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, a
Delaware Corporation; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., a National
Banking Association, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-02467-BEN-JMA
(D.S.C., September 30, 2016), alleges that Wells Fargo has for
years created checking, savings, and credit-card accounts for its
customers without their knowledge or consent.

Wells Fargo & Company is a financial services corporation,
providing banking, insurance, investment, mortgage, and financial
products and services.

Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a national banking association
chartered under the laws of the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alexander M. Schack, Esq.
     Natasha N. Serino, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER M. SCHACK
     16870 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 400
     San Diego, CA 92127
     Phone: (858) 485-6535
     Fax: (858) 485-0608
     E-mail: alexschack@amslawoffice.com
             natashaserino@amslawoffice.com


WELLS FARGO: House Wants CEO to Undo Forced Arbitration Clause
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kery Murakami, writing for CNHI Washington, reports that during
hours of tongue-lashing by members of a House committee two weeks
ago, Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., pressed Wells Fargo's CEO to
undo a requirement imposed by many banks that prevent customers
from being able to sue.

"Some of them want their day in court," Mr. Sherman said of Wells
Fargo customers who cannot file class-action lawsuits against the
bank for opening fake accounts in their names.

"Are you going to hold them to their forced arbitration and screw
them out of that?" he said.

"I believe in arbitration. I think it's a fair way . . .," said
the Wells Fargo banker, John G. Stumpf, who was testifying before
the House Financial Services Committee, before he was interrupted.

"Will you let them go to court if they want to go to court? Yes or
No?" Mr. Sherman said later in the exchange.

"No but with an explanation," said Mr. Stumpf, before he was cut
off again.

The controversy over millions of fake accounts opened by Wells
Fargo is reigniting debate over a clause commonly included in
banking agreements, in which customers agree not to file class-
action lawsuits.

While banking groups say the clauses push disputes to cheaper and
quicker arbitration, others including Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, the
ranking Democrat on the Senate banking committee, said preventing
wronged customers from going to court takes away their ability to
be "made whole" and "prevent cases like this in the future."

A federal judge in California last September agreed with Wells
Fargo when ruling that Shahriar Jabbari cannot file suit on behalf
of himself and other Wells Fargo customers because of the clause.

Mr. Jabbari, according to court documents, opened a checking and a
savings account at Wells Fargo in 2011.  Upon going to a branch in
Los Gatos, California, to check on an unauthorized charge, he
discovered he had seven accounts.

The fake accounts were opened using his forged signature. One even
misspelled his first name.

Mr. Jabbari said his credit rating dropped and he got calls from
debt collectors because of fees he racked up in the accounts
opened without his knowledge.

The latest controversy over bogus accounts isn't the only one
Wells Fargo has tried to keep in arbitration.

Bank attorneys in September asked for three federal class-action
lawsuits in Florida alleging excessive overdraft charges be thrown
out because of the arbitration clause.

Sen. Brown said that he'll soon introduce a bill allowing Wells
Fargo customers to sue the bank for opening fake accounts, even if
they've signed the arbitration agreements.

Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson also turned up the heat,
writing to Mr. Stumpf on Oct. 4 to urge him not to enforce the
prohibition against customers filing a class-action lawsuit
against the bank.

The controversy could have broader implications, banking experts
said.

It could bolster a ban on the clauses proposed by the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau, said Quyen Truong --
qtruong@stroock.com -- a former deputy counsel at the bureau and
now a partner at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, in an interview.

Consumer groups say the clauses are stacked in the favor of banks.

A study last year by the consumer bureau said bank and credit card
customers generally don't realize they've given up their rights to
file class-action lawsuits.

However, its proposal, which could be implemented early next year,
has been controversial. It drew more than 6,000 comments,
including opposition from banking groups that say defending
thousands more lawsuits will cost billions of dollars.

In its study, CFPB said larger banks are more likely to include
the clause in contracts than smaller ones.

According to a Pew Charitable Trusts study last year, nearly two-
thirds percent of the nation's top 45 banks had such clauses, up
from more than half in 2013.

The CFPB study found arbitrators ruled in 341 cases filed against
banks and financial institutions in 2010 and 2011. Consumers won
only 32 times.

In a letter to CFPB supporting the proposed ban on arbitration
causes, the group Consumer Action noted some key differences
between arbitration and class-action cases.

Customers ability to get access to documents is more limited in
arbitration, which can "make the proceedings one-sided and very
unfair to customers," it said.

Arbitrators, unlike judges, are not required to follow legal
precedent or explain their decisions.

Nor do they have power to order a business to stop unfair
practices.  Because the proceedings are confidential, regulators
and the public cannot find out about the actions for which a
company is being challenged, the group said.

"This forced arbitration system helps hide fraudulent schemes such
as the sham accounts at Wells Fargo from the justice system, from
the news media, and from the public eye," wrote Sen. Brown along
with Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and five other Democratic
senators in a Sept. 23 letter to Mr. Stumpf, urging him to drop
the clause.

Wells Fargo in a statement said the bank is working to "make
things right" by ensuring its customers do not have any product or
service they did not authorize. It is offering free mediation to
resolve any disputes.

In a joint letter to CFBP that opposes the ban, the American
Bankers Association, Consumer Bankers Association and Financial
Services Roundtable said getting rid of the arbitration clause
would lead to 6,042 additional class-action lawsuits in the next
five years, at an "unprecedented and staggering" cost to banks of
between $2.62 billion and $5.23 billion.

Arbitration, the groups said, is a faster, cheaper way to settle
suits.

Consumers are the ones who will "truly suffer" from the proposed
rule, the financial associations argued.  Adding thousands more
cases will clog the courts for all kinds of cases.

"As taxpayers, they will pay for the increased costs to the court
systems required to handle the permanent surge of 6,042 additional
class actions every five years," they said.


WELLS FARGO: "Cota" Files Suit Over Non-Payment of Overtime Work
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMIELYNN COTA, SUSANA DAVILA, and PATTY CHA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case 3:16-cv-05543-JSC (N.D.
Cal., September 29, 2016), brings claims under California law for
alleged unpaid overtime compensation, restitution, statutory
penalties, civil penalties, liquidated damages, meal and rest
break premium payments, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendant is a provider of banking, mortgage, investing, credit
card, insurance, and consumer and commercial financial services.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Peter Rukin, Esq.
     Rebecca Stephens, Esq.
     RUKIN HYLAND DORIA & TINDALL LLP
     100 Pine Street, Suite 2150
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Phone: (415) 421-1800
     Fax: (415) 421-1700
     E-mail: prukin@rhdtlaw.com
             rstephens@rhdtlaw.com


WOK TO WALK: Faces "Riley" Suit in Southern District of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wok to Walk, LLC.
The case is titled Amanie Riley, On behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Wok to Walk, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-07728 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 3, 2016).

The Defendant is engaged in the restaurant business industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


YAHOO! INC: Faces "Filares" Lawsuit Over 2014 Data Theft
--------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO FILARES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. YAHOO! Inc., Defendant, Case No.
3:16-cv-02464-CAB-DHB (D.S.C., September 30, 2016), alleges that
Defendant failed to adequately safeguard Plaintiff's personal
information as proven by a data theft in late 2014.  Plaintiff
seeks judgment requiring Yahoo to remedy the alleged harm caused
by its "misconduct."

Yahoo is an Internet company that provides a host of Internet
websites and services, including web portal, search engine and e-
mail service.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alexander M. Schack, Esq.
     Natasha N. Serino, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER M. SCHACK
     16870 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 400
     San Diego, CA 92127
     Phone: (858) 485-6535
     Fax: (858) 485-0608
     E-mail: alexschack@amslawoffice.com
             natashaserino@amslawoffice.com


* Second Circuit Clarifies Law for Consolidated Cases
-----------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has clarified the law
on when the dismissal of a single case among several consolidated
cases can be considered a final, appealable decision.


* Study Says More Opt-Outs Likely in Big Class Action Settlements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that larger
securities class-action settlements are more likely than smaller
settlements to have at least one plaintiff "opt out" and go it
alone, a study released on Oct. 6 shows.

From 1996 to 2014, at least one party decided not to participate
in 48 out of 1,458 U.S. settlements reviewed, or 3.3 percent,
according to the study by Cornerstone Research and the law firm
Latham & Watkins.



                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magistrate Judge Favors Dismissal of "Suoja"
-------------------------------------------------------------
On December 29, 1996, Oswald "Ozzie" Suoja died from mesothelioma,
a form of cancer closely associated with asbestos exposure.  There
is no dispute that exposure to asbestos caused Suoja's illness: he
had a 40-year career as a union asbestos worker during which he
worked with numerous asbestos-containing products.  In 1999,
Suoja's wife filed a lawsuit against defendant Owens-Illinois,
Inc. on her own and Suoja's behalf.  She later was replaced as
plaintiff by their son Gary, who is administrator of Suoja's
estate.  The lawsuit asserts causes of action for negligence and
strict liability based on the fact that from January 1948 and
April 30, 1958, Owens-Illinois manufactured and sold an asbestos-
containing pipe insulation called "Kaylo." Plaintiff alleges that
Suoja was exposed to asbestos dust from this particular product
while doing pipe insulation and repair at the Badger Ordnance
Works in Sauk County, Wisconsin, that this exposure was a
substantial cause of his mesothelioma, and that defendant is
either strictly liable or negligent for including asbestos in its
insulation product and/or failing to warn Suoja that working
around dust from Kaylo would expose him to an unreasonable risk of
harm.

The Plaintiff's suit was originally assigned to District Judge
Barbara Crabb. In September 1999, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered the case transferred to the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania for pretrial proceedings, where
it remained until it was remanded back to Judge Crabb in January
2014.  After a number of unsuccessful motions by defendant to
dismiss the case, the parties withdrew their jury demands and
consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction over a bench trial.

Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin held a bench trial on
November 30 to December 2, 2015, allowing the parties virtually
free rein to present evidence with the understanding that they
would be able to raise evidentiary objections in post-trial
briefs.  Following the trial, the parties submitted post-trial
briefs, including numerous evidentiary objections, and responses.
The case now is before the court for findings of fact and
conclusions of law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52.

After examining the entire record, considering the arguments of
counsel, and determining the credibility of the witnesses,
Magistrate Crocker finds that the plaintiff has failed to meet his
burden of showing by the greater weight of the credible evidence
that Suoja was exposed to Kaylo at Badger Ordnance.  Further, even
if Suoja might have been exposed to Kaylo at Badger Ordnance, the
plaintiff has not met his burden of showing that any such exposure
was a substantial cause of Suoja's mesothelioma.  Having failed to
prove key elements of his claims of strict liability and
negligence, the plaintiff cannot prevail. Therefore, Magistrate
Crocker said he is entering judgment for defendant and dismissing
the plaintiff's case.

The case is GARY SUOJA, Individually and as Special Administrator
of the Estate of OSWALD SUOJA, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. OWENS-
ILLINOIS, INC., Defendant, No. 99-CV-475-slc (W.D. Wis.).  A full-
text copy of Magistrate Crocker's September 30, 2016 Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/JpufJp from Leagle.com.

Delores Agnes Suoja, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Cascino,
Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd..

Delores Agnes Suoja, Plaintiff, represented by Robert G. McCoy,
Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., Daniel Benjamin Hausman,
Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd. & Jill A. Rakauski, CASCINO
VAUGHAN LAW OFFICES, LTD..

Oswald F. Suoja, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Cascino,
Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., Robert G. McCoy, Cascino
Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., Daniel Benjamin Hausman, Cascino
Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd. & Jill A. Rakauski, CASCINO VAUGHAN LAW
OFFICES, LTD..

Owens-Illinois Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew John
Fischer, Schiff Hardin LLP, Brian O'Connor Watson, Riley Safer
Holmes & Cancila LLP, Edward M. Casmere, Riley Safer Holmes &
Cancila LLP, Joshua Douglas rileyLee, Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila
LLP, Rachel Allison Remke, Schiff Hardin LLP & Robert H. Riley,
SCHIFF, HARDIN & WAITE.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims vs. Puget in "Johnson" Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California issued an order granting the
dismissal, with prejudice, of any asbestos exposure claims on or
after December 15, 1980, as to Defendant Puget Sound Commerce
Center, Inc., fka Todd Shipyards Corporation, in the case
captioned MARCELLA JOHNSON, as Successor-in-Interest to and as
Wrongful Death Heir of RICHARD JOHNSON, Deceased; and DEVIN
JOHNSON, TIFFANEY JOHNSON, as Wrongful Death Heirs of RICHARD
JOHNSON, Deceased, Plaintiffs, v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC (FKA
GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION), et al., Defendants, No. 3:15-cv-
02664-EMC (N.D. Calif.).

A full-text copy of Judge Chen's September 30, 2016 Order is
available at https://is.gd/AuJhEt from Leagle.com.

Richard Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Donadio,
Brayton Purcell LLP.

Richard Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Alan R. Brayton,
Brayton Purcell LLP & Kimberly Joy Wai Jun Chu, Brayton Purcell
LLP.

Marcella Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Donadio,
Brayton Purcell LLP, Alan R. Brayton, Brayton Purcell LLP &
Kimberly Joy Wai Jun Chu, Brayton Purcell LLP.

Devin Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Donadio, Brayton
Purcell LLP & Alan R. Brayton, Brayton Purcell LLP.

Tiffaney Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Donadio,
Brayton Purcell LLP & Alan R. Brayton, Brayton Purcell LLP.

Puget Sound Commerce Center Inc, Defendant, represented by Demian
David Steele, Yaron & Associates, George D. Yaron, Yaron &
Associates & Michael C. Guasco, Yaron & Associates.

Georgia Pacific, LLC, Defendant, represented by Eric Dean
Sentlinger, Perkins Coie LLP & David T. Biderman, Perkins Coie
LLP.

Fireman's Fund Insurance Company on behalf of its suspended
insured Associated Insulation of California, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Michael Eric Sandgren, Selman Breitman LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Md. Federal Court Denies Bid to Remand "Rhodes"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ESTHER RHODES, as Surviving Spouse and
Personal Representative of the Estate of Earl J. Rhodes, deceased,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. MCIC, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil No.
JKB-16-2459 (D. Md.), Judge James K. Bredar of the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland denied the Plaintiffs'
motion to remand or, in the alternative, for severance of all
claims other than the Plaintiffs' claims against Crane Co. and to
remand all other severed claims.

The Plaintiffs, who are surviving family members of Earl J.
Rhodes, deceased, filed their complaint against 32 Defendants in
the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.  The case has been removed
to the Maryland District Court by Crane Co. pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1442, which permits removal to federal court for cases
involving the "federal officer defense."

In their motion to remand, the Plaintiffs argue the federal
officer defense has not been established.  They fault Crane Co.
because it provides no evidence to support its allegation that
Plaintiff Earl Rhodes was exposed to Crane Co.'s asbestos-
containing products while serving in the Navy at a jobsite where
the products were being used, installed and/or replaced and that
the products and its labeling/packaging were under the complete
and direct control of the federal government. Judge Bredar held
that given the dearth of specific allegations in the Plaintiffs'
complaint regarding any specific product of any particular
Defendant, the Court cannot fault Crane Co. for not providing the
kind of specificity desired by the Plaintiffs. Crane Co. is
clearly anticipating that the course of discovery may flesh out
what are now, at best, the Plaintiffs' conclusional allegations,
the judge said.

Judge Bredar added that the Plaintiffs also assert, with no
factual support, that "the Navy did not exercise any control over
warnings and exercised no discretion over warnings relating to
Crane Co.'s products which were supplied to the Navy."  In fact,
Crane Co. has provided ample support for the proposition in its
Notice of Removal and in the affidavits supplied therewith to the
effect that the Navy exercised strict control over the inclusion
or affixing of warnings to any product of any kind supplied to the
Navy, the judge pointed out.

The Plaintiffs also contend that Crane Co. made no assertion or
provided proof that it warned the Government about possible
asbestos hazards from its products. They further contend that
Crane Co. has not provided argument that the federal government
had sufficient knowledge about its knowledge of asbestos hazards,
that the Navy prohibited or limited Crane Co. from providing
warnings about asbestos hazards, or that the Navy exercised any
discretion on the point. Judge Bredar held that under the
governing standard, a warning from Crane Co. to the Navy about
asbestos hazards would only have been necessary if Crane Co. had
more knowledge than the Navy about those hazards. Dr. Forman's
affidavit provides a wealth of information indicating the Navy was
a leader in the field of occupational health, including that
specifically relating to asbestos hazards and the employment of
various measures to prevent exposure to asbestos. And the Notice
of Removal states, "The Navy, as one of the leaders in industrial
hygiene state of the art, possessed knowledge regarding the
hazards of asbestos equal to or superior to its equipment
suppliers, such as Crane Co."  Consequently, Crane Co. was not
required to warn the Navy about asbestos hazards. Additionally,
the various affidavits establish the discretion exercised by the
Navy over its suppliers as to the placement and content of
warnings on their products; moreover, according to what is before
the Court, the Navy exercised that discretion in a strict manner,
requiring absolute adherence to MilSpecs.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum and Order dated September 29,
2016 is available at https://is.gd/cgwT31 from Leagle.com.

Esther Rhodes, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Timothy Edmonds,
Esq. -- Law Office of Peter T. Nicholl.

Esther Rhodes, Plaintiff, is represented by Peter T. Nicholl, Esq.
-- Law Office of Peter T. Nicholl & Teresa Epps Cummings, Esq. --
Law Offices of Peter T. Nicholl.

Bette Rhodes Beachy, Plaintiff, is represented by Michael Timothy
Edmonds, Esq. -- Law Office of Peter T. Nicholl.

Bette Rhodes Beachy, Plaintiff, is represented by Peter T.
Nicholl, Esq. -- Law Office of Peter T. Nicholl.

Bette Rhodes Beachy, Plaintiff, is represented by Teresa Epps
Cummings, Esq. -- Law Offices of Peter T. Nicholl.

Cathy Joyce Varela, Plaintiff, is represented by Michael Timothy
Edmonds, Esq. -- Law Office of Peter T. Nicholl, Peter T. Nicholl,
Esq. -- Law Office of Peter T. Nicholl & Teresa Epps Cummings,
Esq. -- Law Offices of Peter T. Nicholl.

James Rhodes, Plaintiff, is represented by Michael Timothy
Edmonds, Law Office of Peter T. Nicholl, Peter T. Nicholl, Law
Office of Peter T. Nicholl & Teresa Epps Cummings, Law Offices of
Peter T. Nicholl.

Dale Rhodes, Plaintiff, is represented by Michael Timothy Edmonds,
Law Office of Peter T. Nicholl.

Dale Rhodes, Plaintiff, is represented by Peter T. Nicholl, Law
Office of Peter T. Nicholl.

Dale Rhodes, Plaintiff, is represented by Teresa Epps Cummings,
Law Offices of Peter T. Nicholl.

MCIC, Inc, Defendant, is represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Esq. -- lgrenzer@bodie-law.com -- Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell &
Grenzer, PC & Thomas M. Hanna, Esq. -- McMahon Berger Hanna
Linihan Cody McCarthy PC.

Uniroyal, Inc., Defendant, is represented by John Stewart Cobb,
Esq. -- North and Cobb PA.

CBS Corporation of Delaware, Defendant, is represented by Philip
A. Kulinski, Esq. -- pakulinski@ewhlaw.com -- Evert Weathersby
Houff & Clare Marie Maisano, Esq. -- cmaisano@ewhlaw.com --  Evert
Weathersby Houff.

General Refractories, Co., Defendant, is represented by John
Stewart Cobb, North and Cobb PA.

E.L. Stebbings & Company, Defendant, is represented by Louis E.
Grenzer, Jr., Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC &
Thomas M. Hanna, McMahon Berger Hanna Linihan Cody McCarthy PC.

Hampshire Industries, Inc., Defendant, is represented by David W.
Allen, Esq. -- dwa@gdldlaw.com -- Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann
LLP, Malcolm Sean Brisker, Esq. -- msb@gdldlaw.com -- Goodell
DeVries Leech and Dann LLP & Terri Lynn Goldberg, Esq. --
tlg@gdldlaw.com -- Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP.

Georgia Pacific Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Douglas
B. Pfeiffer, Esq. -- dpfeiffer@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Robin Silver,  Esq. --
rsilver@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles and Stockbridge PC & Leianne
S. McEvoy, Esq. -- lmcevoy@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles and
Stockbridge PC.

Foster Wheeler Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Patrick
C. Smith, Esq. -- psmith@dehay.com -- Dehay and Elliston LLP, R.
Thomas Radcliffe, Jr., Esq. -- tradcliffe@dehay.com -- Dehay and
Elliston LLP & Steven J. Parrott, Esq. --sparrott@dehay.com --
Dehay and Elliston LLP.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Defendant, is represented by
Richard Damon Albert, Steptoe and Johnson LLP & Jamie Michelle
Hertz, Steptoe & Johnson LLP.

Foseco, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Douglas B. Pfeiffer,
Miles and Stockbridge PC.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Thurman W.
Zollicoffer, Jr., Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP.

Bayer Cropscience, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Thurman W.
Zollicoffer, Jr., Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP.

A.W. Chesterton Co., Defendant, is represented by Thomas Peter
Bernier, Goldberg Segalla & Scott J. McDowell, Goldberg Segalla
LLP.

Ingersoll-Rand Co., Inc., Defendant, is represented by Joshua
Franklin Kahn, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Michael Alan Brown, Miles
and Stockbridge PC & Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC.

Warren Pumps, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Malcolm Sean
Brisker, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP & Terri Lynn Goldberg,
Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP.

Honeywell International Inc., Defendant, is represented by Matthew
Thomas Wagman, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Alicia N. Ritchie, Miles
and Stockbridge PC & Jonathan James Huber, Miles & Stockbridge
P.C..

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Neil
Joseph MacDonald, MacDonald Law Group, LLC.

Cutler-Hammer, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Warren N.
Weaver, Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP & Michelle Noorani,
Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP.

General Electric Company, Defendant, is represented by David J.
Quigg, Meringer Zois and Quigg LLC & Donald S. Meringer, Meringer
Zois and Quigg LLC.

Pneumo Abex LLC., Defendant, is represented by Patrick C. Smith,
Dehay and Elliston LLP & R. Thomas Radcliffe, Jr., Dehay and
Elliston LLP.

The A. O. Smith Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Thomas
L. Doran, DeCaro Doran Siciliano Gallagher and DeBlasis LLP.

GTE Products of Connecticut Corporation, Defendant, is represented
by F. Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC.

Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust, Defendant, is
represented by Scott Mason Richmond, Venable LLP.

Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust, Defendant, is
represented by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP.

Lloyd E. Mitchell, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Helyna M.
Haussler, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman and Dicker LLP & Jason
Richard Waters, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman and Dicker.

Crown, Cork and Seal, Co. Inc., Defendant, is represented by Scott
Mason Richmond, Venable LLP & Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP.

Arvinmeritor, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Thomas Peter
Bernier, Goldberg Segalla & Scott J. McDowell, Goldberg Segalla
LLP.

Dana Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Steven J. Parrott,
Dehay and Elliston LLP.

Crane Co., Defendant, is represented by Neil Joseph MacDonald,
MacDonald Law Group, LLC.

Foster Wheeler, LLC., Defendant, is represented by Patrick C.
Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, is represented by Terri Lynn
Goldberg, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP.




ASBESTOS UPDATE: Indiana App. Partially Flips Ruling in "Myers"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed in part, reversed in
part, and remanded the case captioned Larry Myers and Loa Myers,
Appellants-Plaintiffs, v. Bremen Casting, Inc., and Mastic Home
Exteriors, Inc., Appellees-Defendants, No. 49A04-1503-MI-113 (Ind.
App.), for further proceedings.

In this case, following Larry's diagnosis, the Myerses filed a
complaint naming nearly 40 defendants, including Bremen and
Mastic.  In the complaint, the Myerses alleged the Defendants
negligently hired their independent contractors and were
vicariously liable as principals and further liable as premises
owners.  As to the vicarious liability claims, the Myerses alleged
the Defendants' own employees and the employees of their
independent contractors negligently exposed Larry to asbestos.
The Myerses do not allege Larry's employer, Koontz, is negligent,
nor do they allege the Defendants negligently hired Koontz.  To be
clear, the Myerses only claim the Defendants' employees and
independent contractors negligently exposed Larry to asbestos.  As
to the premises liability claim, the Myerses alleged the
Defendants knew or should have known the dangers associated with
asbestos, failed to warn Larry of the danger, and therefore failed
to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition.

The Defendants then each moved for summary judgment on all three
claims, arguing they could not be held vicariously liable under
respondeat superior or the non-delegable duty doctrine because
Larry was an employee of an independent contractor injured by the
very condition he was employed to address and further arguing they
could not be held liable as premises owners because they did not
have superior knowledge of the risks associated with asbestos. In
two separate orders, the trial court -- relying primarily upon our
supreme court's decision in PSI Energy, Inc. v. Roberts, 829
N.E.2d 943 (Ind. 2005), abrogated in part by Helms v. Carmel High
Sch. Vocational Bldg. Trades Corp., 854 N.E.2d 345 (Ind. 2006) --
concluded as a matter of law the Defendants could not be held
liable for the acts of their independent contractors under the
non-delegable duty doctrine and could not be held liable as
premises owners and entered partial summary judgment in favor of
the Defendants on those two claims. In denying summary judgment on
the respondeat superior claim, however, the trial court concluded
a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the acts of
the Defendants' employees exposed Larry to asbestos. This appeal
and cross-appeal ensued.

On appeal, the Myerses argue the trial court erred in granting
summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on the Myerses'
vicarious liability claim under the non-delegable duty doctrine
and premises liability claim; on cross-appeal, the Defendants
argue the trial court erred in denying their motions for summary
judgment on the Myerses' respondeat superior claim.

This court concludes that (1) the trial court erred in granting
the Defendants summary judgment on the Myerses' vicarious
liability claim pertaining to the negligence of independent
contractors, (2) the trial court did not err in denying the
Defendants summary judgment on the Myerses' respondeat superior
claim, and (3) the trial court erred in granting the Defendants
summary judgment on the Myerses' premises liability claim.

The court held that the Defendants are not entitled to summary
judgment on any of the Myerses' claims. The Defendants were
required to designate evidence sufficient to negate the Myerses'
claims.  The Defendants did not meet this burden.  In addition,
the Defendants can be held liable for the negligent acts of their
own employees, and the trial court did not err in denying the
Defendants summary judgment on the Myerses' respondeat superior
claim, the court held.

As to the premises liability claim, there is a genuine issue of
material fact as to whether the Defendants can be liable for
failure to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition,
and the trial court erred in granting the Defendants summary
judgment on that claim, the court further held.

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated September 28, 2016 is
available at https://is.gd/XxIDcm from Leagle.com

Linda George, Esq., Kathleen A. Farinas, Esq., Todd Barnes, Esq.,
Sarah Broderick, Esq. -- George & Farinas, LLP, Indianapolis,
Indiana, Attorneys for Appellants.

Jeffrey A. Hammond, Esq. -- jhammond@cohenandmalad.com -- Cohen &
Malad, LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
Indiana Trial Lawyers Association.

Keith D. Mundrick, Esq. -- kmundrick@csmlawfirm.com -- Cantrell
Strenski & Mehringer, Susan E. Mehringer, Dennis F. Cantrell, Esq.
-- dcantrell@csmlawfirm.com -- Cantrell Strenski & Mehringer, LLP,
Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorneys for Appellee Bremen Casting, Inc.

John McCauley, Esq., Meaghan Klem Haller, Esq. --
mhaller@bgdlegal.com -- Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP, Greg
Neibarger, Esq. -- gneibarger@bgdlegal.com -- Bingham Greenebaum
Doll, LLP Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorneys for Appellee Mastic
Home Exteriors, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miss. High Court Junks Grant of JNOV in "Smith"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ELSIE SMITH, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF LARRY D. SMITH, DECEASED: AMY
SMITH RHODES, OUIDA SMITH DAWKINS, LARRY CLINT SMITH AND BONNIE
SMITH WITTY, v. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION f/k/a UNION CARBIDE
PLASTICS & CHEMICALS COMPANY, INC., CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL
COMPANY LP, SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO CONOCO PHILLIPS COMPANY f/ka
PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY, AND PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY FORMERLY d/b/a
DRILLING SPECIALTIES COMPANY a/k/a CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL
COMPANY, LP AND MONTELLO, INC, No. 2014-CA-01371-SCT (Miss.), the
Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the trial judge's order
reaffirming the defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding
verdict ("JNOV") and remanded the case.

This is Elsie Smith's second appeal to this Court.  A jury awarded
her more than three million dollars in damages after an asbestos
trial in 2009, but the trial judge granted the defendants' motion
for JNOV.  Elsie appealed, and this Court reversed and remanded
for further proceedings. Following remand, the trial judge again
entered a JNOV, and Elsie now appeals that ruling and argues (1)
that the trial court erred in adopting the Special Master's
recommendation and reaffirming JNOV "when the record reflected
sufficient evidence supporting the jury verdict on the issue of
causation under Miss. Code Ann. Section 11-1-63"5; and (2) that
the trial court erred when it granted deference to Judge Evans --
the judge who had presided at trial -- "instead of the jury which
issued a verdict."

Chevron and UCC have filed cross-appeals, presenting several
different issues, and Elsie has filed a motion to strike the
cross-appeals. She argues that the defendants' "right to appeal
the unconditional denial of their motion for new trial expired in
2010 when no cross-appeal was filed. This Court disagrees.

The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the trial judge's order
reaffirming JNOV and remand.  The trial judge reaffirmed JNOV for
the sole reason that Elsie presented insufficient evidence of
Larry's exposure to the defendants' asbestos products.  But the
Missississi Supreme Court finds that Smith did present sufficient
evidence to make the exposure issue a question for the jury.  And
because the trial judge did not address any of the other arguments
that the defendants reasserted after this Court's decision in
Smith I, the Mississippi Supreme Court declines to address any of
the other issues raised in the briefing and in the defendants'
cross-appeals and remands this case to the trial judge so that he
may rule on any of those issues that he finds are still
outstanding.  The Supreme Court also denies Elsie's motion to
strike the defendants' cross-appeals.

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated September 22, 2016, is
available at https://is.gd/m5nTqq from Leagle.com.

GREGORY N. JONES, Esq., S. ROBERT HAMMOND, JR., EUGENE C. TULLOS,
Esq., E. HYDE CARBY, Esq., Attorneys for Appellants.

LAURA D. GOODSON, Esq., MARCY B. CROFT, Esq., JULIE E. CHAFFIN,
Esq., ELIZABETH TURLEY, Esq., J. JEFFREY TROTTER, Esq. --
jeff.trotter@arlaw.com -- Adams and Reese LLP, LINDSEY O. WATSON,
Esq. -- lindsey.watson@arlaw.com -- Adams and Reese LLP, ALEX E.
COSCULLUELA, Esq. -- aec@arlaw.com -- Adams and Reese LLP, A.
CHRISTOPHER DERDEN, Esq. -- chris.derden@arlaw.com -- Adams and
Reese LLP, HOLMES S. ADAMS, Esq. -- holmes.adams@arlaw.com --
Adams and Reese LLP, Attorneys for Appellees.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reynolds Owes No Duty of Care in Take-Home Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ERNEST V. QUIROZ and MARY QUIROZ, husband
and wife, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. ALCOA INC., et al.,
Defendants/Appellees, No. 1 CA-CV 15-0083 (Ariz. App.), the Court
of Appeals of Arizona, Division One, is asked to decide as a
matter of first impression whether an employer owes a duty of care
to the child of an employee who contracts mesothelioma from
asbestos brought home on the employee's work clothes.

In this case, the Appellants allege Dr. Ernest V. Quiroz was
exposed to asbestos on his father's work clothes during the years
he lived in his father's house.  Dr. Quiroz was diagnosed with
mesothelioma, a form of cancer frequently associated with asbestos
exposure, in 2013.  The Appellants alleged Reynolds Metal Company,
who was Dr. Quiroz's employer at that time, was negligent.  The
Appellants amended their complaint to allege wrongful death when
Dr. Quiroz passed away in October 2014.

Reynolds moved for summary judgment, arguing that it did not owe
Dr. Quiroz a duty of care. The trial court granted the motion,
finding Reynolds "had no duty to Plaintiffs as a matter of law."
Appellants timely appealed.

To establish a negligence claim, a plaintiff must prove four
elements: (1) a duty requiring the defendant to conform to a
certain standard of care, (2) the defendant's breach of that
standard, (3) a causal connection between the defendant's conduct
and the resulting injury, and (4) actual damages.

The Arizona Court of Appeals found that there was no special or
categorical relationship between Dr. Quiroz and Reynolds and
declined the Appellants' invitation to apply Restatement (Third)
Section 54 and Restatement (Second) Section 371 in this case.
Moreover, the Arizona Appeals Court held that Reynolds did not owe
Dr. Quiroz a duty as landowner.

In terms of public policy considerations, the Arizona Appeals
Court disagreed with the Appellants' argument that imposing a duty
of care on Reynolds would meet the reasonable expectations of the
parties and of society and that "take-home exposure" cases are not
an unreasonable extension of Burns v. Jaquays Mining Corp., 156
Ariz. 375, 752 P.2d 28 (App. 1987).  The court held that Burns is
not dispositive and the Appellants do not offer support for their
argument that "[a]ny property owner could reasonably expect that a
lack of due care in handling toxins on its premises, resulting in
off-premises injury, could lead to liability."  A finding of a
duty of care must come before considering whether Reynolds
exercised due care, the court said.

The Arizona Court of Appeals concluded that no duty of care arises
and, therefore, affirm the trial court's ruling.

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated September 20, 2016 is
available at https://is.gd/RHuhDD from Leagle.com.

Ely Bettini Ulman & Rosenblatt, Phoenix, By Burton Rosenblatt,
Esq. --
eburlaw@eburlaw.com -- Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants.

Water Kraus & Paul, El Segundo, CA By Paul C. Cook, Esq., Michael
B. Gurien, Esq. Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants.

Gordon & Rees LLP, Phoenix, By Molly C. Machold, Esq. --
mmachold@gordonrees.com, Mark Tuvim, Esq. --
mtuvim@gordonrees.com, Co-Counsel for Defendants/Appellees.

Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP, Dallas, TX By Edward M.
Slaughter, Esq. -- eslaughter@hptylaw.com -- Co-Counsel for
Defendants/Appellees.

Righi Fitch Law Group PLLC, Phoenix, By Elizabeth Savoini Fitch,
Esq. -- beth@righilaw.com -- Counsel for Amicus Curiae Coalition
for Litigation Justice, Inc.

Time Spent: 20 minutes


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Loses Summary Judgment in "Lee"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARIA J. LEE, Individually and as Executor
of the Estate of James Lee, deceased, Plaintiff, v. ADVANCE AUTO
PARTS, INC., et al., Defendants, No. 4:14-CV-230-BO (E.D.N.C.),
Judge Terrence W. Boyle of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of North Carolina, Eastern Division, granted
the plaintiffs' motion to amend, denied defendant Honeywell
International, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment without
prejudice and defendant Union Carbide Corporation's motion for
summary judgment.

James Lee, personally and thereafter by Maria J. Lee, executor of
his estate, and Maria J. Lee, filed this action against 18
defendants alleging claims for, inter alia, negligence, breach of
implied warranty, willful and wanton conduct, false
representation/fraud, and failure to warn arising out of
defendants' acts in relation to asbestos and asbestos-containing
materials, products, and equipment which plaintiff James Lee
interacted with, used, or was exposed to. James Lee was diagnosed
with an asbestos-related disease, specifically mesothelioma, in
November 2014 and died on February 6, 2016.

The Plaintiffs seek to amend their complaint to conform the
language to reflect the death of James Lee and to add an
additional cause of action for wrongful death.  The Plaintiffs
further seek to remove those defendants and causes of actions
which have been dismissed.  Union Carbide opposes the motion for
leave in part as to the amendment of factual judicial admissions.

Seventeen of the eighteen original defendants have either settled
with the plaintiffs or have been dismissed by the plaintiffs.
Remaining for adjudication are plaintiffs' claims against Union
Carbide Corporation.

Judge Boyle finds no prejudice to Union Carbide in the plaintiffs'
request, and therefore granted the plaintiffs' motion.  Judge
Boyle denied Union Carbide's motion for summary judgment finding
that the plaintiffs have proffered sufficient evidence to create a
geniune issue of material act as to whether Mr. Lee was exposed to
UC's asbestos on a regular basis over an extended period of time.
The Court pointed out that deposition testimony indicates that
Georgia-Pacific sourced asbestos from UC from 1969 to 1977, that
its plant in Marietta, Georgia supplied joint system products in
the southeastern United States during that time, and that a person
using Georgia-Pacific ready-mix made in Marietta from 1972 to 1977
would more likely than not have been using UC's Calidria asbestos.
While there is some conflicting evidence in the deposition
testimony as to when Georgia-Pacific joint compound sourced UC
Calidria for its Marietta, Georgia and Milford, Virginia plants,
resolution of such issue would be better made by a jury.  The
Plaintiffs have further proffered sufficient evidence to resist
summary judgment on their claim that UC's failure to warn Georgia-
Pacific and U.S. Gypsum of the dangers of its Calidria product was
a proximate cause of Mr. Lee's mesothelioma.

A full-text copy of the Order dated September 21, 2016 is
available at https://is.gd/VQ6W8W from Leagle.com.

Maria J. Lee, Plaintiff, is represented by Kevin W. Paul, Esq. --
kpaul@sgpblaw.com -- Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C..

Maria J. Lee, Plaintiff, is represented by Janet Ward Black, Esq.
-- Ward Black Law.

DAP Products, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Amy C. Drayton,
Esq. -- adrayton@deanandgibson.com -- Dean & Gibson, PLLC.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, Defendant, is represented by Kenneth Kyre,
Jr., Esq. -- kkyre@pckb-law.com -- Pinto Coates Kyre & Bowers,
PLLC.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant,is represented by H. Lee
Davis, Jr., Esq. --ldavis@davisandhamrick.com -- Davis & Hamrick,
LLP & Jason Larry Walters, sq. --jwalters@davisandhamrick.com --
Davis & Hamrick, LLP.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, is represented by
Christopher Barton Major, Esq. -- cmajor@hsblawfirm.com --
Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, Moffatt G. McDonald, Esq. --
mmcdonald@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Scott
E. Frick, Esq. -- sfrick@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth Sinkler
Boyd, P.A., William David Conner, Esq. -- wconner@hsblawfirm.com -
- Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Charles M. Sprinkle, III, Esq. --
csprinkle@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A. &
William C. Massey, Esq. -- clay.massey@alston.com -- Alston & Bird
LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Bid to Junk Eagle's Insurance Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned EAGLE, INC. v. ONEBEACON AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY, ET AL., SECTION: "A" (5), Civil Action No. 13-6217 (E.D.
La.), Judge Jay C. Zainey of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana denied the Motion to Dismiss
Second Amended Complaint filed by defendants and third-party
defendants TIG Insurance Company and United States Fire Insurance
Co.

Plaintiff Eagle, Inc., filed the action against several insurance
companies seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the obligations
of the insurance companies to provide defense and indemnity in
numerous asbestos cases deriving from exposure that occurred in
the 1950s through the 1980s.  Eagle, Inc. is the successor company
to Eagle Asbestos & Packing Co., Inc., which was in the business
of selling, installing, and removing asbestos-containing products
at various sites from approximately 1937 until sometime in the
1980s. Since the inception of this litigation the defendant
insurers have complained that Eagle's claims suffer from a lack of
detail as to claimants, lawsuits, settlements, defense costs, and
every other kind of claim-specific fact necessary to trigger
coverage under the policies.

Another theme that has permeated this litigation is the
Defendants' suggestion that this litigation is merely an
investment opportunity for non-party Raymond Tellini, a
businessman and investor who first became involved with Eagle in
December 2012 -- a time when Eagle had no ongoing operations.

Movants TIG and U.S. Fire have submitted a plethora of exhibits
offered to support their contention that Tellini is the alter ego
of Eagle, Inc., and its corporate owner Eagle Acquisitions, Inc.
From there, the Movants argue that the Second Amended Complaint,
which brought them into this litigation, should be dismissed
because without Tellini's joinder as a plaintiff in this case,
they run the risk of incurring multiple or inconsistent
obligations with respect to the insurance coverage provided to
Eagle.

The Court finds that Eagle, Inc.'s opposition memorandum states
well the non sequitur implicit in Movants' argument.  Even if
Tellini is the alter ego of Eagle, Inc. such that he would now
have standing as a plaintiff to pursue a declaratory judgment
action against Eagle's insurers -- a specious proposition in and
of itself -- the Court fails to appreciate how Tellini's joinder
as a plaintiff ameliorates Movants' valid concerns regarding
multiple or inconsistent obligations with respect to the insurance
policies provided to Eagle.  Moreover, Tellini's absence as a
plaintiff does not prevent the Court from according complete
relief among the existing parties, the court held.

A full-text copy of the Order dated September 27, 2016 is
available at https://is.gd/4PPYC8 from Leagle.com.

Eagle, Inc., Plaintiff, is represented by Winstol D. Carter, Jr.,
Esq. -- winn.carter@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius.

Eagle, Inc., Plaintiff, is represented by Jeffrey S. Raskin,
Morgan, Esq. -- jeffrey.raskin@morganlewis.com  -- Lewis &
Bockius, LLP, pro hac vice, Lauren Ann McCulloch, Esq. --
lauren.mcculloch@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Peter
F. McAweeney, Esq. --  peter.mcaweeney@morganlewis.com -- Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius, LLP, pro hac vice & Stephen H. Kupperman, Esq. --
skupperman@barrassousdin.com -- Barrasso,Usdin, Kupperman, Freeman
& Sarver, LLC.

OneBeacon America Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by
Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Esq. --srosamond@twpdlaw.com --
Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, Adam Devlin deMahy, Esq. --
ademahy@twpdlaw.com -- Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC &
Angela J. O'Brien, Esq. -- aobrien@twpdlaw.com -- Taylor, Wellons,
Politz & Duhe, APLC.

Stonewall Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by Paula
Marcello Wellons, Esq. -- pwellons@twpdlaw.com -- Taylor, Wellons,
Politz & Duhe, APLC, D. Ashbrooke Tullis, Esq. --
atullis@twpdlaw.com -- Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC &
Jared A. Davidson, Esq. -- jdavidson@twpdlaw.com -- Taylor,
Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC.

Houston General Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by
James R. Sutterfield, Esq. -- Sutterfield & Webb, LLC, Christine
E. Bergeron, Esq. -- christine@monsonfirm.com -- Monson Law Firm,
LLC & Stuart Irwin Gordon, Esq. -- stuart.gordon@rivkin.com --
Rivkin, Radler, LLP, pro hac vice.

Pacific Employers Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by
Maura Zivalich Pelleteri, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker &Carey,
Christopher J. Weema, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker &Carey, Frank
B. Slepicka, Cohn Baughman & Martin, pro hac vice, John B.
McDonald, O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, pro hac vice, Tancred V.
Schiavoni, O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, pro hac vice, Timothy Wood
Grinsell, O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, pro hac vice & Vincent Shane
Weisband, O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, pro hac vice.

Excess Insurance Co., Ltd., Defendant, is represented by Clayton
D. Waterman, Goldberg Segalla LLP, Daniel W. Gerber, Goldberg
Segalla LLP, Paul M. Lavelle, Cotten, Schmidt & Abbott, LLP &
Richard M. Simses, Cotten Schmidt & Abbott, LLP.

Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd., Defendant, is represented by Paul
M. Lavelle, Cotten, Schmidt & Abbott, LLP & Richard M. Simses,
Cotten Schmidt & Abbott, LLP.

Royal and Sun Alliance PLC, Defendant, is represented by Clayton
D. Waterman, Goldberg Segalla LLP, Daniel W. Gerber, Goldberg
Segalla LLP, Paul M. Lavelle, Cotten, Schmidt & Abbott, LLP &
Richard M. Simses, Cotten Schmidt & Abbott, LLP.

Ageas Insurance Limited, formerly doing business as Bishopgate
Insurance Co. Ltd. Q A/C agent of Ageas Insurance International
N.V. agent of Ageas N.V./S.A., Defendant, is represented by
Clayton D. Waterman, Goldberg Segalla LLP, Daniel W. Gerber,
Goldberg Segalla LLP, Paul M. Lavelle, Cotten, Schmidt & Abbott,
LLP & Richard M. Simses, Cotten Schmidt & Abbott, LLP.

Riverstone Insurance (UK) Limited, formerly doing business as Dai
Tokyo Insurance Co. UK Ltd, Defendant, is represented by Clayton
D. Waterman, Goldberg Segalla LLP, Daniel W. Gerber, Goldberg
Segalla LLP, Paul M. Lavelle, Cotten, Schmidt & Abbott, LLP &
Richard M. Simses, Cotten Schmidt & Abbott, LLP.

Continental Insurance Company, formerly doing business as
Continental MOAC, Defendant, is represented by Paula Marcello
Wellons, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC & D. Ashbrooke
Tullis, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC.

Tenecom Ltd., formerly doing business as Yasuda Fire and Maine
Ins. Co. UK T AC, Defendant, is represented by Clayton D.
Waterman, Goldberg Segalla LLP, Daniel W. Gerber, Goldberg Segalla
LLP, Paul M. Lavelle, Cotten, Schmidt & Abbott, LLP & Richard M.
Simses, Cotten Schmidt & Abbott, LLP.

Skandia UK Insurance Co. Ltd. T AC, Defendant, is represented by
Paul M. Lavelle, Cotten, Schmidt & Abbott, LLP & Richard M.
Simses, Cotten Schmidt & Abbott, LLP.

Portman Insurance Limited, improperly plead as Portman Insurance
Limited (AXA S.A.) formerly known as London and Hull Maritime Ins.
Co. Ltd., Defendant, is represented by Clayton D. Waterman,
Goldberg Segalla LLP, Daniel W. Gerber, Goldberg Segalla LLP, Paul
M. Lavelle, Cotten, Schmidt & Abbott, LLP & Richard M. Simses,
Cotten Schmidt & Abbott, LLP.

KX Reinsurance Company Limited, improperly plead as Continental
Insurance Company formerly known as Continental Insurance Company
formerly doing business as Continental MOAC, Defendant, is
represented by Clayton D. Waterman, Goldberg Segalla LLP, Daniel
W. Gerber, Goldberg Segalla LLP, Paul M. Lavelle, Cotten, Schmidt
& Abbott, LLP & Richard M. Simses, Cotten Schmidt & Abbott, LLP.

Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance PLC, formerly doing business as
Phoenix Assurance Co. Ltd., Defendant, is represented by Paul M.
Lavelle, Cotten, Schmidt & Abbott, LLP & Richard M. Simses, Cotten
Schmidt & Abbott, LLP.

Aviva PLC, improperly plead as Yorkshire Ins Co Ltd L A/C formerly
doing business as Yorkshire Insurance Company, Ltd. L A/C,
Defendant, is represented by Clayton D. Waterman, Goldberg Segalla
LLP, Daniel W. Gerber, Goldberg Segalla LLP & Paul M. Lavelle,
Cotten, Schmidt & Abbott, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Cir. Says Cos. Waived Personal Jurisdiction
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna M. Stupar, Esq. -- jenna.stupar@huschblackwell.com -- at
Husch Blackwell LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that on
August 18, the Third Circuit reversed a ruling in the District
Court of Pennsylvania that dismissed an asbestos suit against
corporate defendants the Matson Navigation Company, Inc.
("Matson") and American President Line, Ltd. ("American") for lack
of personal jurisdiction. In re: Asbestos Products Liability
Litigation (No. VI), Nos. 15-1387, 15-1388 & 15-1389 (3d. Cir.
2016).

The case was originally filed with several others in the late
1980s in Ohio, and became consolidated in the Northern District of
Ohio's Maritime Docket. Several of the defendants in the case,
including Matson, moved for dismissal on the grounds of lack of
personal jurisdiction. The judge agreed that the court lacked
personal jurisdiction, but rather than dismiss the cases
completely, he ruled that they should be transferred to
appropriate venues that could exercise personal jurisdiction over
the defendants. The judge deferred issuing an order on the
transfer. Instead, the judge allowed plaintiffs to identify courts
where personal jurisdiction was proper, and the defendants could
decide whether they wanted to transfer, or to waive their personal
jurisdiction defenses and litigate in the Northern District of
Ohio. The judge issued two orders memorializing this decision.

The second order stated that the court did not have personal
jurisdiction over Matson as it related to three specific
plaintiffs. Matson moved to certify the orders for interlocutory
appeal in the Sixth Circuit, and to stay proceedings until the
appeal was decided. Matson then filed a "Master Answer" which
included lack of personal jurisdiction as an affirmative defense.
American adopted the Master Answer as its own in relation to the
three specific plaintiffs.

The consolidated cases were eventually grouped into "clusters" and
even "sub-clusters." The clusters and sub-clusters were to either
be transferred to a district court in Michigan, or remain in Ohio.
During a hearing on this issue in 1991, the attorneys for Matson
and American stated they objected to transfer one of the clusters
to Michigan. The parties agreed that they would proceed with
"these cases" in Ohio instead.

A multi-district litigation for asbestos matters was developed in
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the matters were
transferred there in 1991. Matson and American opposed the
transfer, writing "If transfer is to take place, Shipowner-
Defendants request that it be to the Northern District of Ohio."
Nevertheless, the cases were transferred to the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania and laid dormant until 2011 when they were
reactivated for pre-trial administration.

In July 2014, the attorneys for Matson and American filed a motion
to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, which was granted.
The Pennsylvania court reasoned that the defendants had not waived
their personal jurisdiction defense because they had raised it
initially, raised it again in their Master Answer, and raised it
yet again in the hearing in 1991.

The most significant issue was which cases Matson and American had
consented to litigate in Ohio at the 1991 hearing. If the
plaintiffs' claims were included in those that were intended to be
transferred to Michigan, then the Defendants would not preserve
their defense because they had stated at the hearing that they
agreed to proceed with "these cases" in Ohio rather than Michigan.
The Pennsylvania court found that the plaintiffs' claims were not
included in the Michigan cluster, reasoning that "these cases"
referred to a different cluster. Thus, the Defendants did not
waive their personal jurisdiction defense as it pertained to the
three specific plaintiffs. Therefore, the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction.

On appeal, the Third Circuit rejected the reasoning of the
district court. The Third Circuit found that the defendants did,
in fact, waive their personal jurisdiction defenses as it
pertained to the three specific plaintiffs in the 1991 hearing.
Examining the record of the hearing closely, the Circuit Court
found that the consent to litigate in Ohio included plaintiffs'
claims and that "these cases" certainly referred to the cluster of
cases that were going to be transferred to Michigan, which
included plaintiffs. As such, Matson and American had waived their
personal jurisdiction defenses as it pertained to these three
plaintiffs. The Third Circuit also pointed out that in their
filings opposing transfer to Pennsylvania, the Defendants
expressed a desire to have these cases transferred to the Northern
District of Ohio, which was also a waiver of personal
jurisdiction. For these reasons, the Third Circuit determined that
dismissal was improper, and reversed the decision, keeping
plaintiffs' claims against Matson and American alive.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family Seeks Help Over Parents' Asbestos Death
---------------------------------------------------------------
East London & West Essex Guardian reported that a family
devastated by the death of a father and mother after they were
exposed to asbestos from a power station is appealing for the
public's help.

Lilian Radley, formerly of Marlborough Road, in Chingford, died in
September this year from mesothelioma, a disease which has only
one known cause -- exposure to asbestos.

The family are now searching for the former co-workers of the late
Frank Radley, whose overalls Mrs Radley would wash after he came
home from work.

A post-mortem revealed it was the exposure to the asbestos in
these overalls which killed Mrs Radley.

Mr Radley was exposed to toxic levels of asbestos while working as
a boiler house engineer at Brimsdown Power Station in Enfield
between 1958 and 1980.

He worked for the British Electricity Authority, which became the
Central Electricity Authority, and then the Central Electricity
Generating Board.

His job also took him to West Ham Power Station in Canning Town
and Brunswick Wharf Power Station, near Blackwall, before he
retired in 1983.

He was exposed to the deadly particles from the continuous lagging
work carried out to the extensive pipework in the power stations
and died in 2011.

Mrs Ridley had been having problems with breathlessness this year,
finding it increasingly harder to walk, and after a trip to the
doctor, she found out her devastating diagnosis.

She was told she had mesothelioma in July this year, and the fast-
acting disease killed her less than two months later on September
9.

Before her death, she instructed expert industrial disease lawyers
to investigate how her late husband was exposed to asbestos dust.

She also sought to find out if more could have been done by his
former employers to protect him from the lethal substance.

Industrial disease specialist at Hodge Jones & Allen law firm,
Andrew James, is representing the family.

He said: "Cases involving wives or daughters who washed workers'
clothing are becoming increasingly more common.

"Lilian died because her late husband's employer exposed him to
asbestos at work and failed to protect him and his family from
this deadly dust.

"Clearly, this should not have happened.

"The dangers of asbestos were well-known to Mr Ridley's employers
during the years of his employment.

"The courts have previously held that employers should have been
aware of the dangers to family members caused by workers bringing
home asbestos dust on clothing since 1965 at the earliest."

The Radley family is asking anyone with information to contact
Andrew James at Hodge Jones & Allen on 020 7874 8458 or
ajames@hja.net.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Ban Bills Introduced in US Congress
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Franklin, writing for Chemical Watch, reported that bills
have been introduced in the US House of Representatives and in the
Senate looking to ban or restrict asbestos, and bisphenol A (BPA)
from food containers.

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California) introduced S 3427 -- the Alan
Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act of 2016. It would amend TSCA to
make the EPA act to eliminate human exposure to asbestos.

If passed into law, it would have the EPA impose prohibitions,
restrictions and other necessary conditions to "permanently
eliminate the possibility of exposure to asbestos" within 18
months of enactment.

And, within 90 days, the agency would have to carry out and
publish an assessment of the current and reasonably anticipated
importation, distribution, uses of and exposures to asbestos.

The bill includes a provision allowing the president to grant an
exemption in uses necessary to protect national security. This
would require that no reasonable alternative exist, and that the
use would not result in an unreasonable risk to the health or the
environment, irrespective of costs. Exemptions could be effective
for a period not exceeding three years.

The measure has been referred to the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works.

BPA bill

In the House, a separate measure seeks to ban the use of bisphenol
A (BPA) in food containers.

HR 6269 -- the Ban Poisonous Additives Act of 2016 -- would ban
food containers composed, in whole or in part, of BPA, or that can
release BPA into food. It would apply to reusable food containers,
as well as any food container packed with food and destined for
interstate commerce.

As drafted, the bill calls for a waiver provision. This would
allow the continued use of BPA upon demonstration that it is not
technologically feasible to replace it, and with submission of a
timeline for removing the substance. Such products would be
subject to labelling requirements.

The measure also calls on the FDA to "promote, facilitate and
incentivise the use of safer alternatives to replace BPA".

It would block the replacement of BPA with substances:

   * known or likely human to be carcinogens;
   * deemed by the EPA to be persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic
(PBTs);
   * that cause reproductive or developmental toxicity; or
   * are endocrine disruption chemicals.

The bill would also put in place a process by which the FDA
selects food contact materials for future review. This includes
remediation actions should the agency determine there is not
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to a reviewed substance.

Both measures were introduced shortly before both chambers
adjourned until after the November elections.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Sues Greensboro Over Exposure to Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------------------
Greensboro.com reported that the city said it has been sued by a
former city contractor, who alleges he was exposed in 2014 to
asbestos during demolition at War Memorial Auditorium.

Raiford Tetstone Jr. won an auction bid for the scrap metal at the
structure, the city said in a news release. The lawsuit was not
immediately available to be reviewed. Tetstone could not be
reached.

The city said the metal removed by Tetstone and his workers
included pipe wrapped in insulation that contained asbestos.
Tetstone said he was exposed to the material over several days in
September and October 2014. He filed suit against the city and two
city employees in September.

After the asbestos was discovered, the city hired asbestos
abatement companies to remove the remaining asbestos, the city
said.

The city has reached two settlements with state agencies over the
asbestos. It paid $2,100 to the N.C. Department of Labor for not
marking asbestos-contaminated areas to minimize exposure.

Greensboro paid another $5,300 to the state Department of Health
and Human Services for six violations, including failing to remove
the asbestos under the supervision of an accredited supervisor.
The city said the lawsuit alleges Tetstone suffered a physical
injury from exposure to asbestos and seeks an unspecified amount
of money.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Federal Bldgs in Hamilton Have Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------------
900CHML.com reported that according to data from the newly-
released Canadian National Asbestos Inventory, seven federal
buildings in the Hamilton area contain asbestos.

The carcinogen is present at:

  * The four Standard Life Centre buildings at 120 King St. W
  * The Robert Thomson Building at 110 King St.
  * An office at 1550 Upper James St.
  * The Burlington Lift Bridge at Eastport Drive.

According to the list, all of the buildings-except for the office
on Upper James-have an "asbestos management plan" in place.

The government's major property owner, Public Services and
Procurement Canada (formerly Public Works), has developed the
National Asbestos Inventory.

The list names all buildings owned or leased by the department and
says whether or not they have asbestos.

National health and safety officer with the Public Service
Alliance of Canada (PSAC), Denis St-Jean, says having a list is
good, but there should be more detail about the hazard.

While asbestos isn't necessarily dangerous on its own, it becomes
a problem when the fibre is distributed.

According to the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and
Safety, asbestos fibres are easily inhaled, and can cause fibrotic
lung disease and changes in the lining of the chest cavity. Long-
term inhalation of asbestos also increases the risk of lung
cancer.

St-Jean adds, "if the hazard is present, not only does the worker
have a right to know about that hazard, but I think the public --
if they do have access to that building -- should know that
there's a hazard in that building."

Asbestos is also present in nearby Brantford at buildings at 58-70
Dalhousie E. and an office in Burlington at 3027 Harvester Rd.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Libby Asbestos May Lead to Autoimmune Disease
--------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Franz, writing for Flathead Beacon, reported that for
years, cancer was the biggest concern for Libby residents exposed
to asbestos-laden vermiculite from a nearby W.R. Grace & Co. mine.
But new research shows that the asbestos poisoning there may have
also led to an increased rate of autoimmune diseases like
rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and scleroderma.

In the early 2000s, in the years following the discovery of the
contamination, approximately 7,300 Lincoln County residents took a
health survey conducted by the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry. During the survey, a measurable group of
respondents reported having autoimmune diseases. However, that
data was not explored further until the mid 2000s, when Montana
State University research scientist Dr. Jean C. Pfau started to
look into it.

The most obvious symptom of rheumatoid arthritis is joint pain,
especially in the hands and feet. It can also cause painful
swelling, bone erosion and joint deformity. The disease causes the
body's immune system to attack its own tissue. It cannot be cured,
but it can be treated.

Of the 7,300 people surveyed, 113 reported being diagnosed with
rheumatoid arthritis, nearly twice what was expected. Higher rates
of lupus (another autoimmune disease that attacks the tissue and
often causes a rash) and scleroderma (which often results in
tightening of the skin) were also reported in Libby.

While scleroderma is considered a rare disease, with fewer than
200,000 cases per year in the United States, there were at least
50 reported cases of it in Libby.

"We have a strong case that there is something going on in Libby
in regards to the increase of these autoimmune diseases," Pfau
said. "These people are suffering from fatigue, rashes, joint
swelling, and other symptoms of autoimmune diseases, but they're
not properly diagnosed because it doesn't fall into traditional
diagnostic categories."

In 2008, Pfau teamed up with Dr. Brad Black at the Center for
Asbestos Related Diseases (CARD) in Libby to study it further with
the help of a multi-million dollar grant from the federal
government. Since Pfau couldn't be sure that Libby asbestos was
causing an increase in autoimmune diseases, she exposed laboratory
mice to Libby-mined asbestos. Almost all of the rodents developed
autoimmune diseases.

Researchers also looked at other groups of people exposed to
asbestos, like a group of New York pipefitters, but there was not
an increased level of autoantibodies among that population,
meaning the correlation could be specific to Libby.

The grant that helped spur Pfau's research is now about to run
out, and she is currently writing up the results of her work,
which should be finished in the coming months. Pfau and Black are
optimistic, however, that they will be able to find additional
grant funds to ensure they can continue studying autoimmune
diseases in Lincoln County.

If they can study it further, Black and Pfau believe it would be
possible to find a treatment for the conditions.

For years, the W.R. Grace & Co. mined vermiculite containing
asbestos north of Libby that was used for instillation and other
applications. The mine closed in 1990. More than 2,000 current or
former residents of Lincoln County have been diagnosed with
asbestos-related diseases, including cancer, and at least 400 have
died in the last decade.

Libby was declared an Environmental Protection Agency Superfund
site in 2002, becoming one of the largest environmental cleanups
in U.S. history. In 2009, former EPA administrator Lisa Jackson
named the town the agency's first and only Public Health Emergency
resulting from an environmental disaster.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Factory Worker Dies From Asbestos Disease
----------------------------------------------------------
Suffolk Free Press reported that a former employee at a Long
Melford factory died as a result of exposure of asbestos dust, an
inquest has concluded.

Christopher Gaw, 74, had worked at Bush, Boake and Allen,
previously known as Stafford, Allen and Sons, in a variety of
roles.

The inquest at Bury St Edmunds heard that Mr Gaw, of High Street,
Long Melford, had started working for the company in north London
before moving to Suffolk.

In a statement he made before his death on August 31, Mr Gaw
described how he had been in close proximity to clouds of asbestos
dust during maintenance and cleaning work.

During one task when he helped to chip scale from inside pipes,
asbestos with which the pipes were lagged was disturbed. Mr Gaw
said: "It hung in the air like a fair mist."

In his statement, Mr Gaw said symptoms of his condition began in
February last year when he suffered severe pain after sneezing. He
was diagnosed with the asbestos-related condition mesothelioma a
month later.

Assistant Suffolk Coroner Nigel Parsley recorded a conclusion that
Mr Gaw died as a result of an industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Grading System Improves Prognosis
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Povtak, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that the first two-
tier grading system for peritoneal mesothelioma has produced a
significant subset of patients with an incredible median overall
survival of nearly 12 years.

That pathology-based grading system should provide patients with a
more accurate prognosis, potentially helping doctors design more
personalized and effective therapies.

"We can tell patients now what the future holds. That's a big
deal," surgical oncologist Dr. Edward Levine, core director of the
Comprehensive Cancer Center at Wake Forest Baptist Health, told
Asbestos.com. "We can now better prognosticate how our patients
are likely to do."

Levine, a specialist in peritoneal mesothelioma, was part of a
medical team that recently studied database cases from the past 20
years, applying pathological analysis previously used only with
pleural mesothelioma, which is more common.

The American Journal of Surgical Pathology published the findings
in its September issue. Surgeons from Wake Forest, University of
Mississippi Medical Center and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer
Center joined Levine in the research.

A cancer grading system is different than a cancer staging system.
The grade, which is based on cell appearance, is an indication of
how quickly the cancer tumor it is expected to grow. The higher
the grade, the faster it grows.

Meanwhile, staging of a tumor is based on its extent or size. The
higher the higher the number, the more advanced the cancer.

Wide Range of Mesothelioma Survival Rates

Researchers used 46 cases of the epithelioid subtype of
mesothelioma in the study and divided them into low-grade and
high-grade tiers based on characteristics found in the tumor cell
nucleus.

The low-grade tier had an overall median survival of 11.9 years
and a five-year survival rate of 57 percent. The high-grade tier
had a median survival rate of 3.3 years and a five-year survival
rate of 35 percent.

The low-grade tier had a median progression-free survival of 4.7
years and a five-year survival rate of 65 percent. The high-grade
tier had a median progression-free survival of 1.9 years and a
five-year survival rate of 35 percent.

"Not everyone is going to be a long-term survivor. I wish they all
could be, but we're not there yet," Levine said. "The patient with
the worst prognosis might benefit from additional treatments. We
don't know that yet, but it's something to think about."

Levine is intrigued by the potential gains in therapy more exact
prognostics could spark, but there are no assurances. All cases in
the study included cytoreductive surgery and heated
intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), which are the standards of
care today.

"These are new findings, so right now the diagnostics are ahead of
the therapeutics a little bit," he said. "That might change. I
hope that it does."

Mesothelioma Treatment Advances Widen Survival Gap

Pleural mesothelioma is a rare and aggressive cancer caused by
inhalation of asbestos fibers that become lodged in the thin
membrane around the thoracic cavity. Over time, those fibers cause
scarring that can develop into cancer.

An estimated 3,000 people are diagnosed with mesothelioma annually
in the U.S., but only 10 percent of those cases are the peritoneal
type. Epithelioid is the most common subtype of pleural and
peritoneal mesothelioma.

The recent study reinforced the growing length of survival gap
between peritoneal and pleural mesothelioma patients.

Wake Forest School of Medicine's earlier study showed the median
survival of a peritoneal mesothelioma patient was more than four
times greater than of a pleural mesothelioma patient.

Some of the difference in survival between the two types stems
from therapeutic advancements available to peritoneal patients.
The HIPEC procedure has worked well, but it is less effective for
pleural mesothelioma.

Although the use of asbestos, a naturally occurring mineral, has
dropped significantly across the country in recent decades, the
rate of mesothelioma diagnosis remains steady.

It often takes 20-50 years after first exposure to asbestos before
doctors diagnose the cancer. Exposure today often comes from the
remodeling, renovating or demolishing older structures containing
asbestos, which makes advances in diagnostics and therapeutics
critical.

"We have patients now who are long-term, disease-free survivors.
Some of it because of the treatment they received," Levine said.
"Some of it, obviously now, is because they were part of this
subset of patients who had a better prognosis based on the nature
of their disease."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fitness Instructor Diagnosed with Mesothelioma
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sophie Haslett, writing for Daily Mail Australia, reported that
with a job as a fitness instructor, a dream of climbing Mount
Everest and a love of sport and fitness in general, in many
people's eyes, Galy O'Connor, from Sydney, was the picture of
health.

It wasn't until her 50th birthday that the now 55-year-old felt a
lump in her abdomen while training a class in a Virgin Active gym
in Frenchs Forest.

This prompted Ms O'Connor to see her doctor, where she was
diagnosed with an extremely rare form of asbestos cancer --
peritoneal mesothelioma.

There are only around 400 known cases of this type of cancer in
the world.

Totally unbeknownst to Ms O'Connor, she had been carrying the
disease, dormant, for more than 30 years.

She contracted it after working in an asbestos-filled factory
mixing paint colours during her teenage years.

'I'd never had a cold in my life -- I don't do sickness,' the 55-
year-old told Daily Mail Australia.

'I went into shock and total disbelief when I found out; in some
ways I still am in shock.

'I live in the third person a lot as that makes it easier -- my
husband calls it "Disneyland". Back when I found out, I handled it
much like many women do. I shopped and got my nails done.

'These days, I live with pain 24/7. I can no longer work.
Sometimes I just lie there crying or curl up in a ball with the
pain.'

Faced now with the very real prospect that she might die, unless
she gets the vital surgery which she needs from specialist
hospital, St George Hospital, in Sydney's south, Ms O'Connor has
decided to take matters into her own hands.

As well as being on the hospital's waiting list for the past ten
months, she has set up a Change.org petition, begging the Health
Minister to urgently intervene and make sure that she gets the
life-saving operation she so desperately wants.

'While the tumour is on my liver and my groin at the moment, it is
operable,' she told Daily Mail Australia.

'However, it will only be operable for six or so weeks. After
that, who knows?'.

And despite being faced with her debilitating illness, the mother-
of-six still says she 'will not give up.'

'I exercise for an hour every single day, even though it's agony,'
she said.

'I also only eat at night because it's so painful. After I have
done so, I take morphine so I can pass out. I'm aware I need to
eat in order to keep my digestive system going and survive.

'I still dream of climbing Mount Everest one day -- I can do that,
can't I?'.

So far, Ms O'Connor's petition to get the highly-skilled surgeon,
Professor Morris, at St George Hospital, to perform the complex
surgery necessary, has attracted 64,000 signatures.
The 55-year-old said that she hopes to reach 100,000 before the
end of October.

'My whole family has been engulfed by my illness, and my biggest
fear is that I won't see my grandchildren. I want to be here, and
be a part of their lives.'

And while at the moment, she is trying not to think about what
might happen if she doesn't get the operation, she also says she
struggles to think about what will happen if she does:

'I have to be so strong in my mind.

'The only way I can describe it is to say that I feel like I'm in
a racing car moving towards the finish line. I feel as though I
want to get out, but I know I can't.

'I need the operation. For me, it's the only way.'


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mr. Fluffy Fraud Accused Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
Megan Gorrey, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that a
court has thrown out a charge against a man accused of tricking a
Canberra home owner into believing their house contained deadly Mr
Fluffy asbestos.

Garry John Miller, 54, faced court in May after police alleged he
produced paperwork that implied asbestos had been found at the
property.

Mr Miller, of Deakin, pleaded not guilty to a single charge of
producing a false or misleading document. He appeared in the ACT
Magistrates Court for a brief hearing on Monday.

Prosecutors said the home's owners asked Mr Miller, who had been
listed as a licensed asbestos assessor on a government website, to
prepare an asbestos assessment report to identify any
contamination at their Duffy home in 2013.

The court heard Mr Miller's report stated there was Mr Fluffy
asbestos found in the home, when in fact there was no asbestos
present.

His report spoke generally of the risks involved, but it did not
cover how those risks could be managed, and did not meet all the
criteria to be considered an asbestos assessment report under ACT
law following a change in regulations in 2015.

Mr Miller's lawyers argued the change in legislation since the
report was produced meant the alleged offence could not be made
out.

Magistrate Bernadette Boss dismissed the charge. She awarded Mr
Miller costs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Exposed to Asbestos at VA Campus
---------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Duff, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that over a
dozen workers were exposed to asbestos during the construction
project of Building 36 for the Veterans Crisis Line on the
Canandaigua Veterans Affairs (VA) campus. These workers included
firefighters, police officers, and those with construction
positions such as engineering and cleanup roles.

"We don't know exactly who all was exposed, but between 34 and 38
individuals came forward," said business representative for SEIU
200 United David Palmer.

SEIU 200 United filed a compliant with the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) in April. The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and VA Inspector General's office became
involved, resulting in a stop-work order almost immediately.

Of all the individuals in the U.S. who have been diagnosed with
mesothelioma cancer, veterans are the demographic with the highest
incidence. The simple reason for the increased risk is asbestos
exposure. Asbestos was used in hundreds of applications and
unavoidable for most military personnel.

Some studies show as many as 30% of all Americans with
mesothelioma cancer are veterans who were exposed while on active
duty. The U.S. Department of Asbestos Affairs recognizes
mesothelioma cancer as a service-related medical condition, and
while vets are not permitted to seek compensation directly from
the U.S. government, they can request benefits from the VA.

Mesothelioma has especially affected those who served between WWII
and the Vietnam War with a particular focus on the Navy as
asbestos was widely used in naval ships and shipyards. Whether it
was the boiler or engine rooms, galleys, or sleeping quarters,
Navy personnel were exposed to very high levels of asbestos.

In this instance, OSHA discovered four "serious asbestos
violations." Correct procedures were not being followed, VA
management did not hire competent staff to oversee the project,
and the proper precautions were not being carried out to contain
asbestos exposure within the construction area.

"Subsequent to OSHA findings, several VA employees filed claims
with Workman's Compensation and VA Employee Health as potential
exposure victims," said the union. "Front-line workers tried to
make facilities management reconsider how the project was being
handled, but felt they were dismissed."

In a recent statement, the VA commented, "The medical center
maintains the safety of its staff as top priority. All the
employees that may have been in contact with asbestos have been
encouraged to report to employee health to be evaluated for
potential exposure."

"Due to the nature of asbestos-related illnesses often lacking
acute symptoms despite having serious long-term health risks,
workers who are active in their Union are concerned people who may
have been exposed to asbestos in Building 36 may not come forward
due to fear of retaliation," stated the union.

"It sounds like a situation with potential serious ramifications
for veterans, staff, and the Veterans Crisis Line. The FLVAC will
be inquiring," said Chairman of the Finger Lakes Veterans Advocacy
Council (FLVAC) Wayne Thompson.

An abatement contractor has been hired to manage the asbestos area
and OSHA investigators will return in a few weeks to check in.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge to Hear Arguments on Merc Issue
------------------------------------------------------
David Erickson, writing for Missoulian.com, reported that even as
the last remaining asbestos is being removed from the historic
Missoula Mercantile building, a hearing has been for a judge to
decide whether he will dismiss a preservation group's request to
halt the deconstruction process.

Lawyers representing three different groups -- the city, the
current owner of the Merc and a developer who is proposing to
build a $35-million hotel in its place will face off against
Preserve Historic Missoula's attorney. All sides will present
their cases before Missoula County District Court Judge Robert
"Dusty" Deschamps.

Preserve Historic Missoula asked for a restraining order to halt
the deconstruction, but withdrew that request. However, an appeal
to reverse the City Council's decision to approve a partial
demolition permit is still before the court.

Lawyers for the city, the building's owner and the developer, Andy
Holloran, have asked the judge to dismiss PHM's appeal. In the
meantime, the city has issued the developer a permit to begin the
asbestos abatement.

A demolition permit for asbestos abatement only has been issued to
the developer. However, a demolition permit that would actually
allow deconstruction has not been issued by the city. That can't
happen until the developer presents detailed financial plans to
show they can actually build what they say they will, engineering
plans to show how they would save the pharmacy portion of the
building and proof that the asbestos is all gone, among other
things.

Alan McCormick, a lawyer for the developer, made it clear in court
during a scheduling hearing that asbestos abatement will go on as
scheduled.

"Our agreement of this schedule is not an agreement to stop doing
abatement work on the building," he said.

There had been disagreement between the two sides about whether
asbestos abatement constituted a start of the deconstruction
process.

Judge Deschamps agreed that the abatement could start.

"I think the big issue would be if you started knocking down brick
walls or tearing down the faáade," Deschamps said jokingly. "The
asbestos is going to have to be dealt with no matter what. But
don't test my patience by bringing in a crane and start knocking
down walls."

If Deschamps denies the motions to dismiss, each party must file a
motion for summary judgment. The court's schedule for the Merc
case calls for each parties' time limits to be reduced to five
days to file responses and reply briefs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wrongful Death Suit Alleges Asbestos Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Yates, writing for SE Texas Record, reported that several
corporations have been named as defendants in a wrongful death
suit alleging asbestos exposure.

Shannon Scott, representing the estate of Garland Weeks, filed the
suit Oct. 5 in Jefferson County District Court.

Some of the defendants named in the petition include: Atlantic
Richfield, BP, Bridgestone, Chevron Phillips, Citgo, Entergy,
ExxonMobil, Firestone, Goodrich, Huntsman, Total and Texaco.

According to the lawsuit, Weeks was exposed to asbestos at many
Southeast Texas refineries and plants, including DuPont in
Beaumont and Gulf Oil in Port Arthur.

Employment dates given in the suit date back to the 1960s.

Weeks was diagnosed with asbestos-related lung cancer, which led
to his "untimely demise" on Nov. 5, 2015, the suit states.

The defendants are accused of negligently selling and using
asbestos products.

The plaintiffs are suing for punitive damages.

They are represented by Glen Morgan, Esq. --
gmorgan@rmqlawfirm.com -- of Reaud Morgan and Quinn and Tiny
Bradley, Esq. -- tbradley@hobsonlaw.com -- of Hobson & Bradley.

Judge Kent Walston, 58th District Court, has been assigned to the
case.

Case No. A-199143


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found Buried Behind Abandoned School
--------------------------------------------------------------
Krystyne Brown, writing for WSPA.com, reported that cleanup is
underway in Seneca after asbestos was uncovered behind an
abandoned school in the middle of a neighborhood.

In September, DHEC inspectors say they were alerted by an
anonymous tip that asbestos was buried behind old Kellett
Elementary school in Seneca.

They met with city leaders to check it out. Both the city and DHEC
tested the material and determined it was asbestos tile from old
construction material that was deep in the dirt.seneca-asbestos-
school-pic

Allan Yarid, a former city council member, grew up and still lives
right next door to the school. After it shut down years ago, he
and several other neighbors have become invested in what happens
to the building next.

"We still use this ball field up here for a soccer field," Yarid
said. "This field is one of the little league's first ball fields
in the state. They used to play football out here for practice."

Yarid says the neighborhood brought their suspicions about the
asbestos to the city council before. The site has been the
responsibility of the city for years. That's why he believes city
officials should be held responsible for the asbestos.

"The whole thing stinks from the very beginning," Yarid explained.
"Something has been dug 60 feet long you know, you got to have
heart equipment to dig something that deep."

He and other neighbors say they are concerned the asbestos could
be damaging to their health. They believe there is much more
asbestos to be discovered.

"It could get into the air and get into the water system, you
know, we like to live in a clean environment. That's what the
neighborhood wants," Allen continued. "Why would you cover it up?
If you didn't think it was asbestos why wouldn't you take it and
dispose of the material properly?"

However, DHEC says inspectors haven't been able to determine who
dumped the asbestos in the lot. They tell 7 News that the city is
working with them to get the material removed.

Seneca Director of Utilities Bob Faires says they believe someone
dug a hole on the property and "sprinkled pieces of tile in the
hole".

Faires says they are being proactive and are taking the situation
seriously. They are expecting quotes from asbestos removal
contractors to clean up the site.  But Faires says the asbestos is
not a threat to people living in neighboring homes.

DHEC says they have not given the city a deadline to have the site
cleaned up, but they have advised them to do it quickly.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insulation Blamed for Aussie Mesothelioma Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Australian researchers say an area that once had the lowest rate
of malignant mesothelioma in the country has caught up to other
regions in recent years. Their newly-published findings are the
subject of a new article on the Surviving Mesothelioma website.

Scientists with Australia's National Centre for Epidemiology and
Population Health at the Australian National University in
Canberra analyzed mesothelioma cases from multiple cancer
databases to determine that malignant mesothelioma is occurring
more frequently in the ACT now than it ever has in the past.

"Between 1994 and 2011, age-and sex-adjusted mesothelioma rates in
the ACT increased over time, on average by 12 percent per 3-year
period," writes lead study author Rosemary Korda.

Although there were no asbestos mines in the ACT, many homes were
built with loose-fill asbestos insulation, which can easily
deteriorate and become breathable dust over time. Officials are
concerned that this may be contributing to the rising number of
people with mesothelioma.

"While this study does not reach any firm conclusions about loose-
fill asbestos insulation, it should be a warning for anyone with
this type of insulation in their home that it is potentially
dangerous and should be dealt with only by certified asbestos
abatement professionals," says Alex Strauss, Managing Editor for
Surviving Mesothelioma.

According to the World Health Organization, Australia has the
world's highest per capita rate of malignant mesothelioma, largely
due to its long history of asbestos minding.

Korda, RJ, et al, "Mesothelioma trends in the ACT and comparisons
with the rest of Australia", September 2016, Public Health
Research & Practice, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27714389

For nearly ten years, Surviving Mesothelioma has brought readers
the most important and ground-breaking news on the causes,
diagnosis and treatment of mesothelioma. All Surviving
Mesothelioma news is gathered and reported directly from the peer-
reviewed medical literature. Written for patients and their loved
ones, Surviving Mesothelioma news helps families make more
informed decisions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Causes Death of Retired Carpenter
---------------------------------------------------------------
Somersetlive.co.uk reported that an inquest has heard how a
retired carpenter worked with asbestos decades before he developed
an incurable cancer.

The hearing at Taunton Coroners Court heard statements made by
Kenneth Stennard before his death at the age of 80 in July.

He had a diagnosis of mesothelioma confirmed in August last year.

In a statement read at the inquest, Mr Stennard described stints
in the Army, and how he worked as a carpenter and joiner for
dozens of employers throughout his working life.

As part of his work, he regularly cut up asbestos sheets which
were to be used as roofing material, without the use of any safety
equipment.

The inquest also heard how it common for buildings in the 1960s to
be roofed in asbestos sheeting.

In his statement, Mr Stennard said symptoms of his condition began
in summer last year when he suffered shortness of breath.

He was diagnosed with the asbestos-related condition mesothelioma
a month later and died less than a year after that at his home in
Dorset Close, Highbridge, on July 10, 2016

Senior Somerset Coroner Tony Williams recorded a conclusion that
Mr Stennard died as a result of an industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Cleanup Planned for Historical Museum
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rhiannon Poolaw, writing for KSWO.com, reported that Stephens
county officials are making preparations to remove the asbestos
from a museum.

Officials say the project to remove lead from the building that
houses the Stephens County Historical Museum will cost about
$170,000.

The goal is to clean up the lead dust from the indoor firing
range, along with any lead-based paint and asbestos-containing
material found in the building.

Duncan City Council members approved a contract with the Oklahoma
Department of Environmental Quality for cleanup of the building.

The project is expected to begin in early November and should last
about four months.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Overalls Linked to Wife's Asbestos Death
---------------------------------------------------------
Russ Lawrence, writing for Enfield Gazette & Advertiser, reported
that former workers of a now-demolished power station are being
sought by lawyers seeking to launch a potential compensation claim
over the asbestos-related death of the wife of an ex-employee.
Lilian Ridley died in September aged 86 from mesothelioma. A post-
mortem examination revealed that the cancer was caused by her
exposure to deadly asbestos dust from washing the overalls of her
late husband, Frank.

He worked as a boiler house engineer at the coal-fired Brimsdown
power station on the Lee Navigation Canal from 1958 until it was
decommissioned in 1974.

The present day gas-fired Enfield power station, built in 1999,
stands on part of the original site. Mr Ridley's job at the
Brimsdown power station involved using asbestos to lag pipes.
After it was shut he worked in east London -- at West Ham power
station, in Canning Town, and at Brunswick Wharf power station,
near Blackwall -- until he retired in 1983.

He died of cancer in 2011. His death was not linked to asbestos.
Mesothelioma is associated with exposure to the hazardous
material. Lawyers acting for the family are now seeking to trace
former work colleagues of Mr Ridley. Andrew James, industrial
disease specialist at law firm Hodge Jones and Allen, said that
Mrs Ridley had been having problems with breathlessness, finding
it increasingly difficult to walk.

"When she went to her doctor, the outcome was devastating," he
said.

"She was diagnosed with mesothelioma in July this year.
"The disease can be very fast-acting and Lilian died less than two
months later on September 9, 2016."

Before her death, Mrs Ridley had instructed lawyers to investigate
how her late husband had been exposed to asbestos dust and to find
out if more could have been done by his former employers to
protect him from the lethal substance.

He worked for the British Electricity Authority, which became the
Central Electricity Authority and then the Central Electricity
Generating Board.

Mr James added: "Cases involving wives or daughters who washed
workers' clothing are becoming increasingly more common.
"Lilian died because her late husband's employer exposed him to
asbestos at work and failed to protect him and his family from
this deadly dust.

"Clearly, this should not have happened.

"The dangers of asbestos were well-known to Mr Ridley's employers
during the years of his employment.

"The courts have previously held that employers should have been
aware of the dangers to family members caused by workers bringing
home asbestos dust on clothing since 1965 at the earliest." Mrs
Ridley's family has asked anyone who has information that may help
to contact Mr James on 020 7874 8458 or by email at ajames@hja.net


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Litigation Continues to Decline
---------------------------------------------------------
Karen Kidd, writing for SE Texas Record, reported that the amount
of asbestos litigation in the U.S. continues to decrease, if
slightly, according to a mid-year 2016 report recently issued by a
Washington-based consulting firm.

"To date, 2016 appears to be tracking closely with 2015 in terms
of total claims filed," Jonathan Terrell, President and Founder of
KCIC, consulting firm providing corporate risk management services
to policyholders and their legal counsel, said during a SE Texas
Record email interview. "Compared to this point last year, 2016
filings are down only slightly."

Terrell cited the results of the recently released KCIC report,
"Asbestos Litigation: 2016 Mid-Year Review". "We decided to do a
mid-year check-up, reviewing and analyzing the first six months of
data for 2016, as received through July 31 relative to the first
six months of 2015," Terrell said. "A compare and contrast from
year to year, if you will."

In addition to the slight decline in asbestos-related litigation,
the report shows a comparative decrease in all disease-related
claims filed except for that of asbestos-caused mesothelioma,
which is up 10.7 percent compared to the same period last year.
"Madison County, Ill., continues to be the epicenter for asbestos
filings, making up 29 percent of total filings and 48 percent of
total mesothelioma filings for 2016 thus far," Terrell said. "Like
last year, we are seeing the same few plaintiffs' counsel filing
the most lawsuits."

The paucity of plaintiff's attorneys mentioned in the midyear
report is similar to what was found in the previously released
KCIC report, "Asbestos Litigation: 2015 Mid-Year Review".
Asbestos-related litigation long has attracted bottom-feeders in
the legal community who often place open-ended advertisements to
recruit prospective asbestos litigators, industry observers say.

One West Virginia firm blames almost 300 companies in its
asbestos-related litigation while one firm in Madison County,
Ill., files the most such cases in that county and nationwide.

Even in Texas, where laws tend to be stacked against plaintiffs,
asbestos-related cases are not unheard of, though the state itself
does not figure large in the most recent report. One case filed in
July names 49 corporate defendants while another case filed the
same month names dozens more.

The low number of plaintiffs' attorneys in all these cases
continues in the midyear report, Terrell said. "The report
provides a fairly holistic state of the industry snapshot, and
when we look at the numbers from last year to this year we're
seeing some trends," he said. "As noted, we're still seeing the
same main plaintiff counsel players filing the vast majority of
lawsuits in the same places. The top 15 plaintiff counsel firms
filed 70 percent of all filings in 2016 to date."

The report also noted trends in the top 15 jurisdiction, which are
in order Madison County, Ill.; New York; Baltimore; Philadelphia;
Wayne, Mich.; New Castle, Del.; Cook County, Ill.; Los Angeles;
Kanawha County, W.Va. Allegheny, Pa.; Middlesex, N.J.; St. Claire,
Ill.; Orleans Parish, La. and Alameda, Calif.

"The top 15 jurisdictions account for 81 percent of the asbestos
filings thus far," Terrell said. "We expect this concentration to
continue, though we do continue to look for and monitor other
jurisdictions that experience upticks in filings as well."

KCIC plans to publish a more comprehensive full-year 2016 analysis
early next year.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: College Closed After Asbestos Found in Roof
------------------------------------------------------------
Stuff.co.nz reported that St Patrick's College in Kilbirnie will
be closed for the rest of the week after asbestos fibres were
found in its roofs.

Preliminary results, received late on Tuesday, revealed isolated
areas of fibres in dust swabs.

Air sampling confirmed the finds were well within health and
safety standards.

St Patrick's College rector Neal Swindells is hopeful the
Kilbirnie school will reopen on Monday.

But college rector Neal Swindells said it was decided to close the
school to "enable further testing, isolate affected areas and
formulate a detailed management plan".

In a written statement to parents and students, he said: "The
board is utilising specialist advisers and is in consultation with
the Ministry of Education in making its decisions.

"Unless advised otherwise, we anticipate the college being open on
Monday.

"We sincerely apologise for this interruption to our normal
programmes and would encourage our students to use this time
productively as we move towards end-of-year exams and
assessments."


                            *********

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  * * *